Which is best?

[iamthelaw]

I'll come back with some thoughts on this tomorrow, but thought I'd pose the question in the meantime.

To preclude the obvious questions, H&A is not included as it is a different type of show, I don't think it is comparable.

And I've chosen three years as the frame of reference as it allows a more direct and equal basis of comparison between the newer shows (1, 3, 6, 7) and the old (2, 4, 5)

And I haven't called it "Part V" because it is "Which is best" rather than "Which is better". Actually the more I look at it now the more I think I should have called it Part V, but it's too late now.

[whyohwhy]

Sopranos for me, top notch show. Have all the box sets, cracking viewing.

Nothing better than watching a few old shows in a row. Sick days have been known to be pulled by certain people.

I like Lost too, but Sopranos is far, far better.

ER seems to be dying on its feet, never got into 24 (probably cos Kiefer was in it) same with Desperate Housewives and West Wing.

I believe I slated all the CSI's in a previous thread, fooking pile of shoite, with that ginger twat.

[timofte]

I presume we are talking about American dramas here. My vote will have to go to the Sopranos too. Its a pity they waited so long for the current series. Was nearly two years I think.

I'm watching Lost too and it gets a bit frustrating and I hear there is another few series in the pipeline which pisses me off!

Other US TV shows that I'm a fan of are The OC, great talent in that and Scrubs for great comedy.

On the UK front I'm a big fan of Shameless. Great show imo.

I love that Australian show that used to be on Comedy Channel, Trailer Park Boys, hilarious stuff. Introduces you too the ultimate wrestler "The Green Bastard"! Don't know of anyone else who followed that, needed to give it a few shows before you could enjoy it.

I also thought Pure Mule on RTE was funny this year. "Home James and don't spare the horses" Brilliant!!

There's too much reality and celeb TV on at the moment. Fooking shite!

[iamthelaw]

Sopranos for me too. Fantastic stuff last Thursday, such as this exchange between Mafia boss John Sacramoni ("Johnny Sack") & his (Jewish) lawyer:

Ron: It's my obligation to raise the idea, again, of cooperating.
JS: Flip!? Let me explain something to you again, Ron, but differently. Being a rat where I'm coming from, that's like asking a person where you're coming from to become a fucking Nazi!! I don't want to hear that shit again.
Ron: Good. Frankly, I don't represent turncoats.
JS: It would kill your practice.

Was a big fan of the West Wing, have the first 4 or 5 series on DVD, but feel it peaked with the election halfway through Series 4, and the quality dropped sharply after that; I think Aaron Sorkin left around that point.

Enjoyed 1st series of 24 but couldn't suspend disbelief enough to accept Kiefer having another, and then another, day like that. Watched a few episodes of Lost, but it annoyed me the way things took so long to unfold. And enjoyed the CSI episode directed by Quentin Tarantino, but none of it stuck in my head the way bits from, say, Cracker did.

Watch the OC for the "talent" too, & it's an easy way to fake being interested in what the girls are talking about, but it's far too melodramatic. Like a lot of girls.

Have never seen Shameless, but Pure Mule ("the red daysel") was indeed class; especially for an Irish drama.

Just trying to establish with the poll how TFK-members feel the new shows such as Lost & 24 match up against the classics (Sopranos, ER).

[humbug]

Lost is the only one of these shows that I've seen. I had heard that The Third Policeman by Flann O'Brien was in one of the programmes as a "clue" and, given this is one of the best books I've ever read, my interest was tweaked. So I went off and downloaded the first series and watched it over a couple of days.

I thought it was excellent stuff...really enjoyed it. But then a few days later I heard that there were three more seasons of the show in the pipeline (see Corporatespeak Thread) and I just said to myself "what's the point?" and "why bother?". What happens if the ending is really, really annoying like the mixin'-me-toasties joke in The Cracking Jokes Thread?

You have to invest so much of your valuable, valuable time in these shows in order to follow them properly. I'm just not prepared to commit to these shows any more.

Take 24 for example. There are 24 one hour episodes in each series. That is one full day out of your year watching a TV programme. What a waste.

Coincidentally this is the very reason that I don't watch films. You have to put so much effort in and 95% of the time you end up watching pure shit. I know there are exceptions like the Godfather and so on and I can appreciate something like that as a work of art...but is it worth watching 95 crap films before watching five good ones?

Don't get me wrong I am a huge tv addict but these shows demand too much from me. I like to flick around, watch an episode of the Simpsons here, catch a bit of Alan Partridge there...know what I mean?

Anyway, I'm going to vote for "other". Star Trek, The Next Generation.

