|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 9, 2019 15:46:07 GMT -8
There really is a question of how much value to place in shows which aren't great as a whole, but have standout individual seasons. Especially since shows that start off strong and lose their thread after 1-2 seasons are becoming more common each year.
For example, Scott's #1 show has (to my eyes) one mediocre season, followed by one decent but flawed season, followed by one of the best TV seasons of the decade. Taken all together, is that enough to call it one of the best shows of the decade? Should I put greater focus on the high points? Or should I average the three seasons out to "pretty good"?
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 9, 2019 16:18:12 GMT -8
There really is a question of how much value to place in shows which aren't great as a whole, but have standout individual seasons. Especially since shows that start off strong and lose their thread after 1-2 seasons are becoming more common each year. For example, Scott's #1 show has (to my eyes) one mediocre season, followed by one decent but flawed season, followed by one of the best TV seasons of the decade. Taken all together, is that enough to call it one of the best shows of the decade? Should I put greater focus on the high points? Or should I average the three seasons out to "pretty good"? I'm very excited to watch that show. It seems a like real 'all-or-nothing proposition'. There are no casual fans of The [redacted]. That also sounds very odd. Scientifically, no, it wouldn't count as a great show, but television is an art form, not a science. Do strong starts matter more or do strong ends matter more? What if the weak episodes are unimportant to the series, and thus the series gets the important stuff dead-on? The 28-episode count interests me as well. Can you rank a show with fewer episodes with a higher average quality than a show with triple the episodes, and thus more weak episodes, but also more great episodes and a more impressive track record-it's difficult to maintain that quality for long-who knows?
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 9, 2019 19:55:20 GMT -8
Hmmm...I was sure Bojack Horseman was far and away Flamepillar's favourite. Interesting. It would definitely be in my Top 10...possibly Top 5. I'd say just about everything but the first handful of S1 eps is in the "very-good-to-great" range. About the only thing I'd say against it is that the seasons run together a bit.
I think Scott's favourite has one very uneven (and kind of annoying) season, and two very good seasons. I thought S2 and 3 were of similar quality.
Re: The Americans, to me, it is indeed defined more by striking moments than (memorable) individual episodes. And though the acting is stellar and the characterizations solid, it mostly just felt adequate to me in the visual department. All that said, I'd say five of the six seasons are good or better.
I'd rank both of Noah Hawley's shows as having two great seasons, and one very good one. I was captivated by both of them for the majority of their runs.
Atlanta's been gold thus far, for the most part. One more season like that, and it'll be in my Top 5.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 9, 2019 20:13:13 GMT -8
That's another thing - how do we rank a show like Atlanta? It premiered several years ago, but has only aired two seasons in this decade. Season Two is among the best TV seasons in recent memory, but is that enough to qualify it for a high spot on a "Best of the Decade" list?
I'm more inclined to put Atlanta near the top of my list over a two-season show like Killing Eve, since Eve only premiered last year and hasn't quite achieved the level of cultural influence that Atlanta has.
By the same token, there are several strong shows that fully wrapped (or were cancelled) after two seasons. How do we judge Fleabag, Enlightened, or Manhattan compared to shows that premiered in 2017/18 and are still airing?
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 9, 2019 20:26:17 GMT -8
Fleabag's already finished its run, huh? Well, that should make it easy enough to get caught up on.
Re: female-led series, if Better Things has another season the calbre of the last two (haven't seen much of Season 1), it'll rank high with me. It's very smart, scrappy, and artfully-composed.
Better Call Saul ranks high with me as well. And what to do with shows that premiered in the previous decade, but split their runs between decades, like Mad Men and Breaking Bad?
I'm obviously forgetting a bunch of shows, and need to see a number of others (like Fleabag). I'd probably have better success putting together a Top 20 list.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Sept 9, 2019 20:45:58 GMT -8
I'm more inclined to put Atlanta near the top of my list over a two-season show like Killing Eve, since Eve only premiered last year and hasn't quite achieved the level of cultural influence that Atlanta has. Killing Eve should not be near the top of your list for other reasons. (To be clear, the reason is Killing Eve is mostly bad.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Sept 9, 2019 21:05:01 GMT -8
Killing Eve is absurd and convoluted as hell, and it's fully intended to be just that. The two female leads are a lot of fun, and the supporting cast is sturdy. It's not one of the best series of the decade, but it's perfectly decent as escapist entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 10, 2019 6:36:33 GMT -8
I think the first season of Killing Eve is kind of excellent, even if the second has its flaws. But there are probably better examples of great shows that are only just starting their runs (i.e. Barry, which has had two very strong seasons thus far, but is still too recent to comfortably rank among the decade's best shows).
Re. Mad Men and Breaking Bad - those and other shows which began in the 2000s have already had enough time to settle into their place in history. I'll judge their place in this decade based on the quality of the seasons they produced from 2010 onward. (By this measure, for example, Breaking Bad will most likely rank higher than Mad Men.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 10, 2019 6:43:48 GMT -8
I think the first season of Killing Eve is kind of excellent, even if the second has its flaws. But there are probably better examples of great shows that are only just starting their runs (i.e. Barry, which has had two very strong seasons thus far, but is still too recent to comfortably rank among the decade's best shows). Re. Mad Men and Breaking Bad - those and other shows which began in the 2000s have already had enough time to settle into their place in history. I'll judge their place in this decade based on the quality of the seasons they produced from 2010 onward. (By this measure, for example, Breaking Bad will most likely rank higher than Mad Men.) I think Mad Men's first two seasons were its best. 3 is the weakest of the 2000s seasons-saved by a tremendous finale. I think 4 and 6 are the weakest. 3, 5, and 7 could rank any which way. All high quality of course. Breaking Bad Season 3 was fantastic. Season 4 wasn't as well paced, and was a bit of a step down. Season 5's first half was the weakest since Season 1, and the second was excellent throughout. I'm still not a big fan of "Felina" though.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 10, 2019 7:02:55 GMT -8
Oh, I thought the fourth season of Mad Men was pretty strong, even beyond the obvious excellence of "The Suitcase." It's mostly Seasons 5, 6, and 7A where I reserve my criticisms. (Scott and I had some heated debates about the quality of the later Mad Men seasons back in the day.)
