|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 10, 2017 17:13:48 GMT -8
Well, it's cold outside, there's snow on the walk, and Hallmark has dropped its entire programming schedule in exchange for some annoying movies. That means it's December, and that means it's time to once again reflect on the best TV of the year!
I'm putting together my list now, and will probably post it near the end of the month. Until then, what were some shows that stood out to you guys this year? Anything worth a last-minute binge?
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Dec 11, 2017 12:05:45 GMT -8
I figured Legion having come out in February would hurt its chances on these Top 10 lists, but I think I've noticed it on three or four lists on Metacritic, putting it just outside the Top 20 thus far. Bojack's not placing as high as previous years, either. Crazy Ex-Gilfriend's getting some love, and your guys' fave, The Good Place, has certainly been well-received (I might give it another look once the complete second season is on Netflix).
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Dec 11, 2017 13:47:25 GMT -8
There really was not a lot of new TV I watched this year... Attack on Titan season 2 was probably the standout from the few new seasons I watched. Though that was partly because I'd been waiting three years for it.
Unfortunate Events shows a lot of promise, I'm really looking forward to the next season which is set to adapt the better books in the series.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 11, 2017 14:14:22 GMT -8
I expect that Big Little Lies is going to top this year's Uproxx poll - it's got the perfect balance of prestige and popularity to win the year. (The Leftovers will also probably rank pretty high, but it's never been as widely-watched - even among critics - as its most vocal supporters wish it was.)
J.C., The Good Place is really good, but it won't rank as my #1 this year. Ditto Bojack, which was consistently great but not up to par with last year.
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Dec 11, 2017 18:27:36 GMT -8
J.C., The Good Place is really good, but it won't rank as my #1 this year. Ditto Bojack, which was consistently great but not up to par with last year. Agreed- The Good Place is a terrific sitcom, but not MIND-BLOWINGLY AMAZING!!!!! or anything like that. On another note, your #1 is totally gonna be Halt and Catch Fire.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 11, 2017 18:42:14 GMT -8
I think my #1 show will actually be a series that wasn't even on my 2016 list. But that's all I'm saying for now.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 14, 2017 12:30:39 GMT -8
The Uproxx Critics' Poll is up! Their Top 10 shows of the year: 1. The Leftovers2. The Handmaid's Tale
3. Big Little Lies4. Better Things5. Twin Peaks: The Return6. The Good Place7. Halt and Catch Fire8. Insecure9. Game of Thrones10. Better Call SaulLooks like I underestimated the power of The Leftovers. I may give the third season a last-minute catch-up before the year is done.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 18, 2017 16:32:33 GMT -8
I had a gander at the December Sight & Sound today to discover their top films list featured Twin Peaks as their #2. I know Peaks is typically of more interest to cinephiles than TV audiences, but c'mon.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 18, 2017 20:02:02 GMT -8
Twin Peaks seems to be at the center of a major "Is it a film or a TV show?" debate this year. Critics in the NY Times actually put it on both the "Best Shows" and "Best Films" list.
The argument feels pretty nonsensical to me, since it's quite clearly a TV series. The criteria that folks use to suggest otherwise can be debunked easily:
1. "It's all directed by a famous film director!" So was The Knick, and I didn't see that series popping up on any "Best Films of 2014/15" lists. 2. "It's too cinematic to be a TV series!" So are Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Fargo, and at least a dozen other shows that are among the most critically acclaimed of the decade. TV has been "cinematic" since at least the days of St. Elsewhere. Get used to it. 3. "It's not really a show, it's an 18-hour movie!" ...Don't even get me started.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Dec 18, 2017 21:09:45 GMT -8
Twin Peaks seems to be at the center of a major "Is it a film or a TV show?" debate this year. Critics in the NY Times actually put it on both the "Best Shows" and "Best Films" list. The argument feels pretty nonsensical to me, since it's quite clearly a TV series. The criteria that folks use to suggest otherwise can be debunked easily: 1. "It's all directed by a famous film director!" So was The Knick, and I didn't see that series popping up on any "Best Films of 2014/15" lists. 2. "It's too cinematic to be a TV series!" So are Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Fargo, and at least a dozen other shows that are among the most critically acclaimed of the decade. TV has been "cinematic" since at least the days of St. Elsewhere. Get used to it. 3. "It's not really a show, it's an 18-hour movie!" ...Don't even get me started. Have we reached the point where the distinction between film and television is purely a highbrow/lowbrow semantical thing, like how "graphic novel" and "comic book" are ostensibly different but the former implies prestige and the latter implies crappiness?
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Dec 19, 2017 5:16:24 GMT -8
Have we reached the point where the distinction between film and television is purely a highbrow/lowbrow semantical thing, like how "graphic novel" and "comic book" are ostensibly different but the former implies prestige and the latter implies crappiness? I thought we started there and got out of it over a decade ago.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Dec 19, 2017 10:49:24 GMT -8
Have we reached the point where the distinction between film and television is purely a highbrow/lowbrow semantical thing, like how "graphic novel" and "comic book" are ostensibly different but the former implies prestige and the latter implies crappiness? Ha, yeah. And the term comics is probably more stigmatised as juvenile over here than in the States, though to be fair the output ratio is certainly more heavily skewed towards the younger demographic.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Dec 19, 2017 11:36:09 GMT -8
Have we reached the point where the distinction between film and television is purely a highbrow/lowbrow semantical thing, like how "graphic novel" and "comic book" are ostensibly different but the former implies prestige and the latter implies crappiness? I thought we started there and got out of it over a decade ago. I'm just baffled because we already have a highbrow/lowbrow semantical thing where something like Horace and Pete is classified as a television show instead of a web series, solely on the grounds that Louis C.K. is (er, was) a big name star.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 19, 2017 12:51:09 GMT -8
This is why set definitions are important. I think of the general definition of a graphic novel as "a super-sized comic book," but that definition has been stretched and repurposed beyond all reason over the years. And that's unfortunate, because a 22-page comic book can still tell a gripping story all on its own. (The "Pizza Dog" issue of Hawkeye, to cite just one example, is one of the best single-issue comic book stories of the decade, yet I've never heard anyone refer to it as a graphic anything.)
TV is even trickier, especially given the changes the medium has made in recent years. Last year, I put Horace and Pete on my "Best TV Shows" list, but not OJ: Made in America. I decided that H&P could make the cut because, in addition to featuring a star-studded cast (CK, Steve Buscemi, Alan Alda, Edie Falco, and so forth), it convincingly felt like something that could air on cable TV. And despite the serialization, it sure as heck wasn't a movie.
OJ: Made in America was a tougher call, since it had aired over five nights on ESPN, but it had also been screened in theaters, and was also a frontrunner in the Oscar race. I think what ultimately led me to leave it out was that I already had one OJ Simpson show in my Top 10. (Had I put it in, I expect Made in America would have cracked the Top 5.)
Ultimately, there are some productions where you need to bend the rules in order to fit the mold. I just don't think Twin Peaks is one of them. (And besides, we already had a Twin Peaks film.)
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Dec 19, 2017 13:59:29 GMT -8
I'm just baffled because we already have a highbrow/lowbrow semantical thing where something like Horace and Pete is classified as a television show instead of a web series, solely on the grounds that Louis C.K. is (er, was) a big name star. Whether it makes sense or not, the dividing line between a web series and a TV series seems to be how "indie" it is. No one calls a Netflix original a "web series," but Video Game Highschool always is.
|
|