I liked few of the episodes, I won't lie. But generally it was a letdown.
Television Anyone recommend me any TV Shows?
- Thread starter Red Pavan
- Start date
Trailer Park Boys
Thanks guys, I'll be acquiring It's always sunny as well as The thick of it (been wanting to watch that one for ages, had forgotten!).
Timothy Olyphant plays the same character in everything which sort of takes something away from how good his "acting" is, I think. It always seems to me that knows how to imitate a character, some strong, silent type who goes around killing bad guys...but is that really acting?
What is it you would say was "deep" in Boardwalk Empire that hasn't been there in Mad Men?
Started watching The thick of it, seen a couple of episodes now, it's great. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone that enjoyed In the loop (obviously) or that like political satire, it's very witty and there have been a few good laughs already. Malcolm Tucker is wonderful, I'd like to have my very own version of him I'd take around and unleash on people I don't like.
I downloaded this a few months ago after seeing your post, and only just around to watching it. Thanks for the recommendation.
It's a very powerful, if somewhat melodramatic miniseries. It's fair to say I've never seen German WW2 army personnel charecterised in such a human way before. Each time time I was reminded of which side they were fighting for, I got jolted back to reality, which only served to give the series more punch. I think there's a bit of criticism online about how the Germans were portrayed too sympathetically, but the whole point was to present ordinary people dropped into extraordinary circumstances.
It's only 4.5 hours long all told, so well worth the time imo.
Putting aside the word 'deep' (as I could see that devolving into a long, pointless discussion about what it means), I would say the relationships portrayed in Boardwalk Empire (Nucky and Jimmy, Nicky and Eli, Al Capone and his son, etc) are more convincing/emotionally moving than anything I've seen in Mad Men (again, I've only got about 1.5 seasons into Mad Men, so if there's a seismic emotional event that awaits me, then I'll reserve the right to change my mind.)
As for Olyphant, I kind of agree with you, especially as I'm currently watching Deadwood (not that impressed by this show, by the way.) I think he's very wooden in Deadwood, but in Justified, I think he hits all the right notes (much like Hamm does portraying Don Draper.)
Very true about Olyphant in Deadwood. His character stands out a mile on that show - just a fairly shallow and cliche 'serious, cool guy' type.
Deep television....The Sopranos, obviously. The characters in that show are so complex and thought provoking - aside from Tony Soprano, you've got Carmela, Paulie, Christopher and probably about a dozen other characters who are so good that they almost deserve a show of their own. I watch that program and laugh at the extent of the imagination it must've taken to build these characters - none of them are cliche in the slightest and all of them develop uniquely as the show unfolds. They just keep unravelling until you hit season 3/4, at which point you are left completely absorbed in the depth of character these actors are managing to pull off. I don't know how the hell these people become so engrossed in their roles without losing their actual personality altogether.
I love Breaking Bad but the development for even Walter White is fairly orthodox and standard by comparison. That's not to say it isn't a work of art or fantastically done, but the development curves of, for example, Tony, Carmela and Christopher, meander all over the place. It's not even up and down, never mind good to evil; you can see every scene in these characters and how their experiences shape them. There's no other show that gives such a wonderful insight into the complexity of the human being, and that's not really taking into account the obvious onus on Western psychology throughout either. It's more the constantly subtle impact that every scene has on the characters, and the fact that the actors are so good so as to be able to pull off this continuous, gradual evolution with every passing episode.
That, to me, is 'deep'. There is so much else about the program I would class as that (for example, the feelings certain scenes can evoke without any need for music or added drama), but it's these characters in conjunction with the absurdity and hypocrisy of that culture that makes me appreciate it at a far deeper level than any other program.
Deep television....The Sopranos, obviously. The characters in that show are so complex and thought provoking - aside from Tony Soprano, you've got Carmela, Paulie, Christopher and probably about a dozen other characters who are so good that they almost deserve a show of their own. I watch that program and laugh at the extent of the imagination it must've taken to build these characters - none of them are cliche in the slightest and all of them develop uniquely as the show unfolds. They just keep unravelling until you hit season 3/4, at which point you are left completely absorbed in the depth of character these actors are managing to pull off. I don't know how the hell these people become so engrossed in their roles without losing their actual personality altogether.
I love Breaking Bad but the development for even Walter White is fairly orthodox and standard by comparison. That's not to say it isn't a work of art or fantastically done, but the development curves of, for example, Tony, Carmela and Christopher, meander all over the place. It's not even up and down, never mind good to evil; you can see every scene in these characters and how their experiences shape them. There's no other show that gives such a wonderful insight into the complexity of the human being, and that's not really taking into account the obvious onus on Western psychology throughout either. It's more the constantly subtle impact that every scene has on the characters, and the fact that the actors are so good so as to be able to pull off this continuous, gradual evolution with every passing episode.
