Upload
Login or register

beardgasm

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 29
Date Signed Up:4/07/2013
Location:Ohio
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#4072
Comment Ranking:#4581
Highest Content Rank:#1825
Highest Comment Rank:#3502
Content Thumbs: 712 total,  791 ,  79
Comment Thumbs: 1704 total,  2169 ,  465
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 54 Content: Sammich eater → Level 55 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 212 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:49450
Times Content Favorited:35 times
Total Comments Made:1196
FJ Points:1843
Favorite Tags: ads (4) | FJ (4)

latest user's comments

#104 - I never said Breaking Bad was as good as Game of Thrones becau…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
User avatar
#108 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
We hit the post cap.

And you measure if the plot is on-point based on how much is going on that is unconnected to it, how many different elements are at play at once, how those elements tie into one-another.

For example: Walt Jr. is objectively bad for the plot. The impact he has on the narrative is to be a vessel into which Walter has placed his immense pride and suppressed self-worth. However, that role could be filled by a car, or a statue, or anything really. It wouldn't have the same impact of it being a child, especially a crippled child, but that impact is lost after perhaps the first or second time you see him.

If anything, Walt Jr. would have been more beneficial to the plot if he had been dead, demonstrating just how broken Walt's hopes, dreams, and self-worth had become, instead of having this meandering dullard complaining about one melodramatic non-problem to the next melodramatic non-problem every time he shows up.

The place he fills in the plot could be cut out of the narrative easily and you would have lost nothing of real value, nothing that couldn't be placed somewhere else, invested into something or someone more relevant and valuable to the plot.

You see this all the time in Game of Thrones. People think it's a bloodbath but what it really is is a series that understands that some characters just end up losing their value after a while, or who are more valuable dead than alive. That sort of ruthless pragmatism is what drives the plot of Game of Thrones. It is how it manages to be so tightly-knit, with so few loose-ends, because the writers understood how to tighten up a plot.

Like I said, it's never as easy as 1+1=2, but there is a clear disparity between the value that Walt. Jr has to the plot of Breaking Bad compared to any character in Game of Thrones.

And I agree, objectively the scores are the same... which doesn't speak of their quality in the slightest, rather it speaks of their critical reception, which let's face it, is often over-inflated/over estimated for the critical darlings, and overly harsh for the critical failures, more-so than they perhaps deserve.

Honestly, to understand how to actually judge these things you need to have an understanding how how to create them yourself. That's not a slight at you by any means, you've no obligation to understand the ins and outs of what it is to make a film, and you shouldn't need to in order to enjoy a work of art. That said, it is very hard for people without that first-hand experience to understand the notion of objective quality within film, and often people just resort to "Art is Subjective" as a means to shut down a debate that they either don't understand, or don't want to have.
User avatar
#106 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed?"

I assumed you were answering this question when you said it deserved the hype it gets, because it is rated at the same level as Game of Thrones on IMDB. If you don't want me to make an assumption like that then please address the point in more detail.

And if Breaking Bad scores the same as Game of Thrones but is not as good as Game of Thrones then either it is overhyped, or Game of Thrones is severely underhyped (which does not seem to be the case at all.)

And if you're not gonna debate me on the objective qualities of film then fine. I won't force you into it. I've worked in and around this stuff for most of my life though and I can tell you there is a right and a wrong way to write, direct, shoot, and act. It's never as clean-cut as 1+1=2 but you can work out within a reasonable doubt which show is better made. That has no bearing on which on you like more though, that's up to the viewer to decide.

And y'know, maybe you're right about obviously being an unhelpful word to use, but to be fair you've not really presented to me the sort of conversation that would really be worth having so I dunno if I can trust your word on the matter of how best to find good, balanced debates. I'll take that under advisement in future, but do bear in mind that you've still done basically nothing to justify Breaking Bad as being anything above mediocre in terms of its quality.
User avatar
#107 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
You should probably just not make assumptions then. You know what they say about them.

I don't think you understand what objective means. How exactly did you measure whether the plot was on point or not? How did you compare this between GoT and Breaking Bad? Literally the only objective measurement related to a TV show is the amount of positive and negative reviews. And on that point, I would point you to the IMDB scores for Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Objectively, Breaking Bad is on par with Game of Thrones.
#102 - I don't think Buffy even comes close to Breaking Bad, but that… 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
#101 - Well, I disagree with your use of the word obvious, because I … 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
#100 - What are you even talking about? Are you stil not understandin…  [+] (5 new replies) 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
User avatar
#103 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
I 'AM' saying that. On a clear objective level Game of Thrones is better than Breaking Bad. Don't go down the road of 'art is subjective' because art IS subjective, but film is far more craft than it is art, and there is a clear difference between a chair that doesn't work and a chair that does. ART can't be judged objectively. CRAFT can be.

