Old Ma Crow
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,965
Friends, Ozark, Simpsons(saturation) all soap operas, holby city/casualty
You are aware they are real people, right? Most people just aren't very interesting, and each actor had the real guy on hand to help guide their character.Band of Brothers
Great production value, very enjoyable to watch, probably better than 90% of TV series. But one of the best ever? Not a chance.
The story telling is way too "classic" and the characters aren't very interesting. The sergeant(?) is your typical Hollywood hero who's borderline flawless. Most of the other soldiers are only defined by a few simple traits and not really fleshed out.
Chernobyl is also based on real people and I find it much better than Band of Brothers. The former was obviously given more freedom, but in some cases that's necessary when you're not making a documentary. You can end up restricting your story too much.You are aware they are real people, right? Most people just aren't very interesting, and each actor had the real guy on hand to help guide their character.
Why couldn't it have been more visually interesting?The visual comment is an extremely odd criticism given what the show is about and the story it’s telling.
Different show.Curious, how old are you?
I think stranger things has a lot to do with nostalgia tbh. I can see how it wouldn't appeal to people who didn't grow up in the 80s/90s.
Was talking about The Stranger, not Stranger Things. Was born late 80s so Stranger Things is one pure nostalgia hit for me for sure. The Stranger is a really poorly written thriller that loads of people seemed to watch.Curious, how old are you?
I think stranger things has a lot to do with nostalgia tbh. I can see how it wouldn't appeal to people who didn't grow up in the 80s/90s.
I think one of the main points of BoB was to focus on the effects of war on different individuals and the dynamics among a group of soldiers within a company living through some of the worst conditions on the western front. I think they managed to do that brilliantly. The characters are important for the developing story, but they become way more interesting in the broader context in my opinion.Chernobyl is also based on real people and I find it much better than Band of Brothers. The former was obviously given more freedom, but in some cases that's necessary when you're not making a documentary. You can end up restricting your story too much.
And even if the characters are based on real people, it doesn't mean you can't flesh them out more. You don't always need to be interesting for people to care about you.
Because it’s meant to be a glimpse into the reality of that life, and the way it was produced deliberately had the feel of an almost fly on the wall type approach, as if you were watching over the shoulder of the people in any given scene.Why couldn't it have been more visually interesting?
By "visually interesting" I'm not talking about explosions, CGI or complete lack of realism. For instance: Breaking Bad is way more visually interesting than The Wire.
You wouldn't make any. It's like asking Emile Zola to change his style of writing, it makes absolutely no sense - the way it is depicting the bleak reality of life in Baltimore is part of the show. It's just absurd to envisage The Wire with anything else than a cold, naturalistic perspective, it completely defeats what the show is about.Because it’s meant to be a glimpse into the reality of that life, and the way it was produced deliberately had the feel of an almost fly on the wall type approach, as if you were watching over the shoulder of the people in any given scene.
Breaking Bad style POV shots or brighter lighting or expansive cinematography would have lost that feeling of realism.
What kind of visual changes would you want to make to it?
Every "overrated" thread on the Caf is an absolute car crash - it's just people who didn't like or didn't get something very popular that use it as an opportunity to shit on it. But the fact The Wire was mentioned within the first few posts shows that these threads are absolute nonsense.How do you define something as overrated, though?
Surely if it's something like The Wire or Breaking bad which around 95% of people and critics who have watched think are amongst the greatest TV shows ever then you're the one under-rating them if you think they're not worthy of that praise.
Basically if you said The Wire, you're wrong, go feck yourself you Hitler.
Ah I see think I read the thread and clicked up and quoted first one I seen stranger in, sure someone mentioned stranger things.Was talking about The Stranger, not Stranger Things. Was born late 80s so Stranger Things is one pure nostalgia hit for me for sure. The Stranger is a really poorly written thriller that loads of people seemed to watch.
Red Dwarf has aged but nothing is Mrs Brown's Boys level of shite.Have you watched any of the new stuff? Yikes. It's Mrs Brown's Boys level of shite.
I suppose trying to condense 2 years of preparation and war into 10 hours means corners had to be cut, especially with a group that saw as much action as they did. Chernobyl had half the time to cover a couple of days. For me the brilliance of Band of Brothers was showing for probably the first time on TV how fast paced and horrific the war must have been for those on the front lines.Chernobyl is also based on real people and I find it much better than Band of Brothers. The former was obviously given more freedom, but in some cases that's necessary when you're not making a documentary. You can end up restricting your story too much.
And even if the characters are based on real people, it doesn't mean you can't flesh them out more. You don't always need to be interesting for people to care about you.
Exactly, the production of the show was absolutely spot on.You wouldn't make any. It's like asking Emile Zola to change his style of writing, it makes absolutely no sense - the way it is depicting the bleak reality of life in Baltimore is part of the show. It's just absurd to envisage The Wire with anything else than a cold, naturalistic perspective, it completely defeats what the show is about.
