The World Beyond BetterMost > The Culture Tent
In the New Yorker...
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on April 19, 2018, 05:03:14 pm ---Here's more about The Sopranos, which you specifically asked about. “The Sopranos,” which arrived on HBO in 1999, established a new benchmark, verisimilitude; in the fifth episode, we saw the Mob boss Tony Soprano strangling an informant. . . . “True Detective. . .reinvents the procedural form using a unique, layered story structure which braids multiple time periods and employs occasionally unreliable narration. “Fargo” ’s “Season One Is a Triangle,” Structure is the new Tony Danza. [In the old days of television, when four networks dominated the industry, the survival standard was clear. A show thrived by attracting a huge audience, and it attracted a huge audience by being diverting yet comforting. You just needed that actor everyone liked, Tony Danza or Ted Danson]"
--- End quote ---
What's that passage from? Yeah, I've seen all of those shows, along with most of the critically acclaimed "prestige TV" series. The Sopranos is generally considered the original inspiration for the genre.
From what you quoted, that essay sounds like it's about the growth of the "prestige TV" era in general. I doubt anyone outside of an academic environment is currently writing essays specifically analyzing TS the way we did here with BBM. But that's what Donald Glover was suggesting people would do with Atlanta.
I don't really get the "structure is the new Tony Danza" thing. Was Tony Danza ever really that popular? I thought he was pretty schlocky even back in the day. (Ted Danson was and is pretty popular, and he's still starring in a TV show.)
But then I guess I don't even know what they mean by "structure." Is it, like, narrative complexity? The good series these days do have that, but they don't necessarily have huge audiences, especially because they're almost all on cable. Who's the Boss probably attracted 10 times their audiences, although many series today are at least 10 times better.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on April 20, 2018, 09:30:45 am ---I don't really get the "structure is the new Tony Danza" thing.
--- End quote ---
Me neither.
Front-Ranger:
I would suggest you read that section of the article to get the points that Tad Friend was making on the evolution of TV. It's not that long a section, although the article itself is really loooooong.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on April 21, 2018, 06:31:31 pm ---I would suggest you read that section of the article to get the points that Tad Friend was making on the evolution of TV. It's not that long a section, although the article itself is really loooooong.
--- End quote ---
Ohhh, I didn't realize that was a passage from the Glover profile. I looked it up, and it made more sense in context and order.
It's saying: In the old days, shows could become popular if they were predictable and comforting [and on at least two occasions starred Tony Danza], whereas nowadays popular shows are complex and intricately structured.
I still think Tony Danza is a dumb example. Ted Danson, maybe. I don't think of either one as an actor you could just plunk into any old show and have a guaranteed hit.
Lucille Ball, maybe ...? Andy Griffith? Bob Newhart? I can think of a few actors that might apply to, but not Tony Danza.
Jeff Wrangler:
Typically, I'm way behind. I enjoyed the articles about the bean guy and the red bees in the April 23 issue.
(Maybe Ennis wouldn't have gotten sick of beans if he could have gotten beans from the bean guy. ;D )
I'm looking forward to the articles about the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and the trip along the Rio Grande.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version