TV Streaming series to talk about.

Watch The Sopranos. I wouldn’t binge it, I’d pace it to stretch out leisurely over months. Watch a couple or few episodes a week and savor it.

That’s how I watched Mad Men after it had left the air. It took me probably a couple years to watch it and was incredibly rewarding to experience it that way. It allows the characters and storylines to percolate and grow way way more so than bingeing.

That’s good advice. I can’t help but think I’d enjoy Sopranos (and a few other shows) even more, had I watched them that way

Mad Men is a show I never got to and seems like a great candidate for that type of viewing
 
What stands out in the acting, writing, and directing?

I'm not as knowledgeable as many on this thread. For me, I can't always discern how each contribution to the finished product. I do recognize which shows are more compelling and have deeper stories, at least to me.
This seems to be about The Wire, and I'll write about that.

The Wire is from my perspective quite a bit different from the other top TV series that have emerged in this kind of "New Renaissance" period of high quality television (somewhat begins with Oz, but the hydrogen bomb explosion of quality was The Sopranos). What I think is different about The Wire is related both to why it's so uniquely great, and then also why I don't think it's as fully successful as a narrative work--and that last aspect is why I put it a few notches below the best ever made for the medium.

What made The Wire brilliant and so different is it examined the nightmare various cultural and government forces have created in American big cities, as an outgrowth of institutionalized racism over countless decades, doing this in a form that looked like a journalistic expose. This means while there were ongoing characters, their story arcs were not the point, and various people came and went in the whole scheme of the real focus. Even though there are prominent, very dynamic characters, like Omar for example, they are not the reason for the show. The show examines the devastation of the societal stratigraphy that is in place and never really dealt with by policing and politics. What the greatest art often does is show us something we have not seen, or fully understood, about our world, and that's the highest quality of this series.

This kind of free floating focus of characters and transient minor stories is why the show is generally acknowledged as having some weaker seasons and a meandering narrative focus, even while the spotlight it shines on the social engines that produce and fail to deal with inner city crime feel like they are on the level of the greatest video documentary journalism. I've been through the series three times over the years and the last time I felt it did not hold up as well as a great contiguous story, of following characters, while all the details (as you mentioned, acting, writing, direction) are superb.
 
That’s good advice. I can’t help but think I’d enjoy Sopranos (and a few other shows) even more, had I watched them that way

Mad Men is a show I never got to and seems like a great candidate for that type of viewing
I say this as a guilty sometimes binger, but the ability we now have to watch episode after episode of a great series--is a bad thing. With the best ones it is something like drinking from a firehose. The best series always need some time and contemplation about what you saw in each episode, what it really meant, and your own cognitive functioning of pondering what will happen. Often a comparison between what you think should happen versus what you want, and what will happen if the show is truthful and inventive.

I personally had to "catch up" with the first season of Breaking Bad, but then years later in watching it all again, I saw what I had not appreciated in all the details of that first season, when rushing through episodes.
 
This seems to be about The Wire, and I'll write about that.

The Wire is from my perspective quite a bit different from the other top TV series that have emerged in this kind of "New Renaissance" period of high quality television (somewhat begins with Oz, but the hydrogen bomb explosion of quality was The Sopranos). What I think is different about The Wire is related both to why it's so uniquely great, and then also why I don't think it's as fully successful as a narrative work--and that last aspect is why I put it a few notches below the best ever made for the medium.

What made The Wire brilliant and so different is it examined the nightmare various cultural and government forces have created in American big cities, as an outgrowth of institutionalized racism over countless decades, doing this in a form that looked like a journalistic expose. This means while there were ongoing characters, their story arcs were not the point, and various people came and went in the whole scheme of the real focus. Even though there are prominent, very dynamic characters, like Omar for example, they are not the reason for the show. The show examines the devastation of the societal stratigraphy that is in place and never really dealt with by policing and politics. What the greatest art often does is show us something we have not seen, or fully understood, about our world, and that's the highest quality of this series.

This kind of free floating focus of characters and transient minor stories is why the show is generally acknowledged as having some weaker seasons and a meandering narrative focus, even while the spotlight it shines on the social engines that produce and fail to deal with inner city crime feel like they are on the level of the greatest video documentary journalism. I've been through the series three times over the years and the last time I felt it did not hold up as well as a great contiguous story, of following characters, while all the details (as you mentioned, acting, writing, direction) are superb.
One thing about The Wire is that it had some iffy acting here and there… largely due to the frequent use of non-actors and regular Baltimore residents. It didn’t drag on the show too much (and even added to the grit), but for me it’s the kind of thing that keeps it off the very top shelf of “prestige drama” shows, or whatever you want to call them. Not quite as crisp as some of the others.
 
I appreciate all of the input.

I've been reading a little, but I believe that you guys have years of experience in dissecting movies and shows.

I'm just working on how to identify the components. How do I know that something came more from the script, the actor, or the direction. I've read about so many great actors that in many instances ad-libbed their lines.

Plus there have been so many gains in overall movie making in the last few decades, sometimes you watch an old movie and even though it's good you can sort of see the strings holding the filming together, so to say...
 
I appreciate all of the input.

I've been reading a little, but I believe that you guys have years of experience in dissecting movies and shows.

I'm just working on how to identify the components. How do I know that something came more from the script, the actor, or the direction. I've read about so many great actors that in many instances ad-libbed their lines.

Plus there have been so many gains in overall movie making in the last few decades, sometimes you watch an old movie and even though it's good you can sort of see the strings holding the filming together, so to say...
Check out the trivia section on IMDb for a TV show or film that interests you. That's how I've learned most of the behind the scenes information. That, and I enjoy listening to director or actor commentary tracks on DVDs, but I know that's not for everybody.
 
Check out the trivia section on IMDb for a TV show or film that interests you. That's how I've learned most of the behind the scenes information. That, and I enjoy listening to director or actor commentary tracks on DVDs, but I know that's not for everybody.
I've found some really good things on youtube but they seem to mostly point out easter eggs and some plot lines.
 
Back
Top