|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 2, 2020 9:08:43 GMT -8
Well, you two have finished your lists, better post mine before they become irrelevant. I haven't seen The Leftovers or Twin Peaks: The Return yet, which are two of the most commonly cited 'best shows of the decade'. Also haven't seen Review, Jane the Virgin, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, You're the Worst, Better Things, or Fleabag. I'll probably never run out of tv shows to catch up on from this decade.
TIER 1: Person of Interest (CBS)-Best sci-fi/action show ever. The lows aren't that low, and the highs outclass pretty much everything else on this list, so it's definitely worthy of being in TIER 1. The fact that it tells one long story and sticks the landing big time also elevates it above many others in my view. See Halt and Catch Fire for this as well. Manhattan (WGN)-Not fun to watch really, but one of the best written and put-together of the decade. By virtue of its setting, the stakes could not possibly be higher, and it digs into tough, real-world issues in a way no other show this decade has. Halt and Catch Fire (AMC)-One of the best exploration of human relationships I've seen. Mad Men is the only one to really rival it, but I found it much more of a pleasure to watch. I'll definitely re-watch this at some point. Bojack Horseman (Netflix)-We've been over this a lot, but it's worth saying again: this is one of the most affecting, poignant, and hilarious stories shown on tv in a long, long time. Also, those background gags are top notch. Steins;gate (The sub version, AKA the superior version, is on Hulu in the states!)-Watch if you like tightly plotted sci-fi and are open to watching anime.
TIER 2: Justified (FX)-Would win the award for best dialogue this decade. Also is a master class in slow-burn plotting that pays off in a massive way at the end of the season. Season 2-that's how you plot a season of television right there. The Pacific (HBO)-People are sick of WW2 stories for the most part because they are so common, but the brutality of the Pacific Theatre rivals the Eastern Front, and it is displayed as fully as it can be in a harrowing, brilliant miniseries. Adventure Time (Cartoon Network)-One of the best coming-of-age stories of all time, with unparalleled creativity and freedom in telling stories. It could pretty much be anything it wanted to be. Atlanta (FX)-Donald Glover's auteur series is the pinnacle of that format. It's a comedy and a searing commentary on modern America, oddly similar to Adventure Time in that it basically switches up its format every week (in its transcendent second season even moreso). Better Call Saul (AMC)-I can let the Mike stuff slide because I love the Jimmy story so much. It's such a moving story about a man who wants to do good but discovers that being bad is much easier. I find that more compelling than a man who throws himself headfirst into the darkness.
TIER 3: Mad Men (AMC)-I've said this isn't a personal favorite before, and while that's true, it's still a pretty strong series. Extremely rich and well-made from every angle. Over the Garden Wall (Cartoon Network)-A wondrous fairy tale that doesn't become saccharine and doesn't overstay its welcome. Hannibal (NBC)-I would have put this higher if not for that disastrous third season. But the first two seasons are haunting, Lynchian-style horror mixed with a prestige drama mixed with a thriller, and oh it also stars Mads Mikkelsen. That pretty much seals it right there. Fargo (FX)-Noah Hawley's style works best in this anthology series. It doesn't have much depth, but it doesn't really need to either, when the seasons are this well-paced and well-acted. And I do think it's not completely empty either. Breaking Bad (AMC)-I wanted to put this lower, but I couldn't really justify that. It's near flawless.
TIER 4: Community (NBC)-The first three seasons are easily its strongest, but they are well over half the show, so that's a relief. I really enjoyed the series-the writing was tight, fast and funny and the characters were engaging and endearing. Though I do wish they had a bit more development. Seemed like they really stagnated at a certain point. The Good Wife (CBS)-It was a really good show in its first five seasons. Certainly one of the strongest on the networks, even though some story-lines thudded. Story-lines that didn't work became the norm rather than the exception at a certain point, and its finale was woeful. The Americans (FX)-It went on for 2 or 3 seasons too long, but it was a high-quality drama with strong writing and superb performances. Young Justice (Cartoon Network)-Young Justice is the best comic-book show of the decade. Great action, great heroes, great villains. It never feels like it's spinning in circles, unlike pretty much every other comic-book show this decade. Fringe (FOX)-Went a bit off the rails, but overall is one of the most enjoyable sci-fi series out there. The bar is low, but the acting and directing are superb, even if the writing is too sappy at certain points.