[preshy]

LOST is one of the best shows out there- however, im not going to go against my words and say that the West Wing and the Sopranos are 'quality' TV, because they clearly aren't!!

Anyone see the new episode of One Tree Hill the other night- quality stuff that is now, like who set Dan's dealership on fire? My friends and i are still deliberating about it!

Gotta be lovin' the OC aussi.....however,didn't get to see the final episode as my brother wasn't kind enough to record it for me...they is going to be consequences! Have seen some small clips as to what happens.....but it seems like a deadly ending to a simply spiffing series!!

[iamthelaw]

preshy said:

OC aussi

Exalt for the cracking pun

preshy said:

im not going to go against my words and say that the West Wing and the Sopranos are 'quality' TV, because they clearly aren't!!

I couldn't disagree with you more, but à chacun(e) son goût

[iamthelaw]

humbug said:

You have to invest so much of your valuable, valuable time in these shows in order to follow them properly. I'm just not prepared to commit to these shows any more.

Coincidentally this is the very reason that I don't watch films. You have to put so much effort in and 95% of the time you end up watching pure shit. I know there are exceptions like the Godfather and so on and I can appreciate something like that as a work of art...but is it worth watching 95 crap films before watching five good ones?

But what's the alternative? If it's books, as your allusion to The Third Policeman suggests, I was just discussing with a friend on Friday that while of every 20 books one might read, maybe only one will be really good (funnily enough, the same ratio of 5% good that you refer to for films) that's enough to make it worthwhile.

I agree that the TV shows above demand a major investment of time upfront, but films don't really. One could watch a lot of films in the time it takes to read one book. I'm not buying a TV for my new apartment, but that's because I waste so much time effectively using it as background noise. If I had the discipline to confine myself to watching films, I would consider it as efficient a use of my time as reading.

Incidentally, I found The Third Policeman quite dull; some interesting ideas and amusing moments but no real follow-through. The most I could say of it was that it was better than At Swim-Two-Birds.

[gilly]

I choose other with Grey's Anatomy in mind.

Its just started on RTE but i am already hooked the cast is excellent- it reminds me of the early days ER.

[therock67]

humbug said:

Lost is the only one of these shows that I've seen. I had heard that The Third Policeman by Flann O'Brien was in one of the programmes as a "clue" and, given this is one of the best books I've ever read, my interest was tweaked. So I went off and downloaded the first series and watched it over a couple of days.

I thought it was excellent stuff...really enjoyed it. But then a few days later I heard that there were three more seasons of the show in the pipeline (see Corporatespeak Thread) and I just said to myself "what's the point?" and "why bother?". What happens if the ending is really, really annoying like the mixin'-me-toasties joke in The Cracking Jokes Thread?

You have to invest so much of your valuable, valuable time in these shows in order to follow them properly. I'm just not prepared to commit to these shows any more.

Take 24 for example. There are 24 one hour episodes in each series. That is one full day out of your year watching a TV programme. What a waste.

Coincidentally this is the very reason that I don't watch films. You have to put so much effort in and 95% of the time you end up watching pure shit. I know there are exceptions like the Godfather and so on and I can appreciate something like that as a work of art...but is it worth watching 95 crap films before watching five good ones?

Don't get me wrong I am a huge tv addict but these shows demand too much from me. I like to flick around, watch an episode of the Simpsons here, catch a bit of Alan Partridge there...know what I mean?

Anyway, I'm going to vote for "other". Star Trek, The Next Generation.

I agree with part of that - the tv part. I find US series to be too long to commit to and as a result I have seen only one episode of the Sopranos and no episodes of any of the other shows listed above. I'm not willing to commit to half nine every Tuesday for twenty weeks or whatever to watch the one show. It's obviously easier for UK produced dramas like Shameless where they only ask for six or eight hours out of your life.

I disagree on the films part though. I don't think two hours is terribly long if you're in the mood for a movie and at least there is (generally) plot resolution at the end of the film. Two hours and then closure is far removed from twenty four hours and then awaiting a second series.

[therock67]

preshy said:

Gotta be lovin' the OC aussi

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[humbug]

Iamthelaw wrote:

"But what's the alternative? If it's books, as your allusion to The Third Policeman suggests, I was just discussing with a friend on Friday that while of every 20 books one might read, maybe only one will be really good (funnily enough, the same ratio of 5% good that you refer to for films) that's enough to make it worthwhile."

Sorry haven't got a clue how to do that quote thing...so unstreetwise I am.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be. I'm not saying that I am doing anything particularly noble with this extra spare time...I probably spend half of it pulling the balls offa myself.