That, to me, is 'deep'. There is so much else about the program I would class as that (for example, the feelings certain scenes can evoke without any need for music or added drama), but it's these characters in conjunction with the absurdity and hypocrisy of that culture that makes me appreciate it at a far deeper level than any other program.
The Wire is 'deep' in its way. Oz is definitely 'deep', despite the show's flaws, it's a study of human nature. As for Breaking Bad, I don't see how anything you say about Sopranos doesn't apply to at least Walt (and to a certain extent Jesse), it's a beautiful portrayal of a man's descent to hell, how his experiences and weaknesses shape him, how complex a human being can be...
You might like the Irish equivalent (kinda) - "The Hardy Bucks"
Didn't mean to criticise the development of Walter White or really undermine it at all. It's wonderfully done and you wonder at the end of the show just how on earth it got to that point. Cranston is undoubtedly amazing at acting.
I think the character evolution in The Sopranos is sometimes (like I say, I'm thinking Tony, Christopher and Carmela) more impressive though in that the characters' experiences are nothing like as extreme as that of Walter White's, yet the difference in 'intention' and demeanour is so clear as the show progresses. It's like they're all so immersed in their role that every single scene leaves its mark on their personality and character. That depth and complexity of intention is what makes this show stand out for me - you look at Tony Soprano in his chair at Melfi's and you can almost see almost see the million thoughts that are going through his head. With Walter White it is more in his speech and general behaviour, in my opinion. He is still thoroughly absorbed in that character but I think those three mentioned up there (particularly Tony and Carmela) have to pull off a more complex array of emotion and thought. Their characters' personalities wind all over the place but within much tighter margins than those of most other shows.
That's just my opinion, and I must admit it is a difficult thing to explain! That last line regarding the 'tighter margins' is the best way I can think of to describe it; the fact that such an incredible amount of development happens even though there is very little room for anything too prominent or overt. By comparison, Walter White's life is completely turned on its head in the space of a year and it is so much clearer as to how to progress his character. That's what I mean when I say 'orthodox'; I don't mean it is mundane or anything other than sheer brilliance.
I think the character evolution in The Sopranos is sometimes (like I say, I'm thinking Tony, Christopher and Carmela) more impressive though in that the characters' experiences are nothing like as extreme as that of Walter White's, yet the difference in 'intention' and demeanour is so clear as the show progresses. It's like they're all so immersed in their role that every single scene leaves its mark on their personality and character. That depth and complexity of intention is what makes this show stand out for me - you look at Tony Soprano in his chair at Melfi's and you can almost see almost see the million thoughts that are going through his head. With Walter White it is more in his speech and general behaviour, in my opinion. He is still thoroughly absorbed in that character but I think those three mentioned up there (particularly Tony and Carmela) have to pull off a more complex array of emotion and thought. Their characters' personalities wind all over the place but within much tighter margins than those of most other shows.
That's just my opinion, and I must admit it is a difficult thing to explain! That last line regarding the 'tighter margins' is the best way I can think of to describe it; the fact that such an incredible amount of development happens even though there is very little room for anything too prominent or overt. By comparison, Walter White's life is completely turned on its head in the space of a year and it is so much clearer as to how to progress his character. That's what I mean when I say 'orthodox'; I don't mean it is mundane or anything other than sheer brilliance.
Guys try to remember this is a thread to recommend TV shows so it shouldn't really follow the standard spoiler policy. Going into such depth about characters in here isn't very fair to those who haven't watches the shows.
There's definitely a few seismic emotional events in season five alone. Doubt you'll make it that far though!
Seriously?
Like I say, it's a difficult thing to explain and a much easier thing to see. Far easier to show with someone like Tony Soprano, obviously:
The difference in his character in those two scenes is amazing, although it's not just the difference in character there but the complexity of 'intention' like I say. You can see it in the demeanour of characters and how they change as the show progresses - it's constantly happening at such a subtle and profound level. Obviously there are some events that act as triggers - the death of Pussy Bumpansiero, Furio moving back to Italy, Christopher being made, etc... but it's how these characters evolve in conjunction with the gritty realism of the setting that I'm getting at. That's what makes it so brilliant for me, because the realism of the development has to acutely map the extensive realism of the setting. It's the only show I've seen that this happens in so much across the board with so many of the characters.
This all being said, it wouldn't make sense for Breaking Bad to be like this; you'd lose the emphasis on the brilliance of the plot itself and on the heights that some parts of it reach. It's a different style altogether and the program would be a mish-mash in terms of what it was trying to achieve if they tried to replicate that sort of reality. Another thing; when I say that about Walter White and it being clearer about how to develop his character, I don't mean it was a simple process to turn him into an egotistical, amoral druglord either. It's just that the course is more defined with him in my opinion, with the checkpoints standing out more and providing more obvious markers for development.
