What's new

The Best Show on the History of Television

What is the best show on the history of television?

  • The Sopranos

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • The Wire

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • Mad Men

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • Breaking Bad

    Votes: 11 31.4%
  • I Love Lucy

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Seinfeld

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • MASH

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • The Simpsons

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • All in the Family

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 17.1%

  • Total voters
    35
Is True Detective coming back for a 3rd season ?

Don't know. Last I heard was that Pizz' original contract was for three seasons but not necessarily for TD. Just for writing for three seasons for HBO so in theory he could just write a season for some other new programming.
 
Don't know. Last I heard was that Pizz' original contract was for three seasons but not necessarily for TD. Just for writing for three seasons for HBO so in theory he could just write a season for some other new programming.

Damn it, they screwed up the 2nd season so bad there might not be a 3rd season???



I dunno who they could have messed it up that badly...
 
Damn it, they screwed up the 2nd season so bad there might not be a 3rd season???



I dunno who they could have messed it up that badly...

I'm not saying Pizz is some stud because I while I thought season one was brilliant in every way (minus the finale), I do find his writing sort of cliched and a semi-plagiarized amalgam of other pieces of literature, so in that regard, not very original.

That said, I blame season 2 on HBO. They had a legit director for season one. And on season 2, it was a collection of dip****s. I find a director to be the most important person involved in the filmmaking process. He/she can take average or even subpar writing and turn it into something that felt fantastic. They are able to embody exactly what the writer was going for or at times even enhance it, making it better than what was in words. I don't find the opposite to be true very often.

If I'm HBO, I try to persuade CF to come back for season 3 (though he and Pizz had issues I've heard) and if he won't or can't, create a short list of talented directors who fit the bill. Give me 15 minutes and I could probably come up with 5-7 legit names. I'm not saying the directors would do it or even could due to scheduling conflicts. But they would be names that sort of make sense. Well, without knowing what the plot would be exactly.
 
I'm not saying Pizz is some stud because I while I thought season one was brilliant in every way (minus the finale), I do find his writing sort of cliched and a semi-plagiarized amalgam of other pieces of literature, so in that regard, not very original.

That said, I blame season 2 on HBO. They had a legit director for season one. And on season 2, it was a collection of dip****s. I find a director to be the most important person involved in the filmmaking process. He/she can take average or even subpar writing and turn it into something that felt fantastic. They are able to embody exactly what the writer was going for or at times even enhance it, making it better than what was in words. I don't find the opposite to be true very often.

If I'm HBO, I try to persuade CF to come back for season 3 (though he and Pizz had issues I've heard) and if he won't or can't, create a short list of talented directors who fit the bill. Give me 15 minutes and I could probably come up with 5-7 legit names. I'm not saying the directors would do it or even could due to scheduling conflicts. But they would be names that sort of make sense. Well, without knowing what the plot would be exactly.

Yeah Direction was a real issue last year. When I found out CF was not going to be directing I was pretty gutted. Then I found out that one of the directors was going to be Justin Lin (Fast and Furious franchise) I was like WTF is going on? That's the opposite direction of where the series should be heading.


TD could have been (and still can be) one of the best detective series, let's hope they can get their acts together sooner rather than later.
 
That said, I blame season 2 on HBO. They had a legit director for season one. And on season 2, it was a collection of dip****s. I find a director to be the most important person involved in the filmmaking process. He/she can take average or even subpar writing and turn it into something that felt fantastic. They are able to embody exactly what the writer was going for or at times even enhance it, making it better than what was in words. I don't find the opposite to be true very often.

The consensus opinion is that feature films are a director's medium while television is a writer's medium. Obviously there are cases that go against the conventional wisdom (Charlie Kaufman films are Charlie Kaufman films regardless of director; the Knick is definitively a Steven Soderberg project) but television episodes for a single series are usually a patchwork quilt of directors. Unifying looks and themes exist across episodes, Breaking Bad always had that same spare viewing experience, but directors rarely have total control the way they do on a film set.

My point is, I suspect that TD came out of the oven before it was ready more than there was any particular direction deficit.
 
