I'll type up a response in a bit.

This article has been referenced before, and it's pretty good. You should probably note, though, that it basically says/implies that Breaking Bad is a better TV show than The Wire or anything else, but that to him The Wire's scope & social commentary still make it #1.

Which is a position that some others in here seem to be taking as well. They seem to be saying that because of the subject matter and social commentary, The Wire deserves to be GOAT, regardless of its other attributes as a television show.

If it had poorer acting, directing, writing, etc, it would be easy to see the flaw in the above thinking. But because TW is great, and other factors are close, that makes it possible for people to overlook those things and just say gritty urban problems = #1 TV show, even when another show clearly beats it at television things.

Frankly, we'll never be able to definitively say what the Greatest TV Drama of All Time is, as the historical record only goes back a few thousand years.

Back on topic, I really go most of these shows, including West Wing, Friday Night Lights, and Deadwood, over BB. I would use sort of the same metric I use with novels on TV shows, i.e. a feeling of world-building. Most of these other shows are big expansive, world-building shows, that, as Iggy/Buff, mentioned are in dialog with the world we live in. Breaking Bad is essentially an action show. Perhaps the GOAT action show, yes, but still. None of the characters in BB, including Walt, are even close to as complex and interesting as, say, Tami Taylor in FNL. Obviously I'm privileging different things than a lot of people itt, but I think I would put BB at the top of the list of shows that include Lost and GoT. The goals are just too different.

Yes I'll agree with this. I haven't seen enough of these shows to have an informed opinion here, but I have seen the full run of BB and Deadwood, and there is genuinely no comparison in my mind. BB was pretty fun to watch, but was ostensibly a sort of character study? Very odd in the sense that I don't think I knew any more about WW at the end then I did after 2 episodes.

Rough season-by-season grades on a scale of 1 to 100 for the shows that I've both seen and can remember well enough to grade individual seasons:

The Wire
Season 1: 90
Season 2: 86
Season 3: 96
Season 4: 92
Season 5: N/A (never saw it)

Breaking Bad
Season 1: 91
Season 2: 98
Season 3: 88
Season 4: 76
Season 5: 85

The Sopranos
Season 1: 89
Season 2: 95
Season 3: 98
Season 4: 94
Season 5: 93
Season 6: 100

Mad Men
Season 1: 90
Season 2: 94
Season 3: 93
Season 4: 95
Season 5: 97
Season 6: 68

Lost
Season 1: 97
Season 2: 96
Season 3: 88
Season 4: 97
Season 5: 79
Season 6: 15

Homeland
Season 1: 99
Season 2: 86

Dexter
Season 1: 96
Season 2: 91
Season 3: 48
(quit watching at this point)

Boardwalk Empire
Season 1: 91
Season 2: 94
Season 3: 72

No, it doesn't say that at all. That's just you reading in what you want to be there.

The writer says The Wire is "the undisputed No. 1". (and he would say that. He's been a Wire fanboy thoughout his brief TV critic career.) He says BB was more consistent, and was best in certain stylistic aspects. What sets the Wire well ahead is that it is more than a pretty face. It had meaning, (he uses the word "ambition") and that meaning puts a show on a whole different level than good storytelling, good aesthetic expression, and outstanding craftsmanship.

This difference is what makes Mozart's Requiem - unfinished though it was - a better piece of music than his 40th Symphony. Without meaning, all that the best craftsmanship and storytelling gives you is a pretty, but empty, box.

My take on what Goodman is saying is that the craftsmanship that went into BB was so good that the show outranks other shows with more meaning but significantly poorer execution. But in the end, a show which comes close to BB in craft but outdoes it in meaning is a better TV show. And that show is the Wire.

Goodman essentially says TW >>> BB >> 3 others, (including The Sopranos and Mad Men and which may include The Shield, Deadwood or Prime Suspect) > all the rest. (I'm gratified to see he includes one of the four shows I listed to illustrate how this thread is geographically and chronologically challenged, though I'm not surprised that it was the most recent of the four, because Gooman suffers from a similar lack of scope of experience as most of the contributors to this thread.)

Well, what you seem to be arguing is that only certain aspects of the makeup of a TV show really matter with regard to an evaluation of its quality. IMO, that's just a bad as saying that the only criterion to judge a show by is the quality of its camerawork (I hesitate to apply "cinematography" to TV). Meaning and content are at least as important parts of quality as are visuals, sound, acting, dialog, etc.

