Red Mosquito

Alright, fine. Fair point Matt. But I'll still call it a golden age, thanks.

Bret ideas over the supposed Golden Age of tv are really interesting..he has already talked about it in the Judd Apatow episode.

VinylGuy wrote:Bret ideas over the supposed Golden Age of tv are really interesting..he has already talked about it in the Judd Apatow episode.

So far, I'm loving this podcast. I'll absolutely be going back and listening to more episodes. This is really great.

Thanks all, but especially vermin, for turning me onto this.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Listening to the Matthew Weiner episode now. Holy shit, this guy is hopelessly clueless. How the fuck could anyone seriously believe that fucking Boardwalk Empire has more "visual texture" than any movie and that the concept of a director being the author of a movie is an arbitrary marketing decision? I mean...goddamit. There is no hope for this guy.

Just as I suspected, you're taking this moments a bit out of context.

I don't think anything Weiner is saying regarding Boardwalk Empire's texture (he never uses the phrase "visual texture") is inaccurate. And I certainly don't have a problem with him saying that a former professor taught him that there's a history to the way movies have been marketed and credited. I don't have that knowledge myself, but it makes perfect sense. I believe he's correct. And I'm surprised you would take issue with that. Clearly film is a collaborative medium. It makes sense that, at some point, studios would want to streamline and hold someone (the director) in higher regard/responsibility than any other. Keep in mind, as I'm sure you know, he's talking about an era when studios matter way more than an artists vision, way more than a director or cinematographer or writer.

I think we’re already coming from a place of polar opposition on this issue, because I am 100% in agreement with everything Ellis says about TV at the beginning of the episode.

How am I taking what Weiner said out of context about Boardwalk Empire? The point is that he is challenging BEE’s notion about the inferior visual atmosphere of TV by citing that show. I’ve seen Boardwalk Empire – that’s insane thing to say. It looks like a TV show, just like BEE said.

Of course film is a collaborative medium. But anyone who is disputing that the director is the true “author” – the real visionary - behind a film, at least post, I dunno, 1930s or 1940s, is either ignorant, out of their mind, or – in Weiner’s case – being defensive due to a personal stake in the issue. A good script doesn’t mean shit without a good director to bring it to life. A good cinematographer doesn’t mean shit without a good director to express their vision. A good editor doesn’t mean shit without a good director’s vision. You see what I’m saying? You look at the filmography of a writer, a producer, a cinematographer – very rarely is it going to be a consistent vision (again, at least post ’30s-‘40s). But looking at the filmography of a director is a different story. There’s a reason for that – because the director is the author. It’s not some arbitrary, false marketing ploy like Weiner makes out – it’s about who has the driving creative input that shapes the film. Yes, there are collaborators. Of course. But, again, to say the director is just arbitrarily named the author…uh, no. Those are the words of a TV showrunner, through and through.

durdencommatyler wrote:"TV is about confirming your expectations for entertainment," says Matt Weiner, speaking about TV prior to The Sopranos. And that's dead on balls accurate. And that's why TV is in a golden age. That's what Ellis is missing. Because there are a myriad shows now (and for the last decade) that have tried over and over again to defy that model. To break that mold. To defy those expectations.

And that's part of the reason why Breaking Bad was (ultimately) less fulfilling than a show like Mad Men. Because it acted like it was above all of that, but in the end it absolutely just confirmed the audiences expectations for entertainment. Still a fantastic show that I'd hold up against most movies made during the same time, but that's why it wasn't the greatest show on TV.

Yes, but again, you’re talking about narrative information and character stuff. That’s not what BEE is disputing, really (nor am I). But that’s not what I (or I think Ellis) is primarily interested in with audiovisual art. Visual atmosphere – cinematic poetry – trumps that stuff. That’s why TV still pales in comparison to film.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Bret ideas over the supposed Golden Age of tv are really interesting..he has already talked about it in the Judd Apatow episode.

So far, I'm loving this podcast. I'll absolutely be going back and listening to more episodes. This is really great.

Thanks all, but especially vermin, for turning me onto this.

Favorite podcast. There are some great episodes; Judd Apatow, Marilyn Manson, Ivan Reitman, James Van der beeck, Kanye...

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:Listening to the Matthew Weiner episode now. Holy shit, this guy is hopelessly clueless. How the fuck could anyone seriously believe that fucking Boardwalk Empire has more "visual texture" than any movie and that the concept of a director being the author of a movie is an arbitrary marketing decision? I mean...goddamit. There is no hope for this guy.

Just as I suspected, you're taking this moments a bit out of context.