But I do think there is a higher percentage of good books than good films. The sh1te coming out of Hollywood is unbelievable. Stuff is just made for the mass market, Spider Man 2, X-Men 3. Middle of the road stuff for middle of the road people. How often do you hear people say the following?..."yeah I heard that film is sh1te but I'm going to watch it anyway". If I hear 10 people say that a book is sh1te there is no way I would sit down and read it.

[whyohwhy]

gilly said:

I choose other with Grey's Anatomy in mind.

Its just started on RTE but i am already hooked the cast is excellent- it reminds me of the early days ER.

welcome Gilly,

Saw a few Greys Anatomy episodes on C4 or some 'them over there' channel.

Dont rate it, mainly because i'm sick of all the medical dramas now, there are so many of em:
ER
Casualty
Shortland street
House
The clinic
Nip/tuck
and others I'm sure I've forgotten

How many different medical senarios can there be?

Regarding the 'Sopranos', I was reading at the weekend about the next series, apparently all the cast except, Paulie Walnuts and Silvio Dante (fooking brilliant names) and Dr Melfi, have signed on for it. Paulie and Silvio are looking for double per episode or else they wont be there.

Tony (James G) is acting as mediator to try and get them to sign, if they don't there will be mass bloodletting. It'll be a shame to see Paulie go, he's one of the best characters in it.

[humbug]

Also, Iamthelaw wrote:

"Incidentally, I found The Third Policeman quite dull; some interesting ideas and amusing moments but no real follow-through. The most I could say of it was that it was better than At Swim-Two-Birds."

Firstly, At Swim-Two-Birds is way better than the Third Policeman. Secondly, there is not supposed to be any follow-through. That's the idea...the story is left in limbo as is the main character.

[whyohwhy]

humbug said:

Sorry haven't got a clue how to do that quote thing...so unstreetwise I am.

just click the 'quote' button on the top right of each individual post and it quotes it for you.

[Ball Ox]

humbug said:

Iamthelaw wrote:

"But what's the alternative? If it's books, as your allusion to The Third Policeman suggests, I was just discussing with a friend on Friday that while of every 20 books one might read, maybe only one will be really good (funnily enough, the same ratio of 5% good that you refer to for films) that's enough to make it worthwhile."

Sorry haven't got a clue how to do that quote thing...so unstreetwise I am.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be. I'm not saying that I am doing anything particularly noble with this extra spare time...I probably spend half of it pulling the balls offa myself.

But I do think there is a higher percentage of good books than good films. The sh1te coming out of Hollywood is unbelievable. Stuff is just made for the mass market, Spider Man 2, X-Men 3. Middle of the road stuff for middle of the road people. How often do you hear people say the following?..."yeah I heard that film is sh1te but I'm going to watch it anyway". If I hear 10 people say that a book is sh1te there is no way I would sit down and read it.

I also like to jerk off

[bandage]

Must say I’m a bit like Humbug re films – don’t watch many of them at all and much prefer going to a gig or a game. Can’t really put my finger on why but I’m never at all enthused about the prospect of sitting down and watching a film for a few hours – it just seems like too long and requires too much patience. But it’s very inconsistent because a gig including support band and stuff could go on for longer than a film. I really have to be taken by a film’s theme to actually watch it – I’m very looking forward to seeing The Wind That Shakes The Barley but that’s due to the storyline rather than being a fan of cinema in general or whatever. Strange enough when I think about it. Don’t read too much either – generally sport books and autobiographies. Would have absolutely no interest in a Dan Brown type book but trying to broaden my horizons lately by reading more about history and stuff.

Re the shows it has to be The Sopranos for me. I’ve only seen 2 of this series so far for a variety of reasons but the show is simply superb. I loved that exchange between Johnny Sac and his lawyer that iamthelaw mentioned. Also after Vito (who is gay) killed that guy he stumbles back into his car, steps on the gas and shouts, ‘Fuckin’ cock sucker.’ Class.

Never watched a single episode of Lost, CSI or Desperate Housewives. Liked ER years ago when I was in school with Clooney, Marguiles etc but haven’t watched that in years. Also was a fan of The West Wing in the past when Rob Lowe was in it but again just fell out of the routine of watching it. Can take or leave 24 – it’s fast paced and holds the interest but it’s a bit too much at times. Never saw the show Gilly mentioned before

[gilly]

[/quote]

welcome Gilly,

Saw a few Greys Anatomy episodes on C4 or some 'them over there' channel.

Dont rate it, mainly because i'm sick of all the medical dramas now, there are so many of em:
ER
Casualty
Shortland street
House
The clinic
Nip/tuck
and others I'm sure I've forgotten

How many different medical senarios can there be?