If TW had signifcantly poorer acting, directing, writing, etc, then it wouldn't be the greatest TV drama of all time, then, would it?

LOL at depth of meaning not being a 'television thing". True, it is not what most TV programming has been known for, but to discount one of the most improtant criteria for artistic greatness is ridiculous. By the standard of typical TV, two things that BB does seem to excel at, visuals and sound, are not really television things either.

Perhaps all you are saying is that you want your TV to be superfically stylish but fundamentally mindless. OK then. For that set, maybe BB is a better choice than TW.

Unrelated tangent re Mozart: this is top-notch humor:

Yes, metaname was obviously joking. You were probably joking. But metaname was making fun of you and disagreeing with your position. So your joking agreement with him means agreeing that your position is foolish, nonsensical, and wrong. If you do in fact agree with that, then cheers!

Actually, you didn't explain it. You just continue to demonstrate that you don't understand your own position, or aren't willing to admit its limitations. That can be fun for a while, although it's starting to wear off. Here's what you said though:

You just keep asserting this. It doesn't answer the question in any way. If there is indeed no true GOAT, then there can be no true considering something as GOAT. People are free to try to regard something as GOAT, but they'd just be wrong.

You are trying to say that the cumulative equal-weighted consideration of something as GOAT = actual GOAT, while simultaneously saying that there is no actual GOAT. I.e. contradicting yourself. And if you reply that the first part of the formulation isn't true, that consideration of GOAT is not actual GOAT, it's just consideration, then you are simply reiterating that it's all opinion that doesn't matter.

Put another way, in your position, it doesn't matter what measurement you choose to use, and there is no support for the way you yourself measure things, because it doesn't matter - there is nothing to measure, because there is no GOAT, there is no answer.

Which makes all of your arguments meaningless. Can you rebut that? Because despite what you may think, you haven't so far.

Is there anyone else here who agrees with and/or is willing to defend/justify iggy's thoughts on this matter?

Obviously he states that he puts The Wire #1: the article explicitly says so, and I referenced that. What I obviously meant, is that if you look at what he is really saying, he puts BB above, except for "ambition."

If you really comprehend what he's saying, he's saying that BB is better than The Wire, except for ambition/scope, but because the Wire's ambition/scope is broader, bigger, better, then that puts it above BB as #1.

So now, to justify this, you must say that ambition/scope is the ultimate criteria of GOAT TV, over and above directing, writing, acting, editing, sound, cinematography, etc. Those things are not just craftsmanship, they are art and form the basis of the medium and quality of the medium. Ambition/scope is part of what goes into writing.

That was the point of my post. That Wire proponents are hyper-elevating one component above all else, but that the other things do matter too, and cumulatively they matter more.

Will flesh this out further and reply to the rest of your post later, stepping out for a bit.

I'm leaving for the weekend and don't go on 2+2 much after I leave work so this will be it till Monday. I'm sure it will die by then anyways but I'll give you a response.

You're right. I am saying that there is a clear way to measure GOAT and in the same breath saying that even when measured, it's still only considered the GOAT. I guess the reasons are two fold. The first, and more important, is that even my way of measuring is extremely flawed in getting results since there's really just no way to truly poll every single person that's seen every single show. One person might have only seen BB and nothing else and he would say it's the GOAT. Well, his opinion doesn't hold as much weight as someone that's seen 20 shows and that person doesn't hold as much weight as someone that's seen 50 and so on.

Secondly, I hasten to say a show is GOAT and not "considered GOAT" because all time hasn't happened yet. To me, that it can change over time makes it a little less concrete.

Now that I've covered that I'd like to hear how it is that you determine GOAT? How would you measure it? I'm actually really interested in the answer.

goodie,

i'm majorly grunching as this convo is mind-numbing. however a page back or so you made a challenge to someone that if there really is a GOAT in any category name it.

well here is a perfect refutation to your position.

if you ask every director in the world to name the GOAT director i would bet a large amount of $$$ the VAST majority would say kubrick (as would i).

however if you ask everyone in the world to name the GOAT director its highly unlikely kubrick would be the most popular response.

now when it comes to the skill/art of directing who knows better? other directors like spielberg (who lists kubrick as the GOAT) or rando movie watchers in the midwest and india? do you think those ppl even understand what "good directing" entails?

take the same question for editing etc...these are areas of filmaking that are both highly technical with objective qualities, as well as hugely subjective in their emotional impact on the viewer.

