Recently rated 
Television Breaking Bad
- Thread starter Burndogg
- Start date
Would you consider Shakespeare art? There's nothing that divides classical theatre and modern television but time and technology.
By the most populist definition of art, you'd have to at least give cinematography it's due.
Agreed.
Of course this is art. It's better written than anything old Shakey put together just not a couple hundred years old yet.
That's not quite true. Neither the dialogue nor the plot are as sophisticated as what Shakespeare was able to produce. That doesn't make the artistic merit any less in Breaking Bad of course, which is close to or as good as almost anything put on film thus far. I would stop short of comparing the scope, originality and creativity with work such as Ceylan's 'Uzak', Morumo Oshii's 'Ghost in the Shell' or von Trier's 'Antichrist' (I could go on, of course), whose beauty and vision can perhaps only translate in movie form. Nevertheless, the cinematography witnessed in Breaking Bad is virtually unparalleled, and in my (fairly limited) experience unmatched in its complexity, for its style.
I thought he was talking about Shakin Stevens.
This is a much more complex webbed plot than any of the Shakespeare plays I remember reading. Just because something is old and was hugely original and ground breaking for it's time doesn't mean it's still better than modern great work. If someone created something with the plotline equivalent of Shakespeare's work today it would probably not be considered as sophisticated as something like Breaking Bad.
This would make a good debate piece though. Breaking Bad > The Merchant of Venice.
Every character flaw explored in Breaking Bad has been analysed, exposed and understood in greater detail by Shakespeare. However, the fact that hubris, and indeed the downfall of man, plays such a didactical and integral role in both mediums is certainly an interesting parallel.
How the feck did this thread get here?
What you have to remember though is that we are not just seeing the bare story. We are getting the story via excellent production, fantastic direction and incredible acting. If you were going to go down the bizarre route of comparing Breaking Bad as a story to any of Shakespeare's work then you'd have to first have breaking bad put down to a written medium before you could directly compare them. How good a novel would Breaking Bad make? For me while it's a brilliant story, it's everything that is brought together that makes it so good.
Richard III held it's own as a play for hundreds of years before Laurence Olivier put in his performance on screen. How well would Breaking Bad have been received if it had Matthew Broderick got the role over Cranston?
Wouldn't it be easier to compare Shakespeare's works how they were meant to be seen rather than on page?
What you have to remember though is that we are not just seeing the bare story. We are getting the story via excellent production, fantastic direction and incredible acting. If you were going to go down the bizarre route of comparing Breaking Bad as a story to any of Shakespeare's work then you'd have to first have breaking bad put down to a written medium before you could directly compare them. How good a novel would Breaking Bad make? For me while it's a brilliant story, it's everything that is brought together that makes it so good.
Richard III held it's own as a play for hundreds of years before Laurence Olivier put in his performance on screen. How well would Breaking Bad have been received if it had Matthew Broderick got the role over Cranston?
I disagree. It's perfectly fair to compare different artistic mediums. I don't think that is a particularly contentious opinion either. The technology involved in the realisation of a vision doesn't change the vision itself, or the emotions involved for that matter. They are both tools to explore themes, and it is fascinating, if not conclusive either way, to debate the success with which they do that.
As Mockney said,
It's a fantastic show but seriously, let's not go overboard. Some people are really getting carried away here.
I bet many of those drooling right now will be disappointed next Sunday. They won't be able to please everyone with the ending, that's just impossible. If they can leave the vast majority satisfied with the ending it'll be the best Tv-show ever in my book.
I bet many of those drooling right now will be disappointed next Sunday. They won't be able to please everyone with the ending, that's just impossible. If they can leave the vast majority satisfied with the ending it'll be the best Tv-show ever in my book.
You're missing my main point though:
We've experienced Gilligan's masterpeice once and in one way, by one set of actors. You can't really compare that to any of Shakespeare's work which has been studied and interpreted in so many ways by so many actors, directors and scholars.
Sorry for missing your point, although I would say Shakespeare should always be interpreted in literary form.
That is like saying "We should judge Breaking Bad only by reading the Script and not by the TV Series itself", considering he was a Playwright.
The best finale I have ever watched is Spartacus, each season finale was fantastic but the last episode of the entire show was something else. I hope that Breaking Bad will be on a similar level to me.
I've really got the feeling it can only disappoint, don't know why.
Breaking bad comparable to Shakespeare? Wtf?
What's so great bout that sharespear lad anyway? Overrated IMO #breakingbadruleZ
It was cold, but it didn't have the sheer menace of Gus cutting Victor's throat. Aaron Paul's reaction was brilliant acting though.
Breaking Bad > Mona Lisa and Vince Gilligan > Leonardo da Vinci.
By the way Vince Gilligan confirmed that Gretchen and Elliot were simply used as a catalyst for Walt to go back to New Mexico (after a suggestion from a dying fan), rather than them being his target for revenge like some were suggesting.
http://www.thewrap.com/how-breaking...h-come-true-and-scored-a-brilliant-cameo-too/
http://www.thewrap.com/how-breaking...h-come-true-and-scored-a-brilliant-cameo-too/
ffs
Look at that. A show that takes suggestions from dying fans. Now THAT is some cutting edge, pioneering shit. Is there no end to the brilliance?
I had a vision that Flynn would take over the meth business and basically become the new Heisenberg on a spin off show.
Please tell me you're joking
The Shakespeare comparison came about as someone said that Breaking bad couldn't be considered art but was entertainment. I'm saying that if old literature and the works of playwrights like Shakey can be considered art then surely something like BB can't be excluded just because it's medium is television.
Damien Hirst is too weird to be like Eastenders.
No Eastenders is like a picture drawn by a three year old Flynn. Both art but not really worthy of putting in a galleria.
Fair.
I am being facetious but I do agree with the principle that TV / film can be art. As can music. Most people would have no problem considering Mozart to be a form of art, but if that is the case then so is techno, it is just a matter of taste. (This is a conversation I have had before in the Electronic thread.)
So yes, Breaking Bad is art, but as Hirst has shown us, so is everything.
I am art. Actually no, that's another poster.
I'm pretty sure some dude displayed scat as art in London. When it gets to that point it's become pretty hard to put a firm definition on it.
What about things that were never intended to be art?
I dont think the scat needs to be firm, no. Diarrhea works just as well.
Also art. Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Do we need a beholder? If a tree falls in the forest and there was no one there to see it. Could it be considered art?
Theatre and TV (or films) are completely comparable. However BB is not better than Shakespeare.
If Shakespeare wrote a play that was 62 hours long, then perhaps we could compare the merits of his storytelling with Gilligans.
He didn't though. He did write shit loads though, and on his own, without a team of writers.
I can't believe I'm actually having to say this.
If Shakespeare wrote a play that was 62 hours long, then perhaps we could compare the merits of his storytelling with Gilligans.
He didn't though. He did write shit loads though, and on his own, without a team of writers.
I can't believe I'm actually having to say this.
That's comparing artists. Not comparing art.