I can appreciate that people would find it difficult to understand anyone that would apply this to Carmela Soprano and Christopher Moltisanti; it's only something I noticed this time round when I already knew the characters and didn't have to pay attention to the myriads of business deals, characters dipping in and out, etc... Again though, it's how elaborate their demeanour and mannerisms are. It is probably quite confusing up there when I say "a more complex array of thought and emotion", but what I mean by that is that they have to work with finer subtleties in setting and change accordingly. I should've said 'forms' instead of 'array'.
I'm sort of repeating myself but I think the point is clear enough. It ultimately depends on what you appreciate in an acting performance and is a thing of preference. Just to stress once more though, none of this is saying anything against the talent of Cranston himself. The acting in The Sopranos is incredible, but the style of the show allows that cast to fully show off how good they all are. The fact that Cranston stands out so much for his character development in such a completely different type of show just shows you what an unbelievable actor he actually is.
The difference in his character in those two scenes is amazing, although it's not just the difference in character there but the complexity of 'intention' like I say. You can see it in the demeanour of characters and how they change as the show progresses - it's constantly happening at such a subtle and profound level. Obviously there are some events that act as triggers - the death of Pussy Bumpansiero, Furio moving back to Italy, Christopher being made, etc... but it's how these characters evolve in conjunction with the gritty realism of the setting that I'm getting at. That's what makes it so brilliant for me, because the realism of the development has to acutely map the extensive realism of the setting. It's the only show I've seen that this happens in so much across the board with so many of the characters.
This all being said, it wouldn't make sense for Breaking Bad to be like this; you'd lose the emphasis on the brilliance of the plot itself and on the heights that some parts of it reach. It's a different style altogether and the program would be a mish-mash in terms of what it was trying to achieve if they tried to replicate that sort of reality. Another thing; when I say that about Walter White and it being clearer about how to develop his character, I don't mean it was a simple process to turn him into an egotistical, amoral druglord either. It's just that the course is more defined with him in my opinion, with the checkpoints standing out more and providing more obvious markers for development.
I can appreciate that people would find it difficult to understand anyone that would apply this to Carmela Soprano and Christopher Moltisanti; it's only something I noticed this time round when I already knew the characters and didn't have to pay attention to the myriads of business deals, characters dipping in and out, etc... Again though, it's how elaborate their demeanour and mannerisms are. It is probably quite confusing up there when I say "a more complex array of thought and emotion", but what I mean by that is that they have to work with finer subtleties in setting and change accordingly. I should've said 'forms' instead of 'array'.
I'm sort of repeating myself but I think the point is clear enough. It ultimately depends on what you appreciate in an acting performance and is a thing of preference. Just to stress once more though, none of this is saying anything against the talent of Cranston himself. The acting in The Sopranos is incredible, but the style of the show allows that cast to fully show off how good they all are. The fact that Cranston stands out so much for his character development in such a completely different type of show just shows you what an unbelievable actor he actually is.
feck off.
I think it's an easy enough point to understand even if you don't necessarily agree or prefer the style of acting. The Wire is the only show I've seen with the sort of attention to detail that rivals what I'm referring to, but there is so much emphasis on the development of the setting with that show that it would be basically impossible to match The Sopranos for characters. They're all different shows with different purposes and strengths so this is natural.
Must stress that this is something 'I' find to be more impressive, and I wouldn't want to come off as saying that it is more impressive. For me, the most impressive acting is when a person becomes so absorbed in their role that they can pull off even the slightest of character developments in response to negligible changes in setting. Further, it's about a person's ability to replicate a believable character in a realistic setting with no added drama, whilst being gifted enough to pull off the intricacies that come with that. I think The Sopranos is maybe the only show that properly allows for that, but it is again a matter of preference when discussing whether or not this is a better form of acting than other examples. I can definitely understand the view of those that would think Cranston's ability to play such an ambitious and difficult role in a plot so comparatively extravagant is more impressive. You'd have to be an absolute genius to pull that off.
Edit: That quoted post up there was badly phrased in a few ways now that I read it and I've not really put across what I was trying to say. Another better way of explaining it is to say there is an incredible 'quality' of development instead of amount. The development is clear, but I think what makes it so special is more the fact that these characters are evolving from a deeper foundation than those of other shows, with shifts in character being extremely impressive due to the original complexity of the person that they're acting out in the first place.
Easy, definitely not weird way of looking at it:
Character development in most shows:
A > B, if that.