Homeland season 1 gets a 99 gets a wut

Very much grunching at this point, but some of those scores are WTFHUH?!?!?!

Trying to read as little of the thread as possible since it most likely contains spoilers

For The Wire, I'm on S01E09, and so far it seems like although the acting is good, it isn't as demanding as it is for BB

i'm pretty sure we could end this whole stupid debate if we just agree that there is a difference between "favorite" and "best".

Iggys got s1 of dexter > every season of the wire, tied with 1

Deadwood is to TV what 2001 is to movies in that I've literally never met anyone who felt the show was just okay. It's either GOAT or not great, and to me (as well as others - I'm not making this up) it's the latter. Let the flaming begin......

Did anyone else really like Big Love? Not nearly arguing it goat or top 5. But it was a great show that finished strong

Judge and DC11, "lol iggy" is pretty much the only correct response.

RBK, if anyone is arguing "favorite," they are obv being moronic. Obv actual "best" and "greatest" is what matters itt and what people should be discussing.

Tens, acting in The Wire is not as complex, difficult, or deep as BB's main characters. By the time you finish the series though, TW has more characters and perhaps a deeper bench.

ya i realize my post was ambiguous.
i meant the argument with goodie about subjective vs objective etc.

he seems to be confusing personal opinion (fav) with objective quality (best).

i just assume people are smart enough to realize their personal fav isn't necessarily the GOAT.

Yeah, actually he's denying that there is any "objective quality" that makes something the best, and that it can only be determined by the subjective consensus.

Rei, I played the song on background, while browsing, but didn't pay attention during the 20 minutes. Was the joke simply the last few notes? Perhaps I'm a simpleton, but that's all I caught. It was indeed funny though, after letting play in the background for so long.

Goodie, I realize that you're gone, but when you get back, here's your response.

First of all, props to you for at least partially admitting that you're wrong. However, you still don't really understand the reason. It's not because your measurements will never be fully accurate. It's because it's not solely a popularity contest, there are some objective qualities that do indeed make TV shows better or worse than others (this applies to other forms of art as well). Because there is indeed such a thing as aesthetics.

WTF is this nonsense? Obv GOAT means "of all time so far," i.e. up to the current time period. If something in the future surpasses it, then that would then be GOAT. That doesn't make it any less concrete.

Already covered, but I'll expand a little bit more. Here's the original answer:
There are both technical and artistic skills that can be measured in these areas. Critics, fans, and TV-industry professionals alike can all give their opinions and judgments of achievements in these areas, but when they do so, they are not doing so for no reason and just saying here is my preference/taste which is meaningless, and we'll collect all of our meaningless preferences and proclaim the consensus the best. They are saying, my opinion is based upon which is a better piece of art, by aesthetic standards. For example, in acting, which actor delivers a performance that connects to the character and material better emotionally, physically, vocally, facially, etc, such that you really believe it is the character and not the actor, i.e. how much "reality" of the character is presented.

So you are right that we do indeed measure people's opinions of TV shows/art, but not all opinions are equal, and not all areas of craftmanship are weighted equally. For example, in the Oscars (lol Oscars, but the following point relates and is valid), they give awards for many branches of filmmaking. However, they do not all contribute equally to what is the best movie overall, which is why Best Visual Effects doesn't correlate to Best Picture the same way that Best Director does.

So when we, or critics, or industry academies, or whoever debate the greatest TV shows, we should be evaluating all of these things, and forming the best judgment possible of what is greatest overall. Even that consensus is not necessarily guaranteed to be correct, but it is much more likely to be closer than random monkey picks, or equal-weighted polls of every human possible. There's much more to say, obviously, but this is long enough and should be sufficient for now.

Unless there's a dramatic change in the approach of the show by its creators it makes no sense to actually rank seasons with a score. Every season is a part of the story the writer(s) want(s) to tell, the whole is supposed to be bigger than the sum of its parts and we're judging the story as a whole not chapters by chapters.