Red Mosquito

doug rr wrote:joey is going to hate me but I stopped watching mad men 2 episodes in this year...I really loved it from the beginning but just got bored with it I think...

*runs for cover

@SkitchP wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

This is a great post, Skitch, but I need to know whether or not you laughed at my joke about watching shows with the sound off.

I feel like you said i made a great post just so you could as me that.

which i am cool with. And yes, I liked your sound off joke.

But, no seriously, I really dig that post, Skitch. Well said and totally on point.

I'll probably still further the discussion though. Because I hate myself.

durdencommatyler wrote:I need to know whether or not you laughed at my joke about watching shows with the sound off.

I thought you were deadly serious.

durdencommatyler wrote:

doug rr wrote:joey is going to hate me but I stopped watching mad men 2 episodes in this year...I really loved it from the beginning but just got bored with it I think...

*runs for cover

I'm sure we'll revisit it once its all over..I cant keep up with watching more than 2 different shows at one time anyway

Also, I gave Mad Men a whole season and was never anything but bored, I'm afraid.

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

I think that's a silly argument. Cinema and television on a fundamental level are the same thing: audiovisual art. The only difference is that TV shows are longer and broken into episodes. That's it. What I don't like about TV is that it is merely settling for narrative and characters and ignoring the finer aesthetic elements. That doesn't HAVE to be all it is.

To clarify, I think the TV medium has the potential to be amazing...if used properly. So far, no one is really doing it. However, stuff like True Detective and Soderbergh's upcoming show give me hope that we might be moving in the right direction. There's no reason we can't have interesting narrative, character, AND aesthetic. Why just stop at the first two?

doug rr wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

doug rr wrote:joey is going to hate me but I stopped watching mad men 2 episodes in this year...I really loved it from the beginning but just got bored with it I think...

*runs for cover

I'm sure we'll revisit it once its all over..I cant keep up with watching more than 2 different shows at one time anyway

I understand that. And the previous season ended was perfection. Part of me wanted that to be the series finale.

But this first half of this last season was really strong also.

ABNorman wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:I need to know whether or not you laughed at my joke about watching shows with the sound off.

I thought you were deadly serious.

GO WATCH MAD MEN

$

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

I think that's a silly argument. Cinema and television on a fundamental level are the same thing: audiovisual art. The only difference is that TV shows are longer and broken into episodes. That's it. What I don't like about TV is that it is merely settling for narrative and characters and ignoring the finer aesthetic elements. That doesn't HAVE to be all it is.

To clarify, I think the TV medium has the potential to be amazing...if used properly. So far, no one is really doing it. However, stuff like True Detective and Soderbergh's upcoming show give me hope that we might be moving in the right direction. There's no reason we can't have interesting narrative, character, AND aesthetic. Why just stop at the first two?

My argument is that we're in a golden age precisely because people AREN'T stopping at the first two.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

I think that's a silly argument. Cinema and television on a fundamental level are the same thing: audiovisual art. The only difference is that TV shows are longer and broken into episodes. That's it. What I don't like about TV is that it is merely settling for narrative and characters and ignoring the finer aesthetic elements. That doesn't HAVE to be all it is.

To clarify, I think the TV medium has the potential to be amazing...if used properly. So far, no one is really doing it. However, stuff like True Detective and Soderbergh's upcoming show give me hope that we might be moving in the right direction. There's no reason we can't have interesting narrative, character, AND aesthetic. Why just stop at the first two?

My argument is that we're in a golden age precisely because people AREN'T stopping at the first two.

That we just disagree on, I guess.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

I think that's a silly argument. Cinema and television on a fundamental level are the same thing: audiovisual art. The only difference is that TV shows are longer and broken into episodes. That's it. What I don't like about TV is that it is merely settling for narrative and characters and ignoring the finer aesthetic elements. That doesn't HAVE to be all it is.

To clarify, I think the TV medium has the potential to be amazing...if used properly. So far, no one is really doing it. However, stuff like True Detective and Soderbergh's upcoming show give me hope that we might be moving in the right direction. There's no reason we can't have interesting narrative, character, AND aesthetic. Why just stop at the first two?

My argument is that we're in a golden age precisely because people AREN'T stopping at the first two.

That we just disagree on, I guess.

No harm, no foul, my friend.

What directors do you gravitate toward? Top 10?

I'm sorry for snapping, LV. I woke up cranky.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I think the issue here is that you are looking for something entirely different in television than everyone else LV. Television isn't the cinema. The advantage of the long form story telling IS the narrative and character development, and this golden age is about the mastery of that we've seen over the past 10-15 years. If you are only interested in the visual elements, then I guess I can see your point. But your perspective is entirely different than everyone else in the thread, so there really is no point in engaging in that discussion with you. We're talking about pizza, and you're saying the pizza isn't very good because it's not ice cream.

I think that's a silly argument. Cinema and television on a fundamental level are the same thing: audiovisual art. The only difference is that TV shows are longer and broken into episodes. That's it. What I don't like about TV is that it is merely settling for narrative and characters and ignoring the finer aesthetic elements. That doesn't HAVE to be all it is.

To clarify, I think the TV medium has the potential to be amazing...if used properly. So far, no one is really doing it. However, stuff like True Detective and Soderbergh's upcoming show give me hope that we might be moving in the right direction. There's no reason we can't have interesting narrative, character, AND aesthetic. Why just stop at the first two?

My argument is that we're in a golden age precisely because people AREN'T stopping at the first two.

That we just disagree on, I guess.

No harm, no foul, my friend.

What directors do you gravitate toward? Top 10?

Hmm, this a rough top 10: Roman Polanski (definitely number one), Anthony Mann, Stanley Kubrick, Nicolas Winding Refn, Paul Thomas Anderson, Michael Powell, Jean Rollin, Federico Fellini, Elia Kazan, and…maybe Ingmar Bergman. Or Paul Verhoeven. Or the Coens.

You?

theplatypus wrote:I'm sorry for snapping, LV. I woke up cranky.

Haha, it's all good. I know I'm very abrasive with my opinions.

LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

turned2black wrote:LV72, you may like BBC's Wallander with Kenneth Branagh. It has been criticized for being "overly cinematic". It really gives characters a chance to breathe with lots of quite moments and the best cinematography on TV. It also doesn't jam-pack characters into it, which I think is one problem with many TV shows.

You have greatly intrigued me. How on earth can something be "overly cinematic"???

See: The films of Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and Brett Ratner

...I love Peter Jackson and Michael Bay. Usually.