Yellowstone is literally a high budget redneck soap opera. It's not meant to be special or high brow.
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
36 points (89.1% liked)
Shows and TV
640 readers
586 users here now
Open discussion of Media / Shows / Television
- Be nice
- Don't go off topic
- Don't rage farm
Other communities
We are still open to mod application, please comment on this post: https://lemm.ee/post/40675177
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
That's just bad shows. The ones that you forget about or don't care about after they're gone. (I haven't seen either of his examples, so this isn't specifically about those two.) The Wire, Breaking Bad, etc are better than 90% of movies, so I would argue they absolutely are memorable and enduring. Just like the movie classics are obviously better than 90% of TV shows. Quality is quality.
Saying TV isn't (or can't be) as good as movies is exactly the same as the old "videogames can't be art" take, and comes across as equally out-of-touch and biased. QT should take the L on this opinion, but he already went on Joe Rogan...
He's right about Yellowstone though. It is focus group fluff. There's good TV out there but Yellowstone isn't it.
The way the show ignored anything from the ending of season 3 like it didn't happen really cut through the noise. Season 4 onwards is a shitty soap opera cut with stupid b-roll of ranch life that does nothing to advance the story only to fill out the time.
Those tv shows are absolutely epic, and is one of the reasons I think most of the other stuff is pure crap.
The Wire is hands down the absolute best TV show ever made. Breaking Bad borrowed heavily from The Wire's visual symbolism and they brilliantly expanded on it.
Vs a garbage show like Ozarks.
Quentitin Tarantino farted in his sleep. What does this say about the movie industry as a whole? Can a powerful enough rival from a different sector change the paradigm? Please read this entire bullshit article riddled with advertisements and let us know in the comments and don't forget to like, subscribe and share.
I agree with the sentiment. Shows will pop with cool concepts and storylines, but quickly devolve into 90-95% interpersonal drama and then a tiny reveal pushing the story/concept. It’s gotten so formulaic and boring.
I won’t pretend that this doesn’t happen a lot and isn’t a real problem. I think it’s an especially bad problem with plot-driven dramas in shows produced as part of the US network system. It’s less likely to be a problem in prestige cable shows or well-crafted streaming shows. It’s silly to pretend that shows can’t be just as artful as movies, at their very best.
I don't agree with TC point, it is objectively wrong as others have given a lot of good examples. But I do think there is a perverse incentive with serialized continuous entertainment like tv shows and is the same with cable and streaming shows but also the same can be applied to movies with sequels and expanded universe.
The insentive is that if it is making money just keeps pushing more of that. And because a variety of reasons like sunken cost will make people hang on to a series while it declines. And they virtually all decline in quality because even if the show creators have a plan and ideia por like 5 seasons worth of content the company with want a 6th season, and as 7th and so on until it is so bad that people stops watching. This can be countered if the show creators have control of the IP and can finish it in their own accord but this is rarely the case I think.
And so this is my observation, "all series continue until they become so bad that they lose enough audience".
Even Breaking bad I must say, such beloved show and I really enjoyed, 1st season had 7ep, 2-4 had 13 and the 5th 16, and I really think that it dragged on in some places in later seasons that was not present in the early ones. And they even add a movie, not wanting to let it go of the cash flow.
"Needs more feet." - QT
Wait, so is he talking specifically about Yellowstone and other shows with the same flaws as it? Or does he believe this is necessarily true of all TV?
Because yeah, I can think of plenty of shows that I liked at the time but feel more or less the same as what he’s saying. Pretty much the entire Arrowverse. The US House of Cards remake. A bunch of shows that I eventually stopped watching without ever consciously deciding I wanted to drop them can probably be put down to this. Vikings. Leaky Blinders.
But I can also think of plenty of shows that really strongly stick with me. The original House of Cards. Chuck. Avatar: The Alastair Airbender. And that’s just looking at strongly plot-driven dramas. For comedy, there’s just no film that does anything even remotely like the best sitcoms in terms of how it feels emotionally to watch. Things like Parks & Rec or Brooklyn Nine Nine.
Is the original House Of Card really that good?
I first watched it between seasons 2 and 3 of the US version, back before it came out what an awful person Spacey was, but more importantly (for this conversation) before the show had started stretching itself thin. Although on their surface the shows diverge, plot-wise, after season 1 of each, I think thematically they diverge after their respective season 2s.
And I always liked to say back then that the UK version was just as good as the US version, but very different tonally. The key difference is that the UK version stuck the landing with a strong season 3 that it ended on.
I wish I could rewatch it, but it wasn't easy to get a hold of back then, and finding pirate versions of stuff has only gotten harder in the decade since.
Yeah I loved season one of Peaky Blinders, and just ran out of steam to watch more after the first few episodes of season 2.
I'm currently concerned that I may very will lose interest in Arcane as soon as I get to see Cait and Vi finally get together.
I used to be impressed by his ability to seem like a douchebag. I’m quite certain that he's genuine.