The Vito is gay story does directly related to the main plotline that season about the tension between Tony and Phil and is one of the contributing factors to the ultimate fate of their relationship. Granted it could have been done without the RomCom in NH tangent.

How about I extract all that crap into it's own thread and people can discuss subjective vs objective aesthetics until their hearts are content. If anyone objects or nobody cares, I'll save myself the trouble, but if the debate is going to continue I'm happy to get it out of this thread.

Sight and Sound's 2002 Poll:

The directors’ top ten directors

The Critics’ Top Ten Directors

Gregorio, either way is fine by me. As long as other people don't use subjective arguments on other things ITT.

For example, the cinematography discussion. One way is better or worse, it's not a matter of preference. If we can't even agree on simple things, it gets even harder to discuss writing, acting, directing, etc.

Good point. I also wonder what people in the past would think of today's top shows.

If by "the cinematography discussion" you mean the issue of aspect ratio, then you are wrong if you assert that one particular aspect ratio is objectively better than another for every conceivable show/movie.

The observation made earlier, about the different aspect ratios of pictures in a gallery, while inapt regarding the general suitability of widescreen for moving pictures, is an important illustration that when a artist can control the aspect ratio of an image, he will make different choices depending upon the subject matter. That is because no one aspect ratio is best for all subjects. The same applies to moving pictures. However, almost no moving pictures are currently sold complete with their own display device, so the artist is not in control of aspect ratio. He is nearly always forced to choose between a few industry standards.

The industries which present moving pictures to the public (cinema and TV) have moved towards wider screens for a variety of reason, only some of which have to do with aesthetics, or the physics of human visual systems. Wide screen is a more commercially useful standard, and often (but not always) a better aesthetic choice than 4:3, but it does not follow that 4:3 is automatically inferior to 16:9 for every application.

I think that despite the fact that both polls listed the same top director, the results of these two polls of supposed experts goes more to prove that one cannot objectively determine a "best director". (You can't serously argue that one can objectively determine the best director but not objectively determine the second best director.)

(my pony is slower than asdfasdf32) The notion that there is one objectively true Greatest TV Drama of All Time is patently ridiculous. For one thing, objective truth requires clear definitions, and measureable attributes. You all are treating qualitative judgment as if it were objective measurement.

This had led some of you to do latch on to one of the few areas where objective measurement is possible: broadcast apsect ratio and resolution. But this in turn leads you to exactly what you have accused others of doing: overweight the importance of one minor criterion. C'mon, when whether a show was shot in HD or SD, 4:3 or widescreen is an important factor in determining relative quality, those two shows must otherwise be pretty close to identical. But these shows aren't. It might be true that TW would have been a better show if it was broadcast in 16:9HD. That change would make no relevant difference to whether it was better (or worse) than BB.

Casablanca was shot in 4:3.

I was a person in the past, before nearly all of you, and I think that the shows in the poll are very good, but the list is incomplete in that some shows from the 60's and 70's were every bit as good (given the technical limitations of the time) as the current best ones. I also don't happen to think that the techical differences of resolution or aspect ratio are all that relevant to the true greatness of any TV show. Technical advances like digital composition might be more relevant.

Goody hijack has it's own thread now.

I think that's perfectly fine, gregorio, but if that tangent is a "hijack," then can people who think that there is no such thing as GOAT (or no such thing as GOAT among the top 4), put all such nonsense in that thread too? ITT there is such a thing, or there's not much point in discussing. It's even in the OP:


ETA: By the way, I love that thread's title!

I'm sorry, but to think that aspect ration hs anything to do with how good a film is - on its own - is asinine.

Would you shoot a porno in SD these days? Of course not, it would be absurd.

Impatiently awaiting Dominic's ground breaking film shot entirely in 1:2.35

Why not? It's actually easier to shoot in SD because the lighting does not have to be perfect - blemishes and stretch marks are more easily hid.

I probably wouldn't though, because we now know how to properly light HD for naked bodies.

But still...never say never.

LOL...this is pretty funny. But surely you're not saying great art couldn't be made in that aspect ratio. Look at how popular youtube and instagram are - plenty of worthwhile videos shot in that format.

It would be a restrictive format to be sure, but yeah, 'great art' could definitely be made using that aspect ratio.

And this is why we can't have nice things. Even if you extract Goodie, idiocy abounds.

Dom, of course you could make great art, in some random inventive way. But are you saying that aspect ratio literally does not matter for television? Could a 1-inch by 3-foot tall viewing strip be the best way to film and watch a TV show at home?

I'll be amused if this discussion gets extracted too.

nod crushing this thread.

metaname,

ofc you can have your own opinion, i have no issue with you personally liking 4:3 or SD more then 16:9 or HD, and had you said "i like it more" i wouldn't even bother responding.

but when you start trying to claim that 4:3 IS better and only reason we have and prefer 16:9 is because we've been brainwashed by advertisers i take issue.

also i don't really need to respond to your "look at photography" argument as its been refuted already, but since i'm watching monday night countdown: "come on man".

To add things to talk about, besides AIDS and nittery about idiocy, let's talk character development. I think that some may be confusing well-rounded characters with characters that grow and change over time. Both are about believability and realness of the characters (within the universe that they inhabit), but a hugely important aspect is the character's actual growth and change.

