Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Wire, and The Sopranos - An analysis by Chuck Klosterman

[josednk1068]

Lost > Sopranos > Breaking Bad > The Wire

 

[bob lobblaw]

Originally Posted by proper english

i dont even know what Breaking Bad is. 

ur missin out bro

 

[bob lobblaw]

Originally Posted by proper english

i dont even know what Breaking Bad is. 

ur missin out bro

 

[pmatic]

I really need to get into Sopranos and Mad Men.

The Wire and Breaking Bad.

 

[pmatic]

I really need to get into Sopranos and Mad Men.

The Wire and Breaking Bad.

 

[tfromthe617]

damn.. i've been meaning to get into breaking bad for a couple months now, i think this article just brought me to the point where i gotta start watching it today

 

[tfromthe617]

damn.. i've been meaning to get into breaking bad for a couple months now, i think this article just brought me to the point where i gotta start watching it today

 

[joegalvan]

ill read it later... i like Klosterman and most of Simmons' roster on Grantland.

but Breaking Bad... nah son. its a really good show.... but the acting is extremely overrated and the story arc is super-predictable. plus, its characters turn heel on themselves multiple times a season. their personalities flip-flop so much just to make the the plot more interesting... it reeks of lazy writing. couple that with the poor acting from many main characters, terrible dialogue...

matter fact... *+%$ this article. it doesnt deserve my time.


breaking bad... lol.


EDIT //////////////////

i read the article. its funny, the reasons he highlights... are the exact reasons ive started to dislike the show.

these "morality" choices are exactly what i was talking about above. Klosterman says Breaking Bad is so great, because the characters' decisions aren't based on circumstance (like growing up in bmore projects, etc) and instead are personal choice. thus making the show more 'real' or 'relatable' ... which i think is %+@*+#+!. in this case, at least.


cranston was a family man who needed to pay cancer bills. now he is a millionaire killing machine.
jesse was a dope cooking dropout banging other peoples wives. now he's a chemist with a heart of gold.
the wife was a loving, support system for cranston. now she launders money and despises her criminal husband, while banging her criminal boss.

hell... even the brother in law that was the most bout-it FBI agent you ever saw... turned into a bedridden vagina for a season.


my point is this. he says... the characters "choices" are battles with personal morality. in breaking bad, this is absolutely wrong. they arent built up that way. they setup a character on a path, and then they make a sharp left for the sake of the story/plot.

its like taking a shark out of water and putting it on a motorcyle. then being like, "hey that was the sharks choice. sharks ride bikes all the time."

if it were a question of morality, Cranston's character would be happy to be cancer-free with millions in duffle bags and ride off into the sunset. he wouldnt be killing mexicans and cooking dump trucks worth of ice under a laundromat. and the show wouldve ended 2 seasons ago.


thats the difference. shows like the Wire and Sopranos made decisions based on the harsh realities of the world they were depicting. shows like Breaking Bad make decisions based on what will 'shake things up'

go ahead and compare Breaking Bad to Weeds... leave HBO out of this.

 

[joegalvan]

ill read it later... i like Klosterman and most of Simmons' roster on Grantland.

but Breaking Bad... nah son. its a really good show.... but the acting is extremely overrated and the story arc is super-predictable. plus, its characters turn heel on themselves multiple times a season. their personalities flip-flop so much just to make the the plot more interesting... it reeks of lazy writing. couple that with the poor acting from many main characters, terrible dialogue...

matter fact... *+%$ this article. it doesnt deserve my time.


breaking bad... lol.


EDIT //////////////////

i read the article. its funny, the reasons he highlights... are the exact reasons ive started to dislike the show.

these "morality" choices are exactly what i was talking about above. Klosterman says Breaking Bad is so great, because the characters' decisions aren't based on circumstance (like growing up in bmore projects, etc) and instead are personal choice. thus making the show more 'real' or 'relatable' ... which i think is %+@*+#+!. in this case, at least.


cranston was a family man who needed to pay cancer bills. now he is a millionaire killing machine.
jesse was a dope cooking dropout banging other peoples wives. now he's a chemist with a heart of gold.
the wife was a loving, support system for cranston. now she launders money and despises her criminal husband, while banging her criminal boss.

hell... even the brother in law that was the most bout-it FBI agent you ever saw... turned into a bedridden vagina for a season.


my point is this. he says... the characters "choices" are battles with personal morality. in breaking bad, this is absolutely wrong. they arent built up that way. they setup a character on a path, and then they make a sharp left for the sake of the story/plot.

its like taking a shark out of water and putting it on a motorcyle. then being like, "hey that was the sharks choice. sharks ride bikes all the time."

if it were a question of morality, Cranston's character would be happy to be cancer-free with millions in duffle bags and ride off into the sunset. he wouldnt be killing mexicans and cooking dump trucks worth of ice under a laundromat. and the show wouldve ended 2 seasons ago.


thats the difference. shows like the Wire and Sopranos made decisions based on the harsh realities of the world they were depicting. shows like Breaking Bad make decisions based on what will 'shake things up'

go ahead and compare Breaking Bad to Weeds... leave HBO out of this.