I don't think anything Weiner is saying regarding Boardwalk Empire's texture (he never uses the phrase "visual texture") is inaccurate. And I certainly don't have a problem with him saying that a former professor taught him that there's a history to the way movies have been marketed and credited. I don't have that knowledge myself, but it makes perfect sense. I believe he's correct. And I'm surprised you would take issue with that. Clearly film is a collaborative medium. It makes sense that, at some point, studios would want to streamline and hold someone (the director) in higher regard/responsibility than any other. Keep in mind, as I'm sure you know, he's talking about an era when studios matter way more than an artists vision, way more than a director or cinematographer or writer.

I think we’re already coming from a place of polar opposition on this issue, because I am 100% in agreement with everything Ellis says about TV at the beginning of the episode.

How am I taking what Weiner said out of context about Boardwalk Empire? The point is that he is challenging BEE’s notion about the inferior visual atmosphere of TV by citing that show. I’ve seen Boardwalk Empire – that’s insane thing to say. It looks like a TV show, just like BEE said.

Of course film is a collaborative medium. But anyone who is disputing that the director is the true “author” – the real visionary - behind a film, at least post, I dunno, 1930s or 1940s, is either ignorant, out of their mind, or – in Weiner’s case – being defensive due to a personal stake in the issue. A good script doesn’t mean shit without a good director to bring it to life. A good cinematographer doesn’t mean shit without a good director to express their vision. A good editor doesn’t mean shit without a good director’s vision. You see what I’m saying? You look at the filmography of a writer, a producer, a cinematographer – very rarely is it going to be a consistent vision (again, at least post ’30s-‘40s). But looking at the filmography of a director is a different story. There’s a reason for that – because the director is the author. It’s not some arbitrary, false marketing ploy like Weiner makes out – it’s about who has the driving creative input that shapes the film. Yes, there are collaborators. Of course. But, again, to say the director is just arbitrarily named the author…uh, no. Those are the words of a TV showrunner, through and through.

But, again, Weiner is talking about ago film-making. And it's true that the director has become much more the author of a film as the art form has progressed. But Matt is talking about the beginning. And he's right. He's not necessarily saying that it's still that way. He's saying that there is a history that has allowed for the auteurism you love so much. And part of that history, part of what has allowed that, is that there was a necessity back in the beginning to hold someone accountable for all of the collaborative decisions.

Also, editors can save movies. Regardless of the director's vision. If you've never done so, you should watch the director's commentary on 13 Conversations About One Thing. It's a GREAT example, from the directors' mouth about how valuable an editor can be.

But, yes, you're right. Film has become a director's medium. Absolutely. It's part of the reason why I tend to go through massive dry spells in my movie-going.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:"TV is about confirming your expectations for entertainment," says Matt Weiner, speaking about TV prior to The Sopranos. And that's dead on balls accurate. And that's why TV is in a golden age. That's what Ellis is missing. Because there are a myriad shows now (and for the last decade) that have tried over and over again to defy that model. To break that mold. To defy those expectations.

And that's part of the reason why Breaking Bad was (ultimately) less fulfilling than a show like Mad Men. Because it acted like it was above all of that, but in the end it absolutely just confirmed the audiences expectations for entertainment. Still a fantastic show that I'd hold up against most movies made during the same time, but that's why it wasn't the greatest show on TV.

Yes, but again, you’re talking about narrative information and character stuff. That’s not what BEE is disputing, really (nor am I). But that’s not what I (or I think Ellis) is primarily interested in with audiovisual art. Visual atmosphere – cinematic poetry – trumps that stuff. That’s why TV still pales in comparison to film.

I just think that's cinema snobbery. There are plenty of examples of fantastic visual atmosphere on television. Look no further than Mad Men. It's as visual poetic as any movie I've ever seen.

I love hearing an artist whose work I admire so much talk about growing up wanting to be a writer but feeling like he has nothing interesting to say. There's hope for me yet!

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:"TV is about confirming your expectations for entertainment," says Matt Weiner, speaking about TV prior to The Sopranos. And that's dead on balls accurate. And that's why TV is in a golden age. That's what Ellis is missing. Because there are a myriad shows now (and for the last decade) that have tried over and over again to defy that model. To break that mold. To defy those expectations.

And that's part of the reason why Breaking Bad was (ultimately) less fulfilling than a show like Mad Men. Because it acted like it was above all of that, but in the end it absolutely just confirmed the audiences expectations for entertainment. Still a fantastic show that I'd hold up against most movies made during the same time, but that's why it wasn't the greatest show on TV.