Honorable mention to the 3 Michael Schur shows, but none of them are truly great in my opinion. Though each of the 3's weaknesses and strengths are very different. The Legend of Korra was half-great, a quarter mediocre, and a quarter awful.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 3, 2020 13:09:15 GMT -8
Argh, I forgot to include Young Justice in my Honorable Mentions. Which is weird, because I remembered to put it in my Best of 2019. My headspace needs decluttering.
I'm surprised to see Breaking Bad so low (and below BCS!), especially when you call it "near-flawless."
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 3, 2020 13:24:53 GMT -8
I was also curious about the Breaking Bad write-up, why did you want to rank it lower? And if it's near flawless, why is it so low? Just general questions.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 3, 2020 14:18:03 GMT -8
I was also curious about the Breaking Bad write-up, why did you want to rank it lower? And if it's near flawless, why is it so low? Just general questions. It's extremely well-crafted from a filmmaking standpoint. Possibly more than other shows that I have ranked higher. But similar to what Mike always did, I blended my personal tastes with objective analysis, and there's a lot about Breaking Bad that really bothers me even while I appreciate the skill put into it in front of and behind the camera.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 3, 2020 20:50:42 GMT -8
Could you please elaborate on what bothers you most about BB?
The comment about Fargo not having much depth gave me pause as well, but I think, much of the time, what we recognize as depth (or a lack thereof) corresponds pretty closely with what we personally relate to. For instance, as someone who has two immediate family members who suffer from a mental illness, Season 1 of Legion had a good deal of emotional depth and resonance for me.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 4, 2020 5:57:52 GMT -8
Depth is a curious thing for me, because it’s almost entirely a function of what you bring to the show, not necessarily what the show brings to you. When I say “shows aren’t very deep” it typically just means shows don’t have complex themes and is a standard good vs bad battle. Otherwise I’ll probably say a show didn’t work for me, if I have trouble getting anything out of it.
I’m not sure I see as much depth in Fargo as I did many of the other shows this decade but that being said, I think there’s a lot that I didn’t see. Legion I would never accuse of not having depth. I still tend to think Season 1 is pretty underrated for that show, and even parts of Season 2 were very good. I still intend to watch the final season.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 4, 2020 14:30:56 GMT -8
Could you please elaborate on what bothers you most about BB? The comment about Fargo not having much depth gave me pause as well, but I think, much of the time, what we recognize as depth (or a lack thereof) corresponds pretty closely with what we personally relate to. For instance, as someone who has two immediate family members who suffer from a mental illness, Season 1 of Legion had a good deal of emotional depth and resonance for me. I've seen people who were themselves survivors of sexual abuse praise Sansa's infamous rape scene from "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken". So it can vary. I found Legion to be an average superhero origin story with mediocre supporting characters and cool visuals. As for what bothers me about Breaking Bad: the thin supporting characters, its low re-watchability, the occasionally sluggish pacing, cartoonish villains, the dissonance between the serious drama and its action fantasy elements. That about sums it up.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 4, 2020 15:47:07 GMT -8
I think there's a distinction to be made between "depth" and "resonance." Resonance is how well a show sticks with you, which can be heavily based on personal experience. Depth is how much the show gives you to think about - which can still vary based on the viewer, but is a little more concrete. How many layers does the show have beneath its surface?
I think Fargo has a fair deal of depth, but it's less character-based than atmospheric. The show features excellent use of symbolism, allegory, and contemporary themes, which I'd say constitute a significant level of depth, even if a lot of its characters slot into basic "good" or "evil" boxes.
