Red Mosquito

I'd argue that it never began.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'd argue that it never began.

And you would be wrong.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'd argue that it never began.

And you would be wrong.

Not really. People vastly overrate the quality of these shows. If you all you care about is narrative information and characters (and don't mind a lot of showy cynicism), I can see why you might like these. Personally, I find the majority of them boring and annoying due to their utter lack of cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And I think they're all pretty empty on a thematic level.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'd argue that it never began.

And you would be wrong.

Not really. People vastly overrate the quality of these shows. If you all you care about is narrative information and characters (and don't mind a lot of showy cynicism), I can see why you might like these. Personally, I find the majority of them boring and annoying due to their utter lack of cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And I think they're all pretty empty on a thematic level.

I can't speak to your tastes. If you find something boring and annoying, well it is what it is. More power to you. But I'll absolutely challenge the notion that shows (like Mad Men, specifically) lack cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And you're flat out wrong if you think a show like Mad Men is empty on a thematic level.

There are a lot of overrated shows. But I don't think the quantum leap in overall quality from 1999 to now can be overstated. TV has just gotten better.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'd argue that it never began.

And you would be wrong.

Not really. People vastly overrate the quality of these shows. If you all you care about is narrative information and characters (and don't mind a lot of showy cynicism), I can see why you might like these. Personally, I find the majority of them boring and annoying due to their utter lack of cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And I think they're all pretty empty on a thematic level.

I can't speak to your tastes. If you find something boring and annoying, well it is what it is. More power to you. But I'll absolutely challenge the notion that shows (like Mad Men, specifically) lack cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And you're flat out wrong if you think a show like Mad Men is empty on a thematic level.

There are a lot of overrated shows. But I don't think the quantum leap in overall quality from 1999 to now can be overstated. TV has just gotten better.

Mad Men is one of many modern shows I didn't make it past the pilot on. I thought it was a really dumb show. And, yes, totally lacking in cinematic atmosphere. The problem is that these are directed with a workmanlike aesthetic by TV guns-for-hire. They are purposely conveying the information of the narrative, not doing something personal on an aesthetic level. That's what makes it all so visually bland to me. There's no panache.

And, again, I TOTALLY disagree that TV has "just gotten better." I don't see any significant uptick in quality.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'd argue that it never began.

And you would be wrong.

Not really. People vastly overrate the quality of these shows. If you all you care about is narrative information and characters (and don't mind a lot of showy cynicism), I can see why you might like these. Personally, I find the majority of them boring and annoying due to their utter lack of cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And I think they're all pretty empty on a thematic level.

oh my fucking god

Don't worry, you guys - The Quest on ABC tonight will right all wrongs.

theplatypus wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Monkey_Driven wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I'd argue that it never began.

And you would be wrong.

Not really. People vastly overrate the quality of these shows. If you all you care about is narrative information and characters (and don't mind a lot of showy cynicism), I can see why you might like these. Personally, I find the majority of them boring and annoying due to their utter lack of cinematic atmosphere and auteur artistry. And I think they're all pretty empty on a thematic level.

oh my fucking god

Yeah, laughing at opinions is really condusive to conversation. I see now how superior you are to me; I submit.

Sorry, I thought that was an expertly crafted parody of every first-year film student who just read Truffaut on Cahiers and thought "omg this must apply to EGVERYTHINGEHR"

theplatypus wrote:Sorry, I thought that was an expertly crafted parody of every first-year film student who just read Truffaut on Cahiers and thought "omg this must apply to EGVERYTHINGEHR"

Or maybe I just genuinely care about aesthetic and visual personality?

aaaaannnd that's why i didn't engage when he first said it.

Mad Men, specifically, has tremendous visual style. But maybe what I like more about TV than film right now is that's veering toward being much more a writer's medium. The visual aesthetic you find so lacking (of which I disagree) is made up for by a writer's aesthetic. Which, as a writer, I think is great.

Maybe shows are directed in a gun-for-hire way (again, we're seeing a drastic slant away from this) but it's fine because people like Matt Weiner and Vince Gilliagan and Dave and Dan over at GoT, and Damon Lindelof (love him or hate him) have much more control over their content. Many of these shows have the same people writing the majority of the episodes. There is a clear, consistent vision.

durdencommatyler wrote:Mad Men, specifically, has tremendous visual style. But maybe what I like more about TV than film right now is that's veering toward being much more a writer's medium. The visual aesthetic you find so lacking (of which I disagree) is made up for by a writer's aesthetic. Which, as a writer, I think is great.

Maybe shows are directed in a gun-for-hire way (again, we're seeing a drastic slant away from this) but it's fine because people like Matt Weiner and Vince Gilliagan and Dave and Dan over at GoT, and Damon Lindelof (love him or hate him) have much more control over their content. Many of these shows have the same people writing the majority of the episodes. There is a clear, consistent vision.

Aaaand this is exactly why I DON'T like TV. The idea of a writer's medium goes totally against what I like about movies. Maybe there's a consistent vision, but it's a narrative vision, not an aesthetic one, and personally, I don't really care about narrative.

@SkitchP wrote:aaaaannnd that's why i didn't engage when he first said it.

Yeah, who wants discussion/discourse/debate on a forum, right?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:aaaaannnd that's why i didn't engage when he first said it.

Yeah, who wants discussion/discourse/debate on a forum, right?

Yep. That's my point exactly.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Sorry, I thought that was an expertly crafted parody of every first-year film student who just read Truffaut on Cahiers and thought "omg this must apply to EGVERYTHINGEHR"

Or maybe I just genuinely care about aesthetic and visual personality?

I would encourage you to revisit Mad Men. It's a slow burn, which sounds like isn't your thing, but the visual aesthetic of the show is outstanding. If you genuinely care about aesthetic, Mad Men is right where you wanna be.

The nature of this kind of TV requires a bit more than 40 mins, though. Give it three or four episodes if you're going to do it.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Mad Men, specifically, has tremendous visual style. But maybe what I like more about TV than film right now is that's veering toward being much more a writer's medium. The visual aesthetic you find so lacking (of which I disagree) is made up for by a writer's aesthetic. Which, as a writer, I think is great.

Maybe shows are directed in a gun-for-hire way (again, we're seeing a drastic slant away from this) but it's fine because people like Matt Weiner and Vince Gilliagan and Dave and Dan over at GoT, and Damon Lindelof (love him or hate him) have much more control over their content. Many of these shows have the same people writing the majority of the episodes. There is a clear, consistent vision.

Aaaand this is exactly why I DON'T like TV. The idea of a writer's medium goes totally against what I like about movies. Maybe there's a consistent vision, but it's a narrative vision, not an aesthetic one, and personally, I don't really care about narrative.

So you just watch movies for pretty pictures?

you guys watch tv differently than I do

doug rr wrote:you guys watch tv differently than I do

I like a lot of shows for a lot of different reasons. But it excites the hell out of me that we live in a era where TV is a real artistic outlet and not just sitcoms and medical dramas. Doesn't mean I don't love a bit of all of it. I watched How I Met Your Mother just as eagerly as Mad Men. They satisfy different cravings.

And I still get off on the best of the older stuff (I Love Lucy, MASH, Cheers, etc). But what's happening now is really exciting, I think.