Yes, but again, you’re talking about narrative information and character stuff. That’s not what BEE is disputing, really (nor am I). But that’s not what I (or I think Ellis) is primarily interested in with audiovisual art. Visual atmosphere – cinematic poetry – trumps that stuff. That’s why TV still pales in comparison to film.

I just think that's cinema snobbery. There are plenty of examples of fantastic visual atmosphere on television. Look no further than Mad Men. It's as visual poetic as any movie I've ever seen.

It’s not snobbery, it’s just a matter of what I find satisfying and exciting in art. No way in hell Mad Men (or any TV show, even ones I enjoy) have the visual sensuality and lyricism of Spring Breakers or Only God Forgives or Black Narcissus or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Shining or Man of the West or The Lords of Salem or on and on and on. Or even the satisfying pop art atmosphere of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters or Godzilla or Jurassic Park or The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix or…yeah, you get it.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:"TV is about confirming your expectations for entertainment," says Matt Weiner, speaking about TV prior to The Sopranos. And that's dead on balls accurate. And that's why TV is in a golden age. That's what Ellis is missing. Because there are a myriad shows now (and for the last decade) that have tried over and over again to defy that model. To break that mold. To defy those expectations.

And that's part of the reason why Breaking Bad was (ultimately) less fulfilling than a show like Mad Men. Because it acted like it was above all of that, but in the end it absolutely just confirmed the audiences expectations for entertainment. Still a fantastic show that I'd hold up against most movies made during the same time, but that's why it wasn't the greatest show on TV.

Yes, but again, you’re talking about narrative information and character stuff. That’s not what BEE is disputing, really (nor am I). But that’s not what I (or I think Ellis) is primarily interested in with audiovisual art. Visual atmosphere – cinematic poetry – trumps that stuff. That’s why TV still pales in comparison to film.

I just think that's cinema snobbery. There are plenty of examples of fantastic visual atmosphere on television. Look no further than Mad Men. It's as visual poetic as any movie I've ever seen.

It’s not snobbery, it’s just a matter of what I find satisfying and exciting in art. No way in hell Mad Men (or any TV show, even ones I enjoy) have the visual sensuality and lyricism of Spring Breakers or Only God Forgives or Black Narcissus or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Shining or Man of the West or The Lords of Salem or on and on and on. Or even the satisfying pop art atmosphere of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters or Godzilla or Jurassic Park or The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix or…yeah, you get it.

I get what you're saying. I just completely disagree. And I promise I'm not trying to attack you. But I just don't understand how a person can watch Mad Men and say that. The only way I can describe (or begin to wrap my head around) it is willful ignorance. A person who watches Mad Men and says there's "no way in hell [it has] the visual sensuality and lyricism of [insert film title here]" has to be trying not to see it. Surely, it's blindness by bias, right? They have to be so entrenched in their belief in film, so convinced in an applied superiority, that they are unable to climb up over their own bias.

Again, that's my opinion. Mad Men is so gorgeous, so poetic, so sensual, so full of nuance and visual style, that I genuinely can't understand how a person interested in audiovisual storytelling can't see it. Perhaps that's my shortcoming. But, Jesus. MAD MEN!

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:"TV is about confirming your expectations for entertainment," says Matt Weiner, speaking about TV prior to The Sopranos. And that's dead on balls accurate. And that's why TV is in a golden age. That's what Ellis is missing. Because there are a myriad shows now (and for the last decade) that have tried over and over again to defy that model. To break that mold. To defy those expectations.

And that's part of the reason why Breaking Bad was (ultimately) less fulfilling than a show like Mad Men. Because it acted like it was above all of that, but in the end it absolutely just confirmed the audiences expectations for entertainment. Still a fantastic show that I'd hold up against most movies made during the same time, but that's why it wasn't the greatest show on TV.

Yes, but again, you’re talking about narrative information and character stuff. That’s not what BEE is disputing, really (nor am I). But that’s not what I (or I think Ellis) is primarily interested in with audiovisual art. Visual atmosphere – cinematic poetry – trumps that stuff. That’s why TV still pales in comparison to film.

I just think that's cinema snobbery. There are plenty of examples of fantastic visual atmosphere on television. Look no further than Mad Men. It's as visual poetic as any movie I've ever seen.

It’s not snobbery, it’s just a matter of what I find satisfying and exciting in art. No way in hell Mad Men (or any TV show, even ones I enjoy) have the visual sensuality and lyricism of Spring Breakers or Only God Forgives or Black Narcissus or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Shining or Man of the West or The Lords of Salem or on and on and on. Or even the satisfying pop art atmosphere of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters or Godzilla or Jurassic Park or The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix or…yeah, you get it.