Still, it's true that some prestige dramas try to fool you into thinking they're deeper than they actually are, just as some non-prestige shows prove to have more depth and complexity than you expect them to. For example, The Mandalorian is a handsomely made but extremely simplistic good-vs-evil show, while Green Eggs and Ham is a kid-oriented series that features unexpectedly emotional arcs and ethically grey characters. It's all in the execution.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 4, 2020 15:56:10 GMT -8
I think there's a distinction to be made between "depth" and "resonance." Resonance is how well a show sticks with you, which can be heavily based on personal experience. Depth is how much the show gives you to think about - which can still vary based on the viewer, but is a little more concrete. How many layers does the show have beneath its surface? I think Fargo has a fair deal of depth, but it's less character-based than atmospheric. The show features excellent use of symbolism, allegory, and contemporary themes, which I'd say constitute a significant level of depth, even if a lot of its characters slot into basic "good" or "evil" boxes. Still, it's true that some prestige dramas try to fool you into thinking they're deeper than they actually are, just as some non-prestige shows prove to have more depth and complexity than you expect them to. For example, The Mandalorian is a handsomely made but extremely simplistic good-vs-evil show, while Green Eggs and Ham is a kid-oriented series that features unexpectedly emotional arcs and ethically grey characters. It's all in the execution. Yeah, that's why I really like Fargo. It's great from a visual perspective and the characters are compelling as well. I think I can generally tell when writers of a tv show have put thought into what they're trying to convey with their show-and when they have, it adds a lot to the experience. I think it's fair to call out shows that are shallow for being such, but I'm always happy to read opposing perspectives that can bring out hidden depths in art that I had previously dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 4, 2020 19:54:08 GMT -8
I found Legion to be an average superhero origin story with mediocre supporting characters and cool visuals. Yeah, strongly disagree. Beyond the wildly inventive visuals (among the most ambitious and creative in television history), it was very sophisticated in how it blurred the lines between fantasy and reality, internal psychology and objective truth, in its timeline structure and ambitious use of montage, and Aubrey Plaza, Navid Negahban, Bill Irwin, and Jemaine Clement had an enormous amount of personality. Also think David and Syd's personal interactions were very nuanced, understated, witty, and touching, more so than most young-adult relationships on television, even if his perspective is more emphasized due to the Unreliable Narrator structure (though her backstory was much more fleshed out in later seasons). Spectacular audio design and use of source music as well, and often very funny, due to its willingness to poke fun at its more outlandish elements (while still retaining its emotional through-line). Light years more creative, original, and eccentric than any of the X-Men movies (and 99% of superhero movies in general), which really dropped the ball in terms of their visual potential (generic CGI, very little gusto, blandly grey). I'd barely even refer to it as a "superhero" show, to be honest. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (2002) is an average superhero origin story: this more of an arty, surreal suspense-thriller with sly comedic elements.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 4, 2020 20:38:29 GMT -8
I found Legion to be an average superhero origin story with mediocre supporting characters and cool visuals. Yeah, strongly disagree. Beyond the wildly inventive visuals (among the most ambitious and creative in television history), it was very sophisticated in how it blurred the lines between fantasy and reality, internal psychology and objective truth, in its timeline structure and ambitious use of montage, and Aubrey Plaza, Navid Negahban, Bill Irwin, and Jemaine Clement had an enormous amount of personality. Also think David and Syd's personal interactions were very nuanced, understated, witty, and touching, more so than most young-adult relationships on television, even if his perspective is more emphasized due to the Unreliable Narrator structure (though her backstory was much more fleshed out in later seasons). Spectacular audio design and use of source music as well, and often very funny, due to its willingness to poke fun at its more outlandish elements (while still retaining its emotional through-line). Light years more creative, original, and eccentric than any of the X-Men movies (and 99% of superhero movies in general), which really dropped the ball in terms of their visual potential (generic CGI, very little gusto, blandly grey). I'd barely even refer to it as a "superhero" show, to be honest. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (2002) is an average superhero origin story: this more of an arty suspense-thriller with sly comedic elements. Correct. Except for Spider-Verse! Which we already sang the praises of. All that stuff you mentioned is great, but I don't really come to shows for the sound design, or eccentricity for eccentricity's sake. Story and characters are the fundamentals of a great tv show, and I feel that Legion was severely lacking in both. If it had combined those with the strengths you mentioned, I would call it the best superhero show ever. Unfortunately, I don't think it's original at all, underneath everything. I'll take Logan or Spider-Man 2 over it any day. Perhaps Seasons 2 and 3 broke the mold, but most people say Season 1 of Legion was its best, so I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 4, 2020 21:24:20 GMT -8
You can say it's unoriginal in superficial plot terms all you like, but the manner in which it was presented (the How, rather than the What) was very unique for television. But given how hung up you seem to be on supposedly thin supporting characters in all of these shows, I'm kind of surprised you responded to Spiderverse as strongly as you did, given that almost the entire supporting cast are little more than broad archetypes. But perhaps you demand far less in that regard from films.
Spider-Man 2 is certainly the best live-action S-M film, but if we're talking about story, it's often quite similar to a sentimental after-school special. And LOGAN placed way more emphasis on superficial physical struggle than anything resembling emotional insight: I liked it alright as a gritty dust-filled western, but IMO, it has far less thematic meat on its bones than it thinks it does...not to mention completely forgettable antagonists (like, I THINK Richard E. Grant was in there, but that's the most I can recall).
Anyways, it's fine. We have different values in terms of what we respond to in TV shows. Atmosphere is often the first thing that draws me in, and I find great emotional/thematic texture in craft and stylistic elements, which can often command my attention considerably more than conventional ideals regarding characterization. And what you dismiss as character "eccentricity", I regard as personality, which Legion has in abundance, from where I'm standing. But yeah, insofar as it matters, there's more emphasis on the backgrounds and psychology of the supporting cast in Season 2 and particularly Season 3, where biological family becomes the focus.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 4, 2020 23:21:18 GMT -8
You can say it's unoriginal in superficial plot terms all you like, but the manner in which it was presented (the How, rather than the What) was very unique for television. But given how hung up you seem to be on supposedly thin supporting characters in all of these shows, I'm kind of surprised you responded to Spiderverse as strongly as you did, given that almost the entire supporting cast are little more than broad archetypes. But perhaps you demand far less in that regard from films. Spider-Man 2 is certainly the best live-action S-M film, but if we're talking about story, it's often quite similar to a sentimental after-school special. And LOGAN placed way more emphasis on superficial physical struggle than anything resembling emotional insight: I liked it alright as a gritty dust-filled western, but IMO, it has far less thematic meat on its bones than it thinks it does...not to mention completely forgettable antagonists (like, I THINK Richard E. Grant was in there, but that's the most I can recall). Anyways, it's fine. We have different values in terms of what we respond to in TV shows. Atmosphere is often the first thing that draws me in, and I find great emotional/thematic texture in craft and stylistic elements, which can often command my attention considerably more than conventional ideals regarding characterization. And what you dismiss as character "eccentricity", I regard as personality, which Legion has in abundance, from where I'm standing. But yeah, insofar as it matters, there's more emphasis on the backgrounds and psychology of the supporting cast in Season 2 and particularly Season 3, where biological family becomes the focus. I'm not talking about superficial plot terms. I'm talking about the underlying story-not the plot. If I remember correctly, Season 1 basically confirmed that David's mental illness was in fact a superpower. The season was ultimately conventional. So all of the style in the world, as cool, innovative, and exciting as it is, can't really mask that, especially for someone who's consumed way too much superhero media like I have. I even watched The