|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Nov 11, 2019 19:04:16 GMT -8
So, the AV Club compiled their list of best shows of the decade, and it's a pretty solid list, I must say. Though there's quite a bit of recency bias-Russian Doll at #28? Really? Something tells me Scott's going to like this list though.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 12, 2019 6:53:00 GMT -8
The list is okay, I would probably say the same about any list that wasn't my own. There are some baffling choices on there - The Good Place at 5?? Fargo is below Stranger Things, and Master of None is down in the 80s somewhere. I don't really see the recency bias too badly, people REALLY like Russian Doll for instance, and Fleabag only in the lower reaches of the top 10 is showing a bit of restraint in that regard.
Actually this does prompt me to mention something I've been thinking about. Typically with "best of" lists for TV, we knock shows down for not being long enough. Even Deadwood at 3 seasons gets chided for being too short to stand up with the greats of TV. In this decade, TV has intentionally gotten shorter, there are more one and two season projects than ever before. Do they, of necessity, deserve a lower place than those shows that executed at a high level for 4 or more seasons? Or is there just as much value in doing 8 episodes right as there is in doing 60?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 12, 2019 10:05:54 GMT -8
There's certainly a greater degree of difficulty to maintain quality across four or five seasons (or longer) than in just one or two. So I'd say that a show which manages a long run without declining in quality is more impressive than one which lives fast and dies young.
That said, shows that go 4+ years without a dud season in the bunch are very rare. And I expect them to become rarer still, as shorter runs become more common in the prestige TV world. TV shows are designed to be longer than films - but if you want to tell a story without it feeling drawn out, it often won't be that much longer.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Nov 12, 2019 19:34:38 GMT -8
Outside of some safe choices in the Top 10, the order of shows in the rest of the list is like someone randomly throwing show titles at a dartboard. Did the AV Club writers all provide Top Ten lists, which were then compiled into a Top 100? To me, if you're gonna do a Top 100, they should at least have individual Top 20s.
And there's only one live-action comic-based series that I'd consider for a Top 25, and it sure as hell isn't Legends of Tomorrow. Yuck. And a routine show like Stranger Things shouldn't be anywhere higher than the 90s, if it makes it at all. The mythology of that series hasn't developed or expanded in three full seasons, and the S3 finale stinger doesn't suggest that'll change any time soon.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 13, 2019 11:03:15 GMT -8
Did the AV Club writers all provide Top Ten lists, which were then compiled into a Top 100? I think yes, based on their stated criteria for year-end album lists (everyone distributes X points among their favorite releases of the year and they tabulate the totals). The most gratuitous inclusion here is Bob's Burgers inexplicably being #8 (or, um, included on this list at all - but I'm aware that that's a such a nuclear take that I don't want to start this conversation. I've really turned on BB in the past couple years when I realized it wasn't usually funny or ever heartwarming or much of anything). A couple shows seem inflated by dint of appealing very specifically to television critics rather than a general audience (Review, CXGF). Mad Men and Breaking Bad as #2 and #1 felt kind of disappointing. And I agree with the AV Club commentariat that Louie's absence probably is AVC doing penance for praising him long after it became apparent he was a creep rather than an honest evaluation of the show's merits. One of the best essays in the Sepinwall/Zoller Seitz book is the one where they grapple with the historical importance of the Cosby Show despite its inseparability from Cosby's sex crimes - I don't think the nu-AVC could write a blurb of that quality in 2019.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 13, 2019 11:09:47 GMT -8
I don't really see the recency bias too badly, people REALLY like Russian Doll for instance, and Fleabag only in the lower reaches of the top 10 is showing a bit of restraint in that regard. Shout out to when Jeremy put Orphan Black on his "Best Shows of the Lustrum" list off the tail end of Season 2. (They have it at #70, with Killing Eve 15-ish shots above it. I suspect history shall repeat.)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 13, 2019 12:16:54 GMT -8
If you'll recall, I did have a rule on my Lustrum list that shows had to have premiered before the summer of 2013 in order to be considered. I'm probably going to make a similar rule when I do my "Best of the Decade" piece - there won't be a single 2019 premiere on it. (Sorry, Russian Doll.) I haven't looked at the list myself, because that would require the terrifying task of visiting the AV Club, but... Mad Men at #2? I'm assuming that's due to the voting process, but still... eh. The most gratuitous inclusion here is Bob's Burgers inexplicably being #8 (or, um, included on this list at all - but I'm aware that that's a such a nuclear take that I don't want to start this conversation. I've really turned on BB in the past couple years when I realized it wasn't usually funny or ever heartwarming or much of anything). I actually agree with this. A few years ago, Bob's Burgers was one of my favorite shows. Now I find it unfunny and at times pretty unwatchable. I'm not entirely sure what's changed.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 13, 2019 17:40:11 GMT -8
I have a feeling Jeremy is not going to like where I put Mad Men on my Best of the Decade list.
I’m definitely not ruling out 2019 shows, because I don’t want to disclude single season shows (or shows that were only built to be single season) just because they had the misfortune of premiering in the last year of the decade.