In most shows, even most characters in top shows like The Wire, the characters themselves may be well-fleshed out, or believable and real-seeming, but they often do not grow or change much.

In Breaking Bad, a central theme of the show is character change, and several characters do in fact change tremendously. Not just Walt, but Skylar, Jesse, Hank, and others.

Claim: Breaking Bad has some of the top character development of any show.

Feel free to agree or disagree, but for example, I believe that BB has much better character development than The Wire. (Pre-emptively, some may call me high, and cite a breadth of characters in TW, and it is true that TW has more characters than BB, and perhaps better lower tier character development. But top tier characters are more important, and top tier character development is better in BB than TW.)

nod, while i agree with a lot of what you say the wire clearly had characters who grew and changed.
in fact i would argue that on the whole the characters who didn't change significantly and demonstrably were few and far between.

i was going to make a list and go thru them all but it was too daunting a task given the scope.

im a huge breaking bad fanboy, but to claim that it even came close to the character growth (not development)/change as the wire is a stretch.

i honestly can't think of another show besides band of brothers and the pacific which had its characters (even smaller more tangential ones) change more over the course of the series then the wire.

pretty much the only group of characters that didn't change all that much were the police/politicians which was clearly a conscious statement made by simon/burns.

all the people on the street from the dealers to the users changed significantly thru the course of the show.

edit: one of the main points of the wire was how no matter how much individuals learn, grow, and change the situation they are stuck in and the institutions they inhabit never do.
so while bubbles gets clean, omar dies, and marlo "retires" it doesn't change a thing as there are always new young kids waiting to take their place.
solving the drug/crime problem isn't a matter of arresting people, the problems are systemic.

Of course I'm not saying that TW characters didn't change at all, and I'm not meaning to come across as slamming TW. I love the show and think that it's narrowly behind BB. It's just that the point of this thread is to debate #1 and put even top shows above one another.

So when you say that police characters didn't change much, but that was intentional by Simon, that may be good social commentary, but it's not as good character development. Which is the point being discussed. The police characters are some of the main characters, in fact, other than "the city" and "society," the police characters are the primary protagonists. So to say that they don't change much is a huge deal, as far as character development is concerned.

Walter White is the character that undergoes perhaps the most character change (or development of stuff brought out of him, even if it was always there somewhere inside) of any main character in television history. (Haven't seen every show ever, but he has to be in the top tier, if not the #1.) It's one of the central themes and points of the show, which the auteur has so famously stated.

Is there anyone in The Wire that changes as much as WW?

Now some may say, fine, but that's just one character (even if it's the most important character). Well, Skylure, Jesse, and Hank also undergo a huge amount of change, arguably as much or more than characters in TW.

Yes, this is just one aspect of a show, but I'm taking things one aspect at a time, since there's discussion to be had on all of them.

well first of all its not like NONE of the police change.
ellis and prez change significantly.

also, micheal and bubbles have RADICAL transformations that imo rival that of WW (obv no one in a show supposedly striving for incredible realism can match the change of a fantasy show wherein a mild mannered high school chemistry teacher turns into a meth producing drug kingpin. not really a fair question/comparison)

but i don't think thats relevant as you could argue the change in WW is not realistic whatsoever and hence doesn't really qualify as character development.

other examples of growth/change from the wire: stringer (going from str8 gangsta to wanting to turn legit businessman), wee-bay (realizing the street life wasn't the only way and helping stop his son from being forced into the game by his mother), d'angelo (needs no explanation), cutty, dukie (even tragic change is change/growth), and even omar tries to give up the game and retire to live in peace before he was drawn back by the murder of butchie.

i mean even bunny changes in a way as he makes the realization that he can never eliminate the drug trade but he might be able to eliminate the resulting violence leading to the creation of new hamsterdam.

in terms of change/growth that can occur in the real world certainly all of these arcs rival anything in breaking bad.

i mean hank, and skyler and jesse don't REALLY change at their core. skyler is briefly enchanted by the $$$, and obv jesse does some **** he never thought possible due to circumstances he's thrust into, but at their core they don't really change all that much.
their ontology and basic philosophies aren't altered, and i would argue that fundamentally they aren't so radically different from where they started.

in the wire characters really grow and change on a fundamental level in a way that is honest and realistic.

again, i'm not trying to debate which one is better as i LOVE both shows tremendously, think they are both masterpieces, and they're so different i feel no need to try and compare them/rank them.

in the same way that i have hundreds of "favorite songs" i don't feel the need to single out one show as better then the rest.

one day i might be more in the mood for the wire, another day maybe deadwood or breaking bad etc and while im watching it to me its the GOAT.

i mean if we want to talk strictly character development **** nothing beats game of thrones.
you take a submissive, meak and scared girl, and turn her into an empire leading, army conquering, mother of dragons.
beat that walter white.

Haven't read the thread. Voted for The Wire because I rewatch it all the time. Really surprised at how overwhelming weighted the votes are to two shows.

Come on. I said that aspect ratio alone does not make or break a film/TV show. And obviously, I'm talking about normally used aspect ratios, not your ridiculous examples.

I've shot in 4:3 and as wide as 2.39:1. Each choice of AR is determined by a number of factors, including budget, distribution method, and the film's theme/artistic intent.

The only thing I wanted to make clear was that saying one AR is definitely better than another, in every situation, is silly.