Hot take: Most of Breaking Bad was actually boring filler

[Bedrockgames]

Back in the 80s and 90s, all TV shows were nothing but filler. The filler was the main thing.

I don't know about that. I've been watching a lot of older programing and it was definitely more episodic. And you always had plenty of pablum. And of course bad episodes were filled with filler (and those are the episodes that I find don't often stand the test of time). But you still had good writers and good writing. You didn't have what we often get today since shows like Babylon 5, Sopranos, etc. Which is an overarching story. I think where media culture runs into trouble is it mistakes one approach for good and the other for bad. Something I am learning to appreciate are shows that were episodic, and didn't require you to know what happened in previous episodes. That puts some limits on things. You can't have as much character growth (a classic example might be something like the Michael J Fox character in Family ties getting a whole episode dedicated to the death of a friend we had never heard about, but who within the episode is extremely important apparantly, but who we never really hear about again. I think that is where episodic TV can have a glaring weakness. Shows that tells story can be much more about exploring a character and evolving the character, and about having an actual story to tell over time. But the weakness of the longer form storytelling is sometimes individual episodes aren't as enjoyable to rewatch (I think there are exceptions to this, I find a show like the Sopranos often has a nice balance of episode and more long form). And then of course a lot of this comes down to taste.

There is something very enjoyable about an episode of TV that is just enjoyable to watch on its own without being connected to a larger storyline or other episodes.

I thought Breaking Bad was a very well written show personally. I have only seen it once. But that one viewing made a very big impression. That said, I can understand why someone would see it and think it's overrated if it simply doesn't resonate with them. It's just an opinion. My favorite show, and the show I think was the most well written, is I, Claudius. But I know people who didn't agree and I don't see it as important to convince them otherwise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it felt worse in Better Call Saul, YMMV. Though, these shows at least have great overall arcs and stories. The filler issue is rampant in most of television. It was especially egregious in shows like Sons of Anarchy, The Walking Dead, and Yellowstone. Once a show reaches a certain level of popularity, they just cant help themselves. Actors want to expand their characters, writers want to get in on the scripts for a credit to their name, etc.. Eventually you have everybody fighting for the director's chair and you get too many cooks (im looking at you later seasons Sopranos...).

On the other end, you just remember the misses compared to the hits. In a movie, you have laser focus on a few characters. In a series, you can expand that and give more roundness to supporting characters. Sometimes that grows into something, and sometimes it dies on the vine. Also, the fans get serviced. The meme level stuff gets attention, water cooler talk, etc.. Its just a product of modern television and film making that can often be distracting, if not annoying.

My experience with the Walking Dead was the pacing just got too slow, similar to game of thrones, because they were giving you slivers of multiple characters storylines each episode. That is fine if your fully invested in each of those stories, but i think the longer the show went on, the more jarring I felt transitions from one characters story to another's. I think that show also had some unevenness due to a number of head writer change ups

 

[payn]

My experience with the Walking Dead was the pacing just got too slow, similar to game of thrones, because they were giving you slivers of multiple characters storylines each episode. That is fine if your fully invested in each of those stories, but i think the longer the show went on, the more jarring I felt transitions from one characters story to another's. I think that show also had some unevenness due to a number of head writer change ups

I thought Game of Thrones was great...until Martin's writing ran out. I had no issues with the pacing and multiple character perspectives. Though, I think that says how difficult it is to write something like that and keep it consistent. The consistency is more the issue for me, and its very hard to do in more than a season or two with a big team of writers calling different shots week to week. It gets messy. YMMV.

 

[Xamnam]

I'm grateful for Snarf's post, because it conveyed a lot of my thoughts in a much more