Flash, much as I regret it. It was a bit silly of me to compare movies with such different aims to Legion, but I think they knew what they wanted to be more than Legion did, and hit the mark far better. The sentimentality and corniness of the Raimi trilogy was absolutely on purpose, and it's a fine fit for a story about a man with spider-powers. It is a ridiculous and cheesy concept. As for Logan...well, we just discussed the idea of depth on here, so no need to go into that again. Is it so unreasonable to ask for the characters besides the protagonist in a movie or tv show to actually be compelling? I don't think it's me getting hung up on something so much as just me wishing they would fulfill a basic requirement of a good story. Well, Breaking Bad, Legion, and Spider-Verse's supporting characters are very different beasts. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the difference between tv and film. Spider-verse is a 2 hour fast-moving film with bucket-loads of supporting characters who, while arguably thin, are also extremely entertaining, fulfill their roles as intended, and don't take up too much focus. They are not the main focus or as important to the story of the film. Spider-verse was tightly written, improved on the source material (especially with regard to Miles), and innovated in certain areas that appealed to me quite a bit. It's definitely not surprising for me that I love it so much, as someone who's been living and breathing superhero material. Though, it has to be said, Jeremy still takes the crown here. Breaking Bad's characters besides Walter weren't that great, but Walter was such a well-performed and conceived character it didn't, and doesn't matter all that much, regardless of my kvetching. Legion's kind of have to be for the story that it claims to want to tell, and they're just not. I like style too, provided it's not just a creative team throwing random nonsense at the wall to see what sticks. And it can't replace conventional ideals regarding characterization. Not for me. That seems like a way to cover poor storytelling with quirkiness, when it's possible to do both. Case and point Twin Peaks. There has to be some core to it. Not necessarily a big message or anything-it's art, not a manifesto-but something more than aspiring to be as weird as possible. Say, if there's a Bolero sequence in an episode of tv, there should probably be a stronger narrative justification for it beyond "hey, this would look cool". But yes, it's totally fine. I've said all that I'm going to on this particular subject. I can certainly see Legion's appeal, and unlike certain corners of the internet, people on here don't get upset when you criticize a show they like. Thankfully.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 4, 2020 23:55:27 GMT -8
We just disagree as to whether the supporting characters on Legion are compelling and/or entertaining. I enjoy them (aside from Ptonomy) very much overall, and they develop more as the series progresses. Farouk is an interesting "villain" because he isn't really depicted as pure evil, and in some ways (weirdly) has David's best interests at heart: his arc is rather unusual in some regards. And no, it isn't just superpowers: David also suffers from mental illness, which he got from his mom: Farouk taking up residence in his mind just exacerbated that. Re: people thinking S1 is the best, many do, but those who would prefer more emphasis be placed on supporting characterization may indeed prefer S3, and parts of S2. The Season 2 premiere was absolutely an example of the show revelling in style above all else, but there's considerably more emphasis on characterization after that.
Anyways, I don't want to make it seem like I don't care about characters when it comes to long-form storytelling. But, you know, different viewers respond to different types of personalities/character types, and I personally felt the supporting cast of Legion, by-and-large, served their function in the overall narrative well. But it's not really very productive to discuss it any further if you haven't actually seen more than 70% of the show. Heck, I've already said too much in some regards (at least in terms of potentially spoiling something for Jeremy).
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 5, 2020 7:36:54 GMT -8
Oh, don't worry about that. Much as I like to wish otherwise, not every conversation on the Internet needs to revolve around me.
My thoughts on Legion have been detailed in the past, but to reiterate, I'll say that I'm somewhere between J.C. and Flame; it can be a very good show with some great visuals and entertaining characters (I find some of the supporting characters to be more interesting than David and Rachel), but can also try my patience with its attempts at artfulness, which can come off as more flash than substance. Like Scott, I still intend to watch S3 at some point.
|
|