Re: Is Televisions Golden Age dying?
Posted: Thu July 31, 2014 3:40 pm
If I watch all my TV on my laptop - is it still TV?
many man smoke but few man chewdurdencommatyler wrote:What does Confucius say?
I would say I primarily watch movies for aesthetic pleasure, so in a way, kind of. It's not the only reason, but it's the biggest one.durdencommatyler wrote:So you just watch movies for pretty pictures?LoathedVermin72 wrote: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.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.
Did you happen to watch True Detective on HBO?LoathedVermin72 wrote:I would say I primarily watch movies for aesthetic pleasure, so in a way, kind of. It's not the only reason, but it's the biggest one.durdencommatyler wrote:So you just watch movies for pretty pictures?LoathedVermin72 wrote: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.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.
can i borrow your season 3 copy of mad about you?doug rr wrote:you guys watch tv differently than I do
I never watched that show lennylennytheweedwhacker wrote:can i borrow your season 3 copy of mad about you?doug rr wrote:you guys watch tv differently than I do
I actually haven't, but I'm well aware this could be the exception to the TV rule. I love Fukanaga's movies.Monkey_Driven wrote:Did you happen to watch True Detective on HBO?LoathedVermin72 wrote:I would say I primarily watch movies for aesthetic pleasure, so in a way, kind of. It's not the only reason, but it's the biggest one.durdencommatyler wrote:So you just watch movies for pretty pictures?LoathedVermin72 wrote: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.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.
Hannibal should also be added to the list of visually stunning TV (maybe the most beautifully shot of the bunch)Farmer John wrote:I also thought Breaking Bad and Fargo were both visually beautiful, but I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
The Fargo pilot actually did look pretty good visually, but I was put off by its blatant attempt at emulating the Coen aesthetic and tone. It felt like a watered down copy of a good original. They totally lost me when Martin Freeman was accosted on the street. I was done at that point.Farmer John wrote:I also thought Breaking Bad and Fargo were both visually beautiful, but I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm in the middle of season one of Hannibal and I agree.tommymctom wrote:Hannibal should also be added to the list of visually stunning TV (maybe the most beautifully shot of the bunch)Farmer John wrote:I also thought Breaking Bad and Fargo were both visually beautiful, but I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
That seems like a totally random thing to turn you off of a show. Please explain.LoathedVermin72 wrote:They totally lost me when Martin Freeman was accosted on the street. I was done at that point.
Fair enough.LoathedVermin72 wrote:I would say I primarily watch movies for aesthetic pleasure, so in a way, kind of. It's not the only reason, but it's the biggest one.durdencommatyler wrote:So you just watch movies for pretty pictures?LoathedVermin72 wrote: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.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.
Fargo actually got better as it went on. I won't say it stopped altogether, but they put the breaks on the Coen impression after a few episodes and it really became its own thing. But I actually agree with you on that point.LoathedVermin72 wrote:The Fargo pilot actually did look pretty good visually, but I was put off by its blatant attempt at emulating the Coen aesthetic and tone. It felt like a watered down copy of a good original. They totally lost me when Martin Freeman was accosted on the street. I was done at that point.Farmer John wrote:I also thought Breaking Bad and Fargo were both visually beautiful, but I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
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.@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.
You are better with words than I am. Well said.@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.
durdencommatyler wrote: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.@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.