The craft that goes into Game of Thrones is superior to the craft that goes into Breaking Bad. The episodes are paced much, much better, the plot is more consistently on-point, with the action and events moving at a far faster pace. More happens in one season of Game of Thrones than in two seasons of Breaking Bad.

In that case you could call Breaking Bad a character study, only then it fails to be a good character study because the character is portrayed within the dialogue as someone drastically different to in the plot, yet that disparity is completely ignored by the show. (I.E: You can't have a character study that doesn't understand the character it is studying.)

Whilst Game of Thrones has Brann Stark as a charisma vacuum, Breaking Bad has Walter Jr. a character whose screen presence epitomises the concept of flaccid melodrama, and whose biggest contribution to the plot is that he exists. He never does anything of actual significance to the story, hell he never even meets Jessie, but he's there all the same, doing nothing of value and padding out the run-time.

Meanwhile every character in Game of Thrones is there for a reason. Their presence and their deaths are all carefully placed and considered, and whilst by no means perfect, it is objectively crafted better than Breaking Bad.

Once again, 'ART' is subjective. How much you 'LIKE' a work of art is something for you to decide on your own. However, the 'QUALITY' of something, the 'CRAFT' put into it is more or less measurable from one to one.

If you want to debate then go right on ahead. How is Breaking Bad as good as Game of Thrones? I really want to hear what you've got to say here, because thus-far your argument is that the characters in Breaking Bad develop, which is something Game of Thrones does not only to more dramatic extents, but also with far better pacing, managing the development of more than 50 characters vs a series that fumbled the development of 5.
User avatar
#104 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
I never said Breaking Bad was as good as Game of Thrones because I don't watch game of thrones. Are you seriously twisting my words around after accusing me of doing that to you?

I'm not even going to try and debate you on whether you can objectively measure the quality of a TV show because it seems pretty pointless. I don't agree with you and I seriously doubt anything I say will change your mind.

I would seriously refrain from using the word obvious when talking about your opinion or you're not going to have many people willing to have a conversation with you.
User avatar
#108 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
We hit the post cap.

And you measure if the plot is on-point based on how much is going on that is unconnected to it, how many different elements are at play at once, how those elements tie into one-another.

For example: Walt Jr. is objectively bad for the plot. The impact he has on the narrative is to be a vessel into which Walter has placed his immense pride and suppressed self-worth. However, that role could be filled by a car, or a statue, or anything really. It wouldn't have the same impact of it being a child, especially a crippled child, but that impact is lost after perhaps the first or second time you see him.

If anything, Walt Jr. would have been more beneficial to the plot if he had been dead, demonstrating just how broken Walt's hopes, dreams, and self-worth had become, instead of having this meandering dullard complaining about one melodramatic non-problem to the next melodramatic non-problem every time he shows up.

The place he fills in the plot could be cut out of the narrative easily and you would have lost nothing of real value, nothing that couldn't be placed somewhere else, invested into something or someone more relevant and valuable to the plot.

You see this all the time in Game of Thrones. People think it's a bloodbath but what it really is is a series that understands that some characters just end up losing their value after a while, or who are more valuable dead than alive. That sort of ruthless pragmatism is what drives the plot of Game of Thrones. It is how it manages to be so tightly-knit, with so few loose-ends, because the writers understood how to tighten up a plot.

Like I said, it's never as easy as 1+1=2, but there is a clear disparity between the value that Walt. Jr has to the plot of Breaking Bad compared to any character in Game of Thrones.

And I agree, objectively the scores are the same... which doesn't speak of their quality in the slightest, rather it speaks of their critical reception, which let's face it, is often over-inflated/over estimated for the critical darlings, and overly harsh for the critical failures, more-so than they perhaps deserve.

Honestly, to understand how to actually judge these things you need to have an understanding how how to create them yourself. That's not a slight at you by any means, you've no obligation to understand the ins and outs of what it is to make a film, and you shouldn't need to in order to enjoy a work of art. That said, it is very hard for people without that first-hand experience to understand the notion of objective quality within film, and often people just resort to "Art is Subjective" as a means to shut down a debate that they either don't understand, or don't want to have.
User avatar
#106 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed?"

I assumed you were answering this question when you said it deserved the hype it gets, because it is rated at the same level as Game of Thrones on IMDB. If you don't want me to make an assumption like that then please address the point in more detail.

And if Breaking Bad scores the same as Game of Thrones but is not as good as Game of Thrones then either it is overhyped, or Game of Thrones is severely underhyped (which does not seem to be the case at all.)