I know it's not what you're suggesting Rado, you're a sensible one.
Plus I find it strange to complain about the visuals in The Wire. it had some of the most striking and emotional shots and imagery I've seen. Just because there was no orchestral background music or grainy overtones doesn't change that. Off the top of my head (don't open if you haven't seen the full show) ..Exactly, the production of the show was absolutely spot on.
It’s the same as how (with a very small number of notable exceptions) all the music in The Wire came from sources in the scene, so car stereos or boom boxes or the characters being in a club/bar etc.
It’s all organic.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the tone of the show, because that's how I feel about Curb. I feel the show wants you to revel in Larry's misery, and that is highlighted by everyone around Larry thinking he's a twat. The tone I get from Seinfeld feels like the opposite to me, that George never wins, but the viewer is supposed to want him to. I will likely dive back in to it again soon, as I keep trying to get it, but personally I think they perfected that tone with Curb. It probably doesn't help that I saw Curb first.The whole point of George is that you revel in his self-inflicted misery. He almost never wins. Even when he does win, he still ends up losing. Because he's George.
The fly on the wall approach is visually boring and "cheap". It's the shaky cam argument all over again. Just because something is "meant" to be a certain way, it doesn't mean that we should completely forget about an aspect that's arguably 50% of what makes cinema cinema. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that "fly on the wall" always is the best approach when realism is the goal.Because it’s meant to be a glimpse into the reality of that life, and the way it was produced deliberately had the feel of an almost fly on the wall type approach, as if you were watching over the shoulder of the people in any given scene.
Something you find less great than the average opinion on something. It could be marginal(thinking that The Wire is a 9.5/10 instead of 10/10, for instance).How do you define something as overrated, though?
Well that's if you believe that the majority and critics can't be wrong or that subjectivity has no matter when judging TV series. I disagree with both.Surely if it's something like The Wire or Breaking bad which around 95% of people and critics who have watched think are amongst the greatest TV shows ever then you're the one under-rating them if you think they're not worthy of that praise.
Big fan of Breaking Bad, but the pacing of it is really bizarre. It would mostly seem like the pace was high, but every season seemed to have a total fluff episode where nothing happens, often contained in the same space, and when the hour is up, you gained nothing. Like the episode with the fly in the lab, or the one where the RV won't start up. Neither of them bad episodes, but very jarring compared to the pacing of the rest of the show.Breaking Bad
Very different from The Wire in its approach. The story is much more classical, and the pace is higher and more intense. Visually it's much more interesting. The characters and the universe are still fleshed out, though not to the same extent as The Wire. Ultimately you need to look past some minor plot holes and stupid character decisions that are there to move the plot forward. This is the sacrifice you make when you have a less realistic setting and a higher pace.
I mean I disagree. I think the definition of overrated is something that a large volume of people would agree is rated too highly by critics and the media. if it's just you and a few others who don't think it is, then it's not overrated, you're just going against the general consensus. Something can't be overrated if most people rate it!Something you find less great than the average opinion on something. It could be marginal(thinking that The Wire is a 9.5/10 instead of 10/10, for instance).
Isn't that pretty much the only time something can be overrated?Something can't be overrated if most people rate it!
I mean I totally disagree with all of that but fine it’s an opinion. Again though I’m interested to know what changes you’d make to it visually?The fly on the wall approach is visually boring and "cheap". It's the shaky cam argument all over again. Just because something is "meant" to be a certain way, it doesn't mean that we should completely forget about an aspect that's arguably 50% of what makes cinema cinema. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that "fly on the wall" always is the best approach when realism is the goal.
The first season isn’t what people rave about. It’s the worst season by a huge distance.I second Only Fools and Horses (just not remotely funny) - I also thought Breaking Bad was incredibly boring and couldn't finish the first season.
That may be true but honestly I found it so incredibly boring I can't face trying it again.Hey
The first season isn’t what people rave about. It’s the worst season by a huge distance.
It grows more compelling with every season.
I generally find it hard to add very specific changes that would boost the visual experience. I can usually tell when a lot of effort has been made when it comes to the visuals, though. Besides that, visuals are also largely subjective. What I find visually pleasing may not please others. The Wire essentially does "nothing" and thus it's almost like reading a book or watching a theater play where nothing happens in the background. Both of those are fine things, but I feel like something is missing when I'm specifically looking for a cinematic experience and a great narrative. A great narrative is still a great narrative, with or without interesting visuals, though. Thus, I still like The Wire a lot. I think it's one of the best shows created despite its visuals.Again though I’m interested to know what changes you’d make to it visually?
You don't think that turning the Hamsterdam section into a glossy music video with Bubbles rapping about the brilliance of WMD could've worked? I pity your lack of imagination.I mean I totally disagree with all of that but fine it’s an opinion. Again though I’m interested to know what changes you’d make to it visually?