 

[Sir San Diego]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

There's a scene in Breaking Bad's first season in which Walter White's %+@+#%+ lab assistant Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) tells Walter he just can't "break bad," and — when you first hear this snippet of dialogue — you assume what Jesse means is that you can't go from being a law-abiding chemistry teacher to an underground meth cooker. It seems like he's telling White that he can't start breaking the law after living a life in which laws were always obeyed, and that a criminal lifestyle is not something you can join like a club. His advice seems pragmatic, and it almost feels like an artless way to shoehorn the show's title into the script. But this, it turns out, was not Jesse's point at all. What he was arguing was that someone can't "decide" to morph from a good person into a bad person, because there's a firewall within our personalities that makes this impossible. He was arguing that Walter's nature would stop him from being bad, and that Walter would fail if tried to complete this conversation. But Jesse was wrong. He was wrong, because goodness and badness are simply complicated choices, no different than anything else.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6763000/bad-decisions

Good article. As for the above highlighted, I'm not sure how he missed that the first time, or maybe he's just playing dumb to educate those who didn't get it.

I agree with the author btw. I can relate to what he's saying about Breaking Bad, because there does come a point when you can't continue make excuses for your bad behavior. At that point you are consciously being a bad person. I think this is something everyone can relate to. I think we've all had a stretch of getting away with something and having to look yourself in the mirror and decide whether or not you're going to continue down that path.

I found it interesting when Walter found out his cancer was in remission and was still going full force with his drug lord dreams. The greed, power and thrill of holding another man's life in his hands definitely went to his head.

Love the show btw.

 

[Sir San Diego]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

There's a scene in Breaking Bad's first season in which Walter White's %+@+#%+ lab assistant Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) tells Walter he just can't "break bad," and — when you first hear this snippet of dialogue — you assume what Jesse means is that you can't go from being a law-abiding chemistry teacher to an underground meth cooker. It seems like he's telling White that he can't start breaking the law after living a life in which laws were always obeyed, and that a criminal lifestyle is not something you can join like a club. His advice seems pragmatic, and it almost feels like an artless way to shoehorn the show's title into the script. But this, it turns out, was not Jesse's point at all. What he was arguing was that someone can't "decide" to morph from a good person into a bad person, because there's a firewall within our personalities that makes this impossible. He was arguing that Walter's nature would stop him from being bad, and that Walter would fail if tried to complete this conversation. But Jesse was wrong. He was wrong, because goodness and badness are simply complicated choices, no different than anything else.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6763000/bad-decisions

Good article. As for the above highlighted, I'm not sure how he missed that the first time, or maybe he's just playing dumb to educate those who didn't get it.

I agree with the author btw. I can relate to what he's saying about Breaking Bad, because there does come a point when you can't continue make excuses for your bad behavior. At that point you are consciously being a bad person. I think this is something everyone can relate to. I think we've all had a stretch of getting away with something and having to look yourself in the mirror and decide whether or not you're going to continue down that path.

I found it interesting when Walter found out his cancer was in remission and was still going full force with his drug lord dreams. The greed, power and thrill of holding another man's life in his hands definitely went to his head.

Love the show btw.

 

[big j 33]

I agree with what you're saying Brolic, what you described is what I love about Breaking Bad and what warrants it's praise and place among the great shows.

Whether or not that makes it the best, I'm not as sure as Klosterman... but it's a good point.

 

[big j 33]

I agree with what you're saying Brolic, what you described is what I love about Breaking Bad and what warrants it's praise and place among the great shows.

Whether or not that makes it the best, I'm not as sure as Klosterman... but it's a good point.

 

[hankmoody]

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

 

[hankmoody]

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

 

[rolaholic]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

90% agree with what you said but why wouldn't you put Mad Men with the other 2?

 

[rolaholic]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

90% agree with what you said but why wouldn't you put Mad Men with the other 2?

 

[wildout4]

imma read this later

 

[wildout4]

imma read this later

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by Rolaholic

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

90% agree with what you said but why wouldn't you put Mad Men with the other 2?