[/quote]

Hi Thanks.

I agree that there is an abundance of medical shows out there but I don’t watch any of them as they never caught my attention and I gave up on ER after Anthony Edwards Left.

I find Greys does have a good twist on all the tried and true life and death situations. I find the link between the doctor and the patient very good – in last nights episode Meredith’s patient faced the possibility of losing his memories if he went ahead with a surgery to remove a tumour. Her mother has Alzheimer’s so she knows the effect a person not remembering you causes. It was very good when she tried to explain to the wife how the changes could effect her – completely unethical but very moving.

That and they have a great soundtrack which never hurts.

[whyohwhy]

gilly said:

I find Greys does have a good twist on all the tried and true life and death situations. I find the link between the doctor and the patient very good – in last nights episode Meredith’s patient faced the possibility of losing his memories if he went ahead with a surgery to remove a tumour. Her mother has Alzheimer’s so she knows the effect a person not remembering you causes. It was very good when she tried to explain to the wife how the changes could effect her – completely unethical but very moving.

That and they have a great soundtrack which never hurts.

It is grittier than ER alright. never noticed the soundtrack when i was watching it.

[bandage]

I love a good soundtrack. Teachers on Ch4 used to have a cracking soundtrack but then the show itself went terribly scheidt. Someone mentioned Shameless earlier - I really like that show too. Can't think of any other UK ones at the moment other than This Life which was very good. Did like Pure Mule myself too.

[whyohwhy]

bandage said:

I love a good soundtrack. Teachers on Ch4 used to have a cracking soundtrack but then the show itself went terribly scheidt. .

Wholeheartedly agree with you for once. It was such a clever show and fooking funny to boot. The PE teacher and his flatmate were brilliant together.

The new cast ruined it and i stopped watching it.

[iamthelaw]

bandage said:

Also was a fan of The West Wing in the past when Rob Lowe was in it but again just fell out of the routine of watching it.

Yes, that was halfway through Series 4; forgot he left then, but that might be another reason why for me it dropped in quality at that point.

bandage said:

after Vito (who is gay) killed that guy he stumbles back into his car, steps on the gas and shouts, ‘Fuckin’ cock sucker.’

Hadn't picked up on that. Quality.

[iamthelaw]

humbug said:

Also, Iamthelaw wrote:

"Incidentally, I found The Third Policeman quite dull; some interesting ideas and amusing moments but no real follow-through. The most I could say of it was that it was better than At Swim-Two-Birds."

Firstly, At Swim-Two-Birds is way better than the Third Policeman. Secondly, there is not supposed to be any follow-through. That's the idea...the story is left in limbo as is the main character.

I know I'm digressing from the thread I started, but when I refer to follow-through, I don't even mean of the book as a whole, I find the circular nature of it to be quite effective (though O'Brien is actually trying to represent Hell rather than Limbo), what annoys me is more the fact that he brings in ideas - the policeman melding with his bicycle, the caskets inside caskets - but doesn't do anything with them.

As for the respective merits of the two books, well that's just my opinion, & I didn't like either of them anyway so it doesn't really matter which I preferred.

[iamthelaw]

humbug said:

But I do think there is a higher percentage of good books than good films.

Yes, I agree with that. I just find it balanced out to some extent by the fact that one can more easily narrow down the field in looking for good films than good books, and also by the fact that watching a film generally takes so much less time than reading a book.

[humbug]

iamthelaw said:

humbug said:

Also, Iamthelaw wrote:

"Incidentally, I found The Third Policeman quite dull; some interesting ideas and amusing moments but no real follow-through. The most I could say of it was that it was better than At Swim-Two-Birds."

Firstly, At Swim-Two-Birds is way better than the Third Policeman. Secondly, there is not supposed to be any follow-through. That's the idea...the story is left in limbo as is the main character.

I know I'm digressing from the thread I started, but when I refer to follow-through, I don't even mean of the book as a whole, I find the circular nature of it to be quite effective (though O'Brien is actually trying to represent Hell rather than Limbo), what annoys me is more the fact that he brings in ideas - the policeman melding with his bicycle, the caskets inside caskets - but doesn't do anything with them.

As for the respective merits of the two books, well that's just my opinion, & I didn't like either of them anyway so it doesn't really matter which I preferred.

Think I've got the quote thing down now...

I take your point about there being a lack of follow-through but O'Briens books aren't 4-4-2 books. They're gamier than that, something like 3-4-3 or 3-5-2. The mollycule theory and the casket theory are just little flights of fancy that are littered throughout the book just to give the reader a bit of a smile. That's all.