I think the logic dismissing short TV shows because it’s not as hard to sustain excellence for a year sounds like saying movies are inferior to TV shows because it’s harder to execute 8-100 hours than it is 2. I’m not sure I buy it.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 13, 2019 19:23:04 GMT -8
Not quite what I'm saying. Longer shows aren't inherently better, but consistency of quality over a long duration is an impressive factor for a TV series to pull off. But of course, it's almost impossible to find a show that can pull off a purely excellent run for five seasons or longer. (Even staunch fans of The Wire will admit the show lost some of its luster in its fifth season.) So it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison between long and short shows.
It's for a similar reason that I probably won't include intentional one-season miniseries (be they from 2019 or earlier) on my Best Shows of the Decade list. Although the two genres have blended somewhat in recent years, I'm still not convinced it's fair to judge miniseries by the same standard as long-form TV shows.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Nov 14, 2019 9:04:43 GMT -8
I have a feeling Jeremy is not going to like where I put Mad Men on my Best of the Decade list. I’m definitely not ruling out 2019 shows, because I don’t want to disclude single season shows (or shows that were only built to be single season) just because they had the misfortune of premiering in the last year of the decade. I think the logic dismissing short TV shows because it’s not as hard to sustain excellence for a year sounds like saying movies are inferior to TV shows because it’s harder to execute 8-100 hours than it is 2. I’m not sure I buy it. Right, but I think what Jeremy was getting at is that it is a more impressive feat to sustain quality over 100+ episodes than it is over 30, which I agree with-doesn't mean the longer show is better, but degree of difficulty is a factor that some people might take into account, I feel.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 14, 2019 20:44:51 GMT -8
The most gratuitous inclusion here is Bob's Burgers inexplicably being #8 (or, um, included on this list at all - but I'm aware that that's a such a nuclear take that I don't want to start this conversation. I've really turned on BB in the past couple years when I realized it wasn't usually funny or ever heartwarming or much of anything). I actually agree with this. A few years ago, Bob's Burgers was one of my favorite shows. Now I find it unfunny and at times pretty unwatchable. I'm not entirely sure what's changed. Part of it is because after ten damn seasons without anything remotely resembling a single emotional stake, it's become obvious just how limited the show's bag of tricks is. Tina is a horndog. Gene likes to say "penis." There will be at least three unfunny puns per episode, and probably a 90's pop culture reference that makes no sense coming from the lips of a 10-year-old. But I think the thing that stands out to me about Bob's Burgers is that the world of the show is ostensibly as complex as that of Springfield, and yet I don't think a single member of the extended Bob's Burgers community is all that memorable, despite ostensibly being better developed. How many minutes of screen time has Dr. Yap gotten relative to Dr. Nick - and which character is more quotable? I know it's unfair to compare any animated show to The Simpsons, but I think it's kind of gratuitous that BB has done so little with so much. I suspect the show is popular for much the same reason, e.g., The Great British Bake-Off is on the AV Club list - it's cynicism-free comfort food. But for me, it's pretty obvious the show is just empty calories.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 14, 2019 21:19:46 GMT -8
A key difference between the supporting casts of The Simpsons and Bob's Burgers is that the latter show relies heavily on celebrity guests to define the characters. Outside of exception likes Troy McClure or Sideshow Bob, most of the side characters on Simpsons are voiced by the main castmembers, and the show has to define them without the use of celebrity name recognition. On top of that, there are tons of Simpsons episodes focused on supporting characters instead of the main family.
Meanwhile, nearly every episode of Bob's Burgers is focused on the central family. And while the show has assembled an incredible supporting cast (Megan Mullally, Sarah Silverman, Tim Meadows, Ken Jeong, Jenny Slate, Kevin Kline, etc.), most of their characters are one-dimensional punchline delivery systems. It sometimes feels like the showrunners expect the actors to elevate the comedy more than the writing can.
I still don't mind catching the occasional rerun on Adult Swim (and the exterminator truck in every opening sequence still makes me chuckle). But the show ran out of steam years ago, and it's not funny or impressionable enough to spend time with every week.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Nov 14, 2019 21:26:04 GMT -8
It sometimes feels like the showrunners expect the actors to elevate the comedy more than the writing can. Right, this is another problem with the show, how much of the dialogue feels like dumb ad libbing. Especially with Bob and Teddy. (Actually, does anybody like Teddy? Does he add literally anything to the show's ensemble?)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 15, 2019 7:38:42 GMT -8
I think most of Teddy's lines are supposed to be funny because of the fact that he's saying them out loud, regardless of whether or not the lines themselves are funny. (Come to think of it, that problem kind of extends to the show as a whole.)
All that said, I'm... kind of interested in the upcoming movie? If only to see how they handle the jump from small screen to big. (Simpsons pulled it off really well.)
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Nov 15, 2019 16:07:23 GMT -8
I have to admit that I did not expect this level of Bob’s Burgers hate in the thread. It could have gone many directions and this is not one I was thinking.
I have no real opinion about Bobs Burgers. I’ve watched enough of it and think it’s a sweet but ultimately not that funny or consequential show.
|
|