Walter White:
ABC > BCD > CDE > etc... until you're left with something completely different (DEF...obviously, although Walter White is in full on Heisenberg mode now and probably residing at around FGH).
Soprano's characters development:
ABCDEF > ABCDEFG > BCDEFGH
I'm an ABCDEF > ABCDEFG (etc) man, personally.
I think I need a sleep...
I think it's an easy enough point to understand even if you don't necessarily agree or prefer the style of acting. The Wire is the only show I've seen with the sort of attention to detail that rivals what I'm referring to, but there is so much emphasis on the development of the setting with that show that it would be basically impossible to match The Sopranos for characters. They're all different shows with different purposes and strengths so this is natural.
Must stress that this is something 'I' find to be more impressive, and I wouldn't want to come off as saying that it is more impressive. For me, the most impressive acting is when a person becomes so absorbed in their role that they can pull off even the slightest of character developments in response to negligible changes in setting. Further, it's about a person's ability to replicate a believable character in a realistic setting with no added drama, whilst being gifted enough to pull off the intricacies that come with that. I think The Sopranos is maybe the only show that properly allows for that, but it is again a matter of preference when discussing whether or not this is a better form of acting than other examples. I can definitely understand the view of those that would think Cranston's ability to play such an ambitious and difficult role in a plot so comparatively extravagant is more impressive. You'd have to be an absolute genius to pull that off.
Edit: That quoted post up there was badly phrased in a few ways now that I read it and I've not really put across what I was trying to say. Another better way of explaining it is to say there is an incredible 'quality' of development instead of amount. The development is clear, but I think what makes it so special is more the fact that these characters are evolving from a deeper foundation than those of other shows, with shifts in character being extremely impressive due to the original complexity of the person that they're acting out in the first place.
Easy, definitely not weird way of looking at it:
Character development in most shows:
A > B, if that.
Walter White:
ABC > BCD > CDE > etc... until you're left with something completely different (DEF...obviously, although Walter White is in full on Heisenberg mode now and probably residing at around FGH).
Soprano's characters development:
ABCDEF > ABCDEFG > BCDEFGH
I'm an ABCDEF > ABCDEFG (etc) man, personally.
I think I need a sleep...
Just wanted to thank Nilsson for recommending The Thick of It, brilliant show, worth a watch for the dialogue alone in the first three seasons, but season 4 brings it up a notch as far as character development goes (well at least for Malcolm Tucker) and its take on modern-day policy. The 6th episode of season 4 is absolutely brilliant.
T'was a pleasure. I just love putting on a random episode now and then, just tremendously rewatchable.
Has anyone watched that Canadian show, Orphan Black? A friend of mine has been raving about it to me.
Yeah I can see that, just half an hour of brilliant one liners and very solid acting. Malcolm Tucker is definitely up there with the best TV characters there are. Are they planning on making a fifth season?
I'm gonna start "It's always sunny in Philadelphia" today as well!
It felt like they pretty much wrapped it all up in the end, another special or a sequel to In The Loop would be really nice though.
Does Veep have the Caf's seal of approval?
Apparently it's a HBO show with no boobies, I mean, that's just pointless.
That exists?
Yeah, The Newsroom has none either. HBO standards are slipping.
I guess the HBO CEO of Tits took the month off.
He's earned a holiday. It's a stressful job.
The first season was watchable enough but I haven't rushed to acquire the second season.
Which begs the question, what HBO show has the best nudity?
GoT is certainly up there, The Wire? Nah, probably it's main failing point.
I'll go with Hung. Grade A tits and fanny right there.
GoT is certainly up there, The Wire? Nah, probably it's main failing point.
I'll go with Hung. Grade A tits and fanny right there.
I really, really want this to be good....
But deep down, you just know it's going to be shit, don't you duffer?
Looks like Fringe meets superheroes with the blandness of an ABC show, I won't be expecting anything good so I can only be pleasantly surprised.
That doesnt look good at all.
I know the first two season of the Killing weren't liked on these boards because the story dragged on for too long about who really killed the little girl but the third season is really worth it
Just watched the trailer for Homeland season 3 and it looks pretty decent. Love this time of year when all the best shows start again!
hopefully its more like season 1
Zen, Brophs, does It's always sunny get noticeably better as it goes on? I'm towards the end of season 1, and even though I'm reasonably enjoying it, I don't find it hilarious by any stretch of the imagination, and coming off Arrested Development and The Thick of It I have to say I'm a bit letdown. However, sitcoms often get much better as they go on, the first season being used especially to establish the characters, is that the case with this one also?
I've never been able to get into 'It's always Sunny'. It's all right but nothing special. Arrested Development is on another level as far as comedies go
I think it gets better in the next few seasons RIP.