I also like Season Three more than most fans, I suspect, though it's been ages since I watched it.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Sept 10, 2019 7:16:16 GMT -8
Oh, I thought the fourth season of Mad Men was pretty strong, even beyond the obvious excellence of "The Suitcase." It's mostly Seasons 5, 6, and 7A where I reserve my criticisms. (Scott and I had some heated debates about the quality of the later Mad Men seasons back in the day.) I also like Season Three more than most fans, I suspect, though it's been ages since I watched it. I remember 5 being pretty good? I definitely thought it was better than 6 and 7, and 4 minus "The Suitcase." It's been ages since I watched the show as well-maybe I have the quality of 4 and 5 backwards.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Sept 10, 2019 7:23:47 GMT -8
I found Season 5 to be less cohesive than the earlier seasons, with more character redundancies than usual (particularly in Don's case). And despite all the acclaim that "The Other Woman" has received, it remains one of my least favorite episodes in the series.
I think I prefer Season 6 to Season 5 by a small margin, even if Season 6 has more obvious pacing and structural flaws. Overall, they're probably my two least favorite seasons of the show. (Season 7 gets redeemed by its second half.)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Sept 10, 2019 13:17:46 GMT -8
Oh, I thought the fourth season of Mad Men was pretty strong, even beyond the obvious excellence of "The Suitcase." It's mostly Seasons 5, 6, and 7A where I reserve my criticisms. (Scott and I had some heated debates about the quality of the later Mad Men seasons back in the day.) I also like Season Three more than most fans, I suspect, though it's been ages since I watched it. "Heated" Anyways, I have been slowly (like 1 season a year) been rewatching Mad Men. Season 5 is just so terrific on an episode to episode basis it's hard for me to dock it at this point for not being all that cohesive. And really, the "cohesiveness" issue comes down to the Season 5 finale being one of the worst episodes of the entire series rather than properly wrapping that season up like a competent finale would have. I'm interested in revisiting Season 6 as well next year, because at the time that was one of my favourites. I know some people found it repetitive and retreading the same territory but I did not agree and I expect I still won't agree. And that season had a much, much better finale. I think I now consider Season 5 and Season 6 to be two of my top 3 seasons of the show.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Sept 11, 2019 17:03:42 GMT -8
It's funny you all mention Mad Men, because (as far as I know) it's the only show of the Platinum age which really does what I love about The Americans, and why I love that show so much and have it as my #1. Which is that it uses the period setting really, really well - not just for easy 80's nostalgia, but to develop the characters and lend depth to show's worldbuilding and themes. I wasn't totally sold on the pilot episode, but the next one, where they bumble around losing their minds about the Reagan assassination attempt, fascinated me and made me want to keep going. I've written this before, I think, but the moment I realized I head-over-heels loved this show on both a head and gut level was somewhere in the third season, where the show parallels Philip buying his daughter a dress with America training the mujaheddin. The way that by dint of its setting, the show is able to be about geopolitics and capitalism-versus-communism at the same time it's about marriage and family - I love that.
This is a long way of saying that there's more to great television than character arcs and whether the episode-to-episode consistency is good or if they're retreading plot points from earlier seasons. A lot of shows I love aren't super great when we judge them by the metrics I see you all using here but are fantastic anyway. E.g., for all the problems the show had with the criminal subplot, Jane the Virgin was never not one of my favorite shows on television at any given time it was on. And, at risk of retreading conversations from at the start of the decade, I think that this is why Buffy is never on the pantheon even though the show does so much so well, and is sticking with me all these years later.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Sept 11, 2019 17:12:03 GMT -8
I think the first season of Killing Eve is kind of excellent, even if the second has its flaws. But there are probably better examples of great shows that are only just starting their runs (i.e. Barry, which has had two very strong seasons thus far, but is still too recent to comfortably rank among the decade's best shows). Re. Mad Men and Breaking Bad - those and other shows which began in the 2000s have already had enough time to settle into their place in history. I'll judge their place in this decade based on the quality of the seasons they produced from 2010 onward. (By this measure, for example, Breaking Bad will most likely rank higher than Mad Men.) I'm just having flashbacks to when you put Orphan Black on your Best Shows of the Lustrum list, noting that the first season was fantastic and the second season was stumbling somewhat. Which is funny, because most television critics fail to note that Killing Eve is almost literally the same show as Orphan Black. I also will be real with you all and say that much as I like Breaking Bad, I have to say that if this is the best TV show of all-time then TV must suck! (Hyperbole, somewhat, and I haven't seen the last season with the alleged best episode ever of television in it. But whenever the show does something artsy I always feel like Vince Gilligan is tapping me on the shoulder and going "look at this cool camera angle we thought up! Hey, Walt's wearing pink just like the symbolism bear, get it?" The show does tension very well, and plotting less well but acceptably so, and Cranston and Paul are obviously brilliant, but I think the collective public opinion is overrating it just a little.)
|
|