Just not as entertaining, imo. Again, we are talking about the top echelon so take that comment into context. What do I know anyways?

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by Rolaholic

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

90% agree with what you said but why wouldn't you put Mad Men with the other 2?

Just not as entertaining, imo. Again, we are talking about the top echelon so take that comment into context. What do I know anyways?

 

[big j 33]

For me, Mad Men just doesn't do enough.

It should be called The Don Draper Show. I know as the main character he'll get the heavy focus, but I don't think the show has enough character development, the social commentary and impact is dated (obviously), and The Sopranos and The Wire just do so much more. Even the other characters it "develops" I don't care as much compared to Don and Peggy. Others have their own arcs, but not on the level of the other shows.  Mad Men is top 5 of this decade for sure, but compared to the others it places 4th.

The Wire's social commentary, ability to change it's focus each season, and incredibly developed characters puts it as 1A for me. The Sopranos' being the first show that was truly successful commercially and critically on cable as it was cannot go overlooked. Without The Sopranos, modern TV is radically different. And beyond that, the issues they hit on as well, whether it be family, crime, and Tony's transformation is superb, add great acting, writing, music, it's just the total package, and I would say it's 1B.

The Wire was the most realistic and it's portrayal of numerous issues facing Baltimore and our country as a whole separates it from the rest. And the Sopranos ability to combine great acting, developed characters, music, directing, and essentially give you the cinematic experience on your TV for 6 seasons was an innovation for TV and influential to everything that's come after it.
Breaking Bad is hard to judge until it's completely finished because we can't know where these characters and stories end... but I think it's worthy of this kind of comparison. Even though a lot of it is quite predictable, Cranston's performance is arguably the best of the decade on TV and his personal journey (as well as Jesse's) is incredibly engrossing (on par with Tony Soprano, the various members of The Wire, and Don Draper). 

 

[rolaholic]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by Rolaholic

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

90% agree with what you said but why wouldn't you put Mad Men with the other 2?

Just not as entertaining, imo. Again, we are talking about the top echelon so take that comment into context. What do I know anyways?

Very well. It's true that it might not have all the action of those other shows but it's still one of the better shows to come out in the past decade imo. It's had deep character development so far and it gives a realistic look into the social issues in the 60's.

 

[rolaholic]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by Rolaholic

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Seen every episode of all 4 shows:

The Wire> The Sopranos>Breaking Bad (through 3 seasons) > Mad Men (4)

I don't see MM ever being on par or better than the first three but I could see BB being on par with The Sopranos after a few more seasons.

The Wire is in a class of its own just on the strength of its social commentary and intricately woven narrative. It transcended the medium.

90% agree with what you said but why wouldn't you put Mad Men with the other 2?

Just not as entertaining, imo. Again, we are talking about the top echelon so take that comment into context. What do I know anyways?

Very well. It's true that it might not have all the action of those other shows but it's still one of the better shows to come out in the past decade imo. It's had deep character development so far and it gives a realistic look into the social issues in the 60's.

 

[big j 33]

For me, Mad Men just doesn't do enough.

It should be called The Don Draper Show. I know as the main character he'll get the heavy focus, but I don't think the show has enough character development, the social commentary and impact is dated (obviously), and The Sopranos and The Wire just do so much more. Even the other characters it "develops" I don't care as much compared to Don and Peggy. Others have their own arcs, but not on the level of the other shows.  Mad Men is top 5 of this decade for sure, but compared to the others it places 4th.

The Wire's social commentary, ability to change it's focus each season, and incredibly developed characters puts it as 1A for me. The Sopranos' being the first show that was truly successful commercially and critically on cable as it was cannot go overlooked. Without The Sopranos, modern TV is radically different. And beyond that, the issues they hit on as well, whether it be family, crime, and Tony's transformation is superb, add great acting, writing, music, it's just the total package, and I would say it's 1B.

The Wire was the most realistic and it's portrayal of numerous issues facing Baltimore and our country as a whole separates it from the rest. And the Sopranos ability to combine great acting, developed characters, music, directing, and essentially give you the cinematic experience on your TV for 6 seasons was an innovation for TV and influential to everything that's come after it.
Breaking Bad is hard to judge until it's completely finished because we can't know where these characters and stories end... but I think it's worthy of this kind of comparison. Even though a lot of it is quite predictable, Cranston's performance is arguably the best of the decade on TV and his personal journey (as well as Jesse's) is incredibly engrossing (on par with Tony Soprano, the various members of The Wire, and Don Draper).