I get what you're saying. I just completely disagree. And I promise I'm not trying to attack you. But I just don't understand how a person can watch Mad Men and say that. The only way I can describe (or begin to wrap my head around) it is willful ignorance. A person who watches Mad Men and says there's "no way in hell [it has] the visual sensuality and lyricism of [insert film title here]" has to be trying not to see it. Surely, it's blindness by bias, right? They have to be so entrenched in their belief in film, so convinced in an applied superiority, that they are unable to climb up over their own bias.

Again, that's my opinion. Mad Men is so gorgeous, so poetic, so sensual, so full of nuance and visual style, that I genuinely can't understand how a person interested in audiovisual storytelling can't see it. Perhaps that's my shortcoming. But, Jesus. MAD MEN!

Like I said, I've only seen the pilot, which did nothing for me. And any other time I've tuned in for a few minutes at a time just bored me. The visuals did not seem interesting or appealing. But I guess I'll have to check it out. Does it have any giant dinosaurs? That's always a plus for me.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:"TV is about confirming your expectations for entertainment," says Matt Weiner, speaking about TV prior to The Sopranos. And that's dead on balls accurate. And that's why TV is in a golden age. That's what Ellis is missing. Because there are a myriad shows now (and for the last decade) that have tried over and over again to defy that model. To break that mold. To defy those expectations.

And that's part of the reason why Breaking Bad was (ultimately) less fulfilling than a show like Mad Men. Because it acted like it was above all of that, but in the end it absolutely just confirmed the audiences expectations for entertainment. Still a fantastic show that I'd hold up against most movies made during the same time, but that's why it wasn't the greatest show on TV.

Yes, but again, you’re talking about narrative information and character stuff. That’s not what BEE is disputing, really (nor am I). But that’s not what I (or I think Ellis) is primarily interested in with audiovisual art. Visual atmosphere – cinematic poetry – trumps that stuff. That’s why TV still pales in comparison to film.

I just think that's cinema snobbery. There are plenty of examples of fantastic visual atmosphere on television. Look no further than Mad Men. It's as visual poetic as any movie I've ever seen.

It’s not snobbery, it’s just a matter of what I find satisfying and exciting in art. No way in hell Mad Men (or any TV show, even ones I enjoy) have the visual sensuality and lyricism of Spring Breakers or Only God Forgives or Black Narcissus or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or The Shining or Man of the West or The Lords of Salem or on and on and on. Or even the satisfying pop art atmosphere of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters or Godzilla or Jurassic Park or The Lord of the Rings or The Matrix or…yeah, you get it.

I get what you're saying. I just completely disagree. And I promise I'm not trying to attack you. But I just don't understand how a person can watch Mad Men and say that. The only way I can describe (or begin to wrap my head around) it is willful ignorance. A person who watches Mad Men and says there's "no way in hell [it has] the visual sensuality and lyricism of [insert film title here]" has to be trying not to see it. Surely, it's blindness by bias, right? They have to be so entrenched in their belief in film, so convinced in an applied superiority, that they are unable to climb up over their own bias.

Again, that's my opinion. Mad Men is so gorgeous, so poetic, so sensual, so full of nuance and visual style, that I genuinely can't understand how a person interested in audiovisual storytelling can't see it. Perhaps that's my shortcoming. But, Jesus. MAD MEN!

Like I said, I've only seen the pilot, which did nothing for me. And any other time I've tuned in for a few minutes at a time just bored me. The visuals did not seem interesting or appealing. But I guess I'll have to check it out. Does it have any giant dinosaurs? That's always a plus for me.

Not yet. But there's still half a season left. So...

Great chat, by the way, Vermin. Thanks for this. It's been a long time.

durdencommatyler wrote:Great chat, by the way, Vermin. Thanks for this. It's been a long time.

You're all right, durden. You're always wrong about everything, but you're all right.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Great chat, by the way, Vermin. Thanks for this. It's been a long time.

You're all right, durden. You're always wrong about everything, but you're all right.

That's actually what I plan to put on my tombstone.

That podcast was fun! Which episode should I listen to next? I'm thinking the Fred & Carrie...

durdencommatyler wrote:That podcast was fun! Which episode should I listen to next? I'm thinking the Fred & Carrie...

Yeah, that's an essential listen. Do that one.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:That podcast was fun! Which episode should I listen to next? I'm thinking the Fred & Carrie...

Yeah, that's an essential listen. Do that one.

fred and carrie, and then Kanye maybe.

About tv vs film; i guess you can be as poetic as film when you are working on a tv series if you want_; but they are different beasts...i dont think we could admire a, lets say Terrence Malick piece if it wasnt for the cinema. In that case i agree with Bret; its just not the same and will never be.