My favorite shows:

1. Seinfeld
2. Arrested development
3. Breaking bad
4. The office us
5. Parks and rec
6. Better call Saul
7. Scrubs



The only other show I can kind of stand watching is house of cards. They have been almost unbearable lately though.
 
Game of Thrones

Vikings

Hannibal

Sopranos

I watched season 1 of Hannibal. I don't mind dark and gory, but it was too dark and too gory over too long of a time for my tastes. Serial killers and serial killings can make good/interesting viewing in reasonable doses, but the constant bombardment of it in Hannibal was just too much for me (same reason I watch criminal minds now and then but can't get into watching it regularly).
 
I don't think I've enjoyed a show more than Heroes. My wife and I watch very little t.v. but we binged that entire thing out in short order.

If we are going on single seasons like someone mention about Dexter 1, the first couple SOA seasons were damn good. It went south fast when they went to Ireland and I could never get back into it after that season.

Also, good call on Law and Order. That series changed television and led to countless knock offs. As far as that goes, I guess I have to point out The Real World (harrumph!).

I just finished Season 6 of SO and am heading into Season 7. While I've enjoyed it, one of my main motivations to keep with it is to see Gemma finally get what's coming to her. I loath her character more than just about anyone I recall ever watching on TV or in the movies. When her end comes, I hope is slow and painful. I just hate that sociopathic bitch.
 
Look it's a good sitcom, but it doesn't exactly rise above the genre.

Arrested Development lives on a different planet from Seinfeld. The Boondocks has a real point of view that flies on a plane above "the contest." Chapelle was a force of nature. Community engaged in fully committed genre pastiches and had ambition that Seinfeld never dreamed of.

Seinfeld fundamentally is about catchphrases, wacky neighbors, and dating hijinks. It's good at those things, but is it really THAT much better than Frasier? I mean, for ****s sake, Frasier! Could we even really say it was better than The Office?

If Seinfeld was on today it would be just another show.

I'd rank Frazier among all time great sitcoms. Almost every episode delivered numerous laughs.

I could, however, say Seinfeld was better. Sorry.

30 Rock is up in the top 5 sitcoms for me as well.

One reason I rate Arrested Development as best sitcom ever was absence of laugh track. I hate, hate, hate the laugh track. I have a hard time watching comedies anymore that use a laugh track. Good comedy doesn't need it; and with bad comedy, it's so annoying to hear fake people give fake guffaws to something that isn't that funny.
 
Breaking Bad remains my favorite TV drama.
And Seinfeld my favorite sitcom. Still watch the reruns every night at 11. What the heck is it about the show that I can still watch reruns and never get sick of them? Before Seinfeld, I liked Mash and Cheers.
And, in an earlier America, lol, I loved Jackie Gleason and The Honneymooners. And, in that same earlier day and age, for drama, Perry Mason.

And a shout out for The Twilight Zone. TV execs would not allow Rod Serling to tackle "sensitive" issues of his day and age, so he decided he could write about issues and get away with things using a sci fi venue. And it worked....
 
The Death of Garry Shandling reminds me that pretty much all his output was superior to Seinfeld as well.

We'll set aside the Larry Sanders Show for a second. Everyone who was there or saw it that one year it was on Netflix knows that it was genius level stuff. I want to talk about the earlier Garry Shandling Show and precisely why it was the forerunner for, and superior to, Seinfeld. Fundamentally, these shows have a similar premise. Both are based upon a young to middle-aged comedian who shares the titular name and job with the real-life actor and show creator. Both run away from being traditional sitcoms. Both were wildly creatively successful. But there's a catch in execution:

Seinfeld forsakes being a television show by refusing to have a plot. This is the famous "show about nothing." It's been analyzed to death.

On the other hand The Garry Shandling Show acknowledges that it's a television show by relentlessly pointing out all the time that the whole thing is fake. The Theme Song is written from the perspective of a person who was asked to write a theme song for a television show; Garry wanders off sets and asks the studio audience for plot advice mid-episode; Garry comments in real time that the conversation he's having doesn't have naturalistic dialogue; etc. etc. The laugh track exists, but it's an actual living breathing thing that Garry interacts with.

Seinfeld is like Lichtenstein. Shandling is like Magritte.

Seinfeld may be pop art, but Shandling is real art.
 
Back
Top