And if you're not gonna debate me on the objective qualities of film then fine. I won't force you into it. I've worked in and around this stuff for most of my life though and I can tell you there is a right and a wrong way to write, direct, shoot, and act. It's never as clean-cut as 1+1=2 but you can work out within a reasonable doubt which show is better made. That has no bearing on which on you like more though, that's up to the viewer to decide.

And y'know, maybe you're right about obviously being an unhelpful word to use, but to be fair you've not really presented to me the sort of conversation that would really be worth having so I dunno if I can trust your word on the matter of how best to find good, balanced debates. I'll take that under advisement in future, but do bear in mind that you've still done basically nothing to justify Breaking Bad as being anything above mediocre in terms of its quality.
User avatar
#107 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
You should probably just not make assumptions then. You know what they say about them.

I don't think you understand what objective means. How exactly did you measure whether the plot was on point or not? How did you compare this between GoT and Breaking Bad? Literally the only objective measurement related to a TV show is the amount of positive and negative reviews. And on that point, I would point you to the IMDB scores for Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Objectively, Breaking Bad is on par with Game of Thrones.
#97 - 3 minutes was plenty of time to read your post. I'm not in kin…  [+] (7 new replies) 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
User avatar
#99 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Stop getting hung up on wether I misrepresent your views or not."

Said the man who would give a negative thumb to someone regurgitating his own insult back at him.

Your second comment is much more in-line with the sort of discourse that is actually going to get us anywhere in this discussion.
User avatar
#100 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
What are you even talking about? Are you stil not understanding my post?

"pointing out the bloody obvious then let them. Breaking Bad is not as good as people make it out to be"

Explain to me your use of the word obvious here, because to me it looks like you're saying your opinion is obviously right.
User avatar
#103 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
I 'AM' saying that. On a clear objective level Game of Thrones is better than Breaking Bad. Don't go down the road of 'art is subjective' because art IS subjective, but film is far more craft than it is art, and there is a clear difference between a chair that doesn't work and a chair that does. ART can't be judged objectively. CRAFT can be.

The craft that goes into Game of Thrones is superior to the craft that goes into Breaking Bad. The episodes are paced much, much better, the plot is more consistently on-point, with the action and events moving at a far faster pace. More happens in one season of Game of Thrones than in two seasons of Breaking Bad.

In that case you could call Breaking Bad a character study, only then it fails to be a good character study because the character is portrayed within the dialogue as someone drastically different to in the plot, yet that disparity is completely ignored by the show. (I.E: You can't have a character study that doesn't understand the character it is studying.)

Whilst Game of Thrones has Brann Stark as a charisma vacuum, Breaking Bad has Walter Jr. a character whose screen presence epitomises the concept of flaccid melodrama, and whose biggest contribution to the plot is that he exists. He never does anything of actual significance to the story, hell he never even meets Jessie, but he's there all the same, doing nothing of value and padding out the run-time.

Meanwhile every character in Game of Thrones is there for a reason. Their presence and their deaths are all carefully placed and considered, and whilst by no means perfect, it is objectively crafted better than Breaking Bad.

Once again, 'ART' is subjective. How much you 'LIKE' a work of art is something for you to decide on your own. However, the 'QUALITY' of something, the 'CRAFT' put into it is more or less measurable from one to one.

If you want to debate then go right on ahead. How is Breaking Bad as good as Game of Thrones? I really want to hear what you've got to say here, because thus-far your argument is that the characters in Breaking Bad develop, which is something Game of Thrones does not only to more dramatic extents, but also with far better pacing, managing the development of more than 50 characters vs a series that fumbled the development of 5.
User avatar
#104 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
I never said Breaking Bad was as good as Game of Thrones because I don't watch game of thrones. Are you seriously twisting my words around after accusing me of doing that to you?

I'm not even going to try and debate you on whether you can objectively measure the quality of a TV show because it seems pretty pointless. I don't agree with you and I seriously doubt anything I say will change your mind.

I would seriously refrain from using the word obvious when talking about your opinion or you're not going to have many people willing to have a conversation with you.
User avatar
#108 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
We hit the post cap.

And you measure if the plot is on-point based on how much is going on that is unconnected to it, how many different elements are at play at once, how those elements tie into one-another.

For example: Walt Jr. is objectively bad for the plot. The impact he has on the narrative is to be a vessel into which Walter has placed his immense pride and suppressed self-worth. However, that role could be filled by a car, or a statue, or anything really. It wouldn't have the same impact of it being a child, especially a crippled child, but that impact is lost after perhaps the first or second time you see him.

If anything, Walt Jr. would have been more beneficial to the plot if he had been dead, demonstrating just how broken Walt's hopes, dreams, and self-worth had become, instead of having this meandering dullard complaining about one melodramatic non-problem to the next melodramatic non-problem every time he shows up.

The place he fills in the plot could be cut out of the narrative easily and you would have lost nothing of real value, nothing that couldn't be placed somewhere else, invested into something or someone more relevant and valuable to the plot.

You see this all the time in Game of Thrones. People think it's a bloodbath but what it really is is a series that understands that some characters just end up losing their value after a while, or who are more valuable dead than alive. That sort of ruthless pragmatism is what drives the plot of Game of Thrones. It is how it manages to be so tightly-knit, with so few loose-ends, because the writers understood how to tighten up a plot.

Like I said, it's never as easy as 1+1=2, but there is a clear disparity between the value that Walt. Jr has to the plot of Breaking Bad compared to any character in Game of Thrones.

And I agree, objectively the scores are the same... which doesn't speak of their quality in the slightest, rather it speaks of their critical reception, which let's face it, is often over-inflated/over estimated for the critical darlings, and overly harsh for the critical failures, more-so than they perhaps deserve.

Honestly, to understand how to actually judge these things you need to have an understanding how how to create them yourself. That's not a slight at you by any means, you've no obligation to understand the ins and outs of what it is to make a film, and you shouldn't need to in order to enjoy a work of art. That said, it is very hard for people without that first-hand experience to understand the notion of objective quality within film, and often people just resort to "Art is Subjective" as a means to shut down a debate that they either don't understand, or don't want to have.
User avatar
#106 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed?"

I assumed you were answering this question when you said it deserved the hype it gets, because it is rated at the same level as Game of Thrones on IMDB. If you don't want me to make an assumption like that then please address the point in more detail.

And if Breaking Bad scores the same as Game of Thrones but is not as good as Game of Thrones then either it is overhyped, or Game of Thrones is severely underhyped (which does not seem to be the case at all.)

And if you're not gonna debate me on the objective qualities of film then fine. I won't force you into it. I've worked in and around this stuff for most of my life though and I can tell you there is a right and a wrong way to write, direct, shoot, and act. It's never as clean-cut as 1+1=2 but you can work out within a reasonable doubt which show is better made. That has no bearing on which on you like more though, that's up to the viewer to decide.

And y'know, maybe you're right about obviously being an unhelpful word to use, but to be fair you've not really presented to me the sort of conversation that would really be worth having so I dunno if I can trust your word on the matter of how best to find good, balanced debates. I'll take that under advisement in future, but do bear in mind that you've still done basically nothing to justify Breaking Bad as being anything above mediocre in terms of its quality.
User avatar
#107 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
You should probably just not make assumptions then. You know what they say about them.

I don't think you understand what objective means. How exactly did you measure whether the plot was on point or not? How did you compare this between GoT and Breaking Bad? Literally the only objective measurement related to a TV show is the amount of positive and negative reviews. And on that point, I would point you to the IMDB scores for Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Objectively, Breaking Bad is on par with Game of Thrones.
#95 - You basically said it's obvious your opinion is right, which i…  [+] (3 new replies) 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
User avatar
#98 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
I said it's obvious that it's over-hyped, and it is. Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed? Because it's not. It's really not.

And there is an important thing to note that Breaking Bad aspires to be more than Buffy and then fails to be it, whereas Buffy aspires to be exactly what it is, and excels at being it. Episodes like the Gentlemen, characters like Angel and Buffy, it is packed full of the sort of genre-savy direction that made Joss Wheadon into the fanboy darling of the critical world.

Plot-wise it's nothing special, but you'll get much, MUCH more out of watching Buffy then you will out of watching Breaking Bad.

And y'know what, I'd say Red vs Blue is better than Breaking Bad too. You want character development? Well that silly little series has it in spades. It pays off its buildup spectacularly. It does more with a shoestring budget than Breaking Bad did with a Blockbuster one, and I reckon whilst Breaking Bad is eventually gonna be maybe a nod and a wink to the start of streaming services, Red vs Blue is gonna be a hallmark of what would eventually become 'Internet Culture'.

Does that mean Red vs Blue looks better than Breaking Bad? No. It doesn't. It's production and polish are through the floor. But as a show it is far more consistent and does more within its limitations than Breaking Bad ever dared to do.
User avatar
#102 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
I don't think Buffy even comes close to Breaking Bad, but that's just my opinion. I'm not going to go around saying it's obvious.
User avatar
#101 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
Well, I disagree with your use of the word obvious, because I DO think it deserves the hype it has.
#94 - "pointing out the bloody obvious then let them. Breaking …  [+] (9 new replies) 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
User avatar
#96 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Doesn't this mean you think it's obvious that breaking bad isn't a good show?"
"Not sure how I'm twisting your words here. Maybe you thought one thing but wrote another?"

"There is a difference between 'not good' and 'bad'."
"So for the third time. Breaking Bad isn't bad, but it's not that good at all. "
"On balance it's about average."

No, I'm pretty sure I've been consistent on calling Breaking Bad average, but I'll amend that to it being mediocre if that makes my stance clearer.

Dude, you came out with that response way too quickly to have actually bothered to read and consider the post I just made. If you're not gonna take this seriously then perhaps I was right when I jokingly suggested there was too much nuance in this discussion for you. I don't want to be right, but the way you're acting
User avatar
#97 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
3 minutes was plenty of time to read your post. I'm not in kindergarten. Like I said, you basically said it's obvious your opinion is right. Stop getting hung up on whether I think you said it's bad or not; I know you think it's average.

Are you even taking the time to read my posts?
User avatar
#99 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Stop getting hung up on wether I misrepresent your views or not."

Said the man who would give a negative thumb to someone regurgitating his own insult back at him.

Your second comment is much more in-line with the sort of discourse that is actually going to get us anywhere in this discussion.
User avatar
#100 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
What are you even talking about? Are you stil not understanding my post?

"pointing out the bloody obvious then let them. Breaking Bad is not as good as people make it out to be"

Explain to me your use of the word obvious here, because to me it looks like you're saying your opinion is obviously right.
User avatar
#103 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
I 'AM' saying that. On a clear objective level Game of Thrones is better than Breaking Bad. Don't go down the road of 'art is subjective' because art IS subjective, but film is far more craft than it is art, and there is a clear difference between a chair that doesn't work and a chair that does. ART can't be judged objectively. CRAFT can be.

The craft that goes into Game of Thrones is superior to the craft that goes into Breaking Bad. The episodes are paced much, much better, the plot is more consistently on-point, with the action and events moving at a far faster pace. More happens in one season of Game of Thrones than in two seasons of Breaking Bad.

In that case you could call Breaking Bad a character study, only then it fails to be a good character study because the character is portrayed within the dialogue as someone drastically different to in the plot, yet that disparity is completely ignored by the show. (I.E: You can't have a character study that doesn't understand the character it is studying.)

Whilst Game of Thrones has Brann Stark as a charisma vacuum, Breaking Bad has Walter Jr. a character whose screen presence epitomises the concept of flaccid melodrama, and whose biggest contribution to the plot is that he exists. He never does anything of actual significance to the story, hell he never even meets Jessie, but he's there all the same, doing nothing of value and padding out the run-time.

Meanwhile every character in Game of Thrones is there for a reason. Their presence and their deaths are all carefully placed and considered, and whilst by no means perfect, it is objectively crafted better than Breaking Bad.

Once again, 'ART' is subjective. How much you 'LIKE' a work of art is something for you to decide on your own. However, the 'QUALITY' of something, the 'CRAFT' put into it is more or less measurable from one to one.

If you want to debate then go right on ahead. How is Breaking Bad as good as Game of Thrones? I really want to hear what you've got to say here, because thus-far your argument is that the characters in Breaking Bad develop, which is something Game of Thrones does not only to more dramatic extents, but also with far better pacing, managing the development of more than 50 characters vs a series that fumbled the development of 5.
User avatar
#104 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
I never said Breaking Bad was as good as Game of Thrones because I don't watch game of thrones. Are you seriously twisting my words around after accusing me of doing that to you?

I'm not even going to try and debate you on whether you can objectively measure the quality of a TV show because it seems pretty pointless. I don't agree with you and I seriously doubt anything I say will change your mind.

I would seriously refrain from using the word obvious when talking about your opinion or you're not going to have many people willing to have a conversation with you.
User avatar
#108 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
We hit the post cap.

And you measure if the plot is on-point based on how much is going on that is unconnected to it, how many different elements are at play at once, how those elements tie into one-another.

For example: Walt Jr. is objectively bad for the plot. The impact he has on the narrative is to be a vessel into which Walter has placed his immense pride and suppressed self-worth. However, that role could be filled by a car, or a statue, or anything really. It wouldn't have the same impact of it being a child, especially a crippled child, but that impact is lost after perhaps the first or second time you see him.

If anything, Walt Jr. would have been more beneficial to the plot if he had been dead, demonstrating just how broken Walt's hopes, dreams, and self-worth had become, instead of having this meandering dullard complaining about one melodramatic non-problem to the next melodramatic non-problem every time he shows up.

The place he fills in the plot could be cut out of the narrative easily and you would have lost nothing of real value, nothing that couldn't be placed somewhere else, invested into something or someone more relevant and valuable to the plot.

You see this all the time in Game of Thrones. People think it's a bloodbath but what it really is is a series that understands that some characters just end up losing their value after a while, or who are more valuable dead than alive. That sort of ruthless pragmatism is what drives the plot of Game of Thrones. It is how it manages to be so tightly-knit, with so few loose-ends, because the writers understood how to tighten up a plot.

Like I said, it's never as easy as 1+1=2, but there is a clear disparity between the value that Walt. Jr has to the plot of Breaking Bad compared to any character in Game of Thrones.

And I agree, objectively the scores are the same... which doesn't speak of their quality in the slightest, rather it speaks of their critical reception, which let's face it, is often over-inflated/over estimated for the critical darlings, and overly harsh for the critical failures, more-so than they perhaps deserve.

Honestly, to understand how to actually judge these things you need to have an understanding how how to create them yourself. That's not a slight at you by any means, you've no obligation to understand the ins and outs of what it is to make a film, and you shouldn't need to in order to enjoy a work of art. That said, it is very hard for people without that first-hand experience to understand the notion of objective quality within film, and often people just resort to "Art is Subjective" as a means to shut down a debate that they either don't understand, or don't want to have.
User avatar
#106 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed?"

I assumed you were answering this question when you said it deserved the hype it gets, because it is rated at the same level as Game of Thrones on IMDB. If you don't want me to make an assumption like that then please address the point in more detail.

And if Breaking Bad scores the same as Game of Thrones but is not as good as Game of Thrones then either it is overhyped, or Game of Thrones is severely underhyped (which does not seem to be the case at all.)

And if you're not gonna debate me on the objective qualities of film then fine. I won't force you into it. I've worked in and around this stuff for most of my life though and I can tell you there is a right and a wrong way to write, direct, shoot, and act. It's never as clean-cut as 1+1=2 but you can work out within a reasonable doubt which show is better made. That has no bearing on which on you like more though, that's up to the viewer to decide.

And y'know, maybe you're right about obviously being an unhelpful word to use, but to be fair you've not really presented to me the sort of conversation that would really be worth having so I dunno if I can trust your word on the matter of how best to find good, balanced debates. I'll take that under advisement in future, but do bear in mind that you've still done basically nothing to justify Breaking Bad as being anything above mediocre in terms of its quality.
User avatar
#107 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
You should probably just not make assumptions then. You know what they say about them.

I don't think you understand what objective means. How exactly did you measure whether the plot was on point or not? How did you compare this between GoT and Breaking Bad? Literally the only objective measurement related to a TV show is the amount of positive and negative reviews. And on that point, I would point you to the IMDB scores for Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Objectively, Breaking Bad is on par with Game of Thrones.
#92 - Ok, so you said it's obviously not a good show. My point still…  [+] (15 new replies) 07/18/2016 on Dank WebM Comp 20 0
User avatar
#93 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
There is a difference between 'not good' and 'bad'. Stop twisting what I write into what you want to hear. My argument, and what you THINK my argument is, seem to be very different things.

And yes, I expect that kind of character development in a series, because I won't look at the contemporaries and say "At least it's not like those." when I could be looking at the works that best it and say "Huh... so why isn't it like these?" Every show is entitled to be what it wants to be, but just having one or two characters change by what could really be considered the bare minimum for a 62 episode series with a runtime of 46 total hours.

Shows that I would consider 'Good':

Sherlock: (It's good, but the fandom gets pretty cancerous.)
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: (For all its faults, it delivered in its core premise fantastically.)
Mr. Robot: (It's not Fight Club, no matter how hard it tries to be, but it's still good.)
Cowboy Bebop: (Yes, I'm including a few anime, because they are legitimately good.)
Trigun: (What it lacks in nuance it makes up for with style and iconography.)
Game of Thrones: (Dragons and Dire Wolves and Boobs, oh my!)
Better Call Saul: (The best thing to come out of Breaking Bad.)
House of Cards: (US version is better, but the UK version it's based on had it's charms too.)
Always Sunny in Philadelphia: (It's no great work of art, but it's not trying to be, what it's trying to be is hilarious.)
Big Bang Theory: (Psyche! I lied! Bazinga! Fucking kill me this show is cancer.)
Neon Genesis Evangelion: (Holy fucking shit it is shot and directed beautifully, just a shame about the ending.)
K-On: (The only dumb little moe show worth watching, with fantastic production values all the way round.)
Avatar: The Last Airbender: (When a kid's show is pumping out better character development than the stuff for adults, something's gone wonky.)

To put the hype that Breaking Bad has in perspective. Breaking Bad's IMDB ranking is ABOVE the ranking of all of these shows and equal to that of Game of Thrones. That's a crazy amount of hype.
User avatar
#95 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
You basically said it's obvious your opinion is right, which is a pretty shit thing to say.

I agree with most of the shows you listed, except for Buffy. Really? I mean I like it, but the plots were nowhere near as well crafted as breaking bad and game of thrones.
User avatar
#98 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
I said it's obvious that it's over-hyped, and it is. Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed? Because it's not. It's really not.

And there is an important thing to note that Breaking Bad aspires to be more than Buffy and then fails to be it, whereas Buffy aspires to be exactly what it is, and excels at being it. Episodes like the Gentlemen, characters like Angel and Buffy, it is packed full of the sort of genre-savy direction that made Joss Wheadon into the fanboy darling of the critical world.

Plot-wise it's nothing special, but you'll get much, MUCH more out of watching Buffy then you will out of watching Breaking Bad.

And y'know what, I'd say Red vs Blue is better than Breaking Bad too. You want character development? Well that silly little series has it in spades. It pays off its buildup spectacularly. It does more with a shoestring budget than Breaking Bad did with a Blockbuster one, and I reckon whilst Breaking Bad is eventually gonna be maybe a nod and a wink to the start of streaming services, Red vs Blue is gonna be a hallmark of what would eventually become 'Internet Culture'.

Does that mean Red vs Blue looks better than Breaking Bad? No. It doesn't. It's production and polish are through the floor. But as a show it is far more consistent and does more within its limitations than Breaking Bad ever dared to do.
User avatar
#102 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
I don't think Buffy even comes close to Breaking Bad, but that's just my opinion. I'm not going to go around saying it's obvious.
User avatar
#101 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
Well, I disagree with your use of the word obvious, because I DO think it deserves the hype it has.
User avatar
#94 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
"pointing out the bloody obvious then let them. Breaking Bad is not as good as people make it out to be"

Doesn't this mean you think it's obvious that breaking bad isn't a good show? Not sure how I'm twisting your words here. Maybe you thought one thing but wrote another?
User avatar
#96 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Doesn't this mean you think it's obvious that breaking bad isn't a good show?"
"Not sure how I'm twisting your words here. Maybe you thought one thing but wrote another?"

"There is a difference between 'not good' and 'bad'."
"So for the third time. Breaking Bad isn't bad, but it's not that good at all. "
"On balance it's about average."

No, I'm pretty sure I've been consistent on calling Breaking Bad average, but I'll amend that to it being mediocre if that makes my stance clearer.

Dude, you came out with that response way too quickly to have actually bothered to read and consider the post I just made. If you're not gonna take this seriously then perhaps I was right when I jokingly suggested there was too much nuance in this discussion for you. I don't want to be right, but the way you're acting
User avatar
#97 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
3 minutes was plenty of time to read your post. I'm not in kindergarten. Like I said, you basically said it's obvious your opinion is right. Stop getting hung up on whether I think you said it's bad or not; I know you think it's average.

Are you even taking the time to read my posts?
User avatar
#99 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Stop getting hung up on wether I misrepresent your views or not."

Said the man who would give a negative thumb to someone regurgitating his own insult back at him.

Your second comment is much more in-line with the sort of discourse that is actually going to get us anywhere in this discussion.
User avatar
#100 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
What are you even talking about? Are you stil not understanding my post?

"pointing out the bloody obvious then let them. Breaking Bad is not as good as people make it out to be"

Explain to me your use of the word obvious here, because to me it looks like you're saying your opinion is obviously right.
User avatar
#103 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
I 'AM' saying that. On a clear objective level Game of Thrones is better than Breaking Bad. Don't go down the road of 'art is subjective' because art IS subjective, but film is far more craft than it is art, and there is a clear difference between a chair that doesn't work and a chair that does. ART can't be judged objectively. CRAFT can be.

The craft that goes into Game of Thrones is superior to the craft that goes into Breaking Bad. The episodes are paced much, much better, the plot is more consistently on-point, with the action and events moving at a far faster pace. More happens in one season of Game of Thrones than in two seasons of Breaking Bad.

In that case you could call Breaking Bad a character study, only then it fails to be a good character study because the character is portrayed within the dialogue as someone drastically different to in the plot, yet that disparity is completely ignored by the show. (I.E: You can't have a character study that doesn't understand the character it is studying.)

Whilst Game of Thrones has Brann Stark as a charisma vacuum, Breaking Bad has Walter Jr. a character whose screen presence epitomises the concept of flaccid melodrama, and whose biggest contribution to the plot is that he exists. He never does anything of actual significance to the story, hell he never even meets Jessie, but he's there all the same, doing nothing of value and padding out the run-time.

Meanwhile every character in Game of Thrones is there for a reason. Their presence and their deaths are all carefully placed and considered, and whilst by no means perfect, it is objectively crafted better than Breaking Bad.

Once again, 'ART' is subjective. How much you 'LIKE' a work of art is something for you to decide on your own. However, the 'QUALITY' of something, the 'CRAFT' put into it is more or less measurable from one to one.

If you want to debate then go right on ahead. How is Breaking Bad as good as Game of Thrones? I really want to hear what you've got to say here, because thus-far your argument is that the characters in Breaking Bad develop, which is something Game of Thrones does not only to more dramatic extents, but also with far better pacing, managing the development of more than 50 characters vs a series that fumbled the development of 5.
User avatar
#104 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
I never said Breaking Bad was as good as Game of Thrones because I don't watch game of thrones. Are you seriously twisting my words around after accusing me of doing that to you?

I'm not even going to try and debate you on whether you can objectively measure the quality of a TV show because it seems pretty pointless. I don't agree with you and I seriously doubt anything I say will change your mind.

I would seriously refrain from using the word obvious when talking about your opinion or you're not going to have many people willing to have a conversation with you.
User avatar
#108 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
We hit the post cap.

And you measure if the plot is on-point based on how much is going on that is unconnected to it, how many different elements are at play at once, how those elements tie into one-another.

For example: Walt Jr. is objectively bad for the plot. The impact he has on the narrative is to be a vessel into which Walter has placed his immense pride and suppressed self-worth. However, that role could be filled by a car, or a statue, or anything really. It wouldn't have the same impact of it being a child, especially a crippled child, but that impact is lost after perhaps the first or second time you see him.

If anything, Walt Jr. would have been more beneficial to the plot if he had been dead, demonstrating just how broken Walt's hopes, dreams, and self-worth had become, instead of having this meandering dullard complaining about one melodramatic non-problem to the next melodramatic non-problem every time he shows up.

The place he fills in the plot could be cut out of the narrative easily and you would have lost nothing of real value, nothing that couldn't be placed somewhere else, invested into something or someone more relevant and valuable to the plot.

You see this all the time in Game of Thrones. People think it's a bloodbath but what it really is is a series that understands that some characters just end up losing their value after a while, or who are more valuable dead than alive. That sort of ruthless pragmatism is what drives the plot of Game of Thrones. It is how it manages to be so tightly-knit, with so few loose-ends, because the writers understood how to tighten up a plot.

Like I said, it's never as easy as 1+1=2, but there is a clear disparity between the value that Walt. Jr has to the plot of Breaking Bad compared to any character in Game of Thrones.

And I agree, objectively the scores are the same... which doesn't speak of their quality in the slightest, rather it speaks of their critical reception, which let's face it, is often over-inflated/over estimated for the critical darlings, and overly harsh for the critical failures, more-so than they perhaps deserve.

Honestly, to understand how to actually judge these things you need to have an understanding how how to create them yourself. That's not a slight at you by any means, you've no obligation to understand the ins and outs of what it is to make a film, and you shouldn't need to in order to enjoy a work of art. That said, it is very hard for people without that first-hand experience to understand the notion of objective quality within film, and often people just resort to "Art is Subjective" as a means to shut down a debate that they either don't understand, or don't want to have.
User avatar
#106 - questionableferret (07/18/2016) [-]
"Can you really say that Breaking Bad is on-par with Game of Thrones? Honestly? That it is better than every one of those shows listed?"

I assumed you were answering this question when you said it deserved the hype it gets, because it is rated at the same level as Game of Thrones on IMDB. If you don't want me to make an assumption like that then please address the point in more detail.

And if Breaking Bad scores the same as Game of Thrones but is not as good as Game of Thrones then either it is overhyped, or Game of Thrones is severely underhyped (which does not seem to be the case at all.)

And if you're not gonna debate me on the objective qualities of film then fine. I won't force you into it. I've worked in and around this stuff for most of my life though and I can tell you there is a right and a wrong way to write, direct, shoot, and act. It's never as clean-cut as 1+1=2 but you can work out within a reasonable doubt which show is better made. That has no bearing on which on you like more though, that's up to the viewer to decide.

And y'know, maybe you're right about obviously being an unhelpful word to use, but to be fair you've not really presented to me the sort of conversation that would really be worth having so I dunno if I can trust your word on the matter of how best to find good, balanced debates. I'll take that under advisement in future, but do bear in mind that you've still done basically nothing to justify Breaking Bad as being anything above mediocre in terms of its quality.
User avatar
#107 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
You should probably just not make assumptions then. You know what they say about them.

I don't think you understand what objective means. How exactly did you measure whether the plot was on point or not? How did you compare this between GoT and Breaking Bad? Literally the only objective measurement related to a TV show is the amount of positive and negative reviews. And on that point, I would point you to the IMDB scores for Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Objectively, Breaking Bad is on par with Game of Thrones.
#136 - ****. 07/18/2016 on 1 Keklometer away +1
#129 - Thank you!  [+] (2 new replies) 07/18/2016 on 1 Keklometer away +1
User avatar
#134 - vinskinator (07/18/2016) [-]
your inability to use google make lotengo useful.. great job
#136 - beardgasm (07/18/2016) [-]
Fuck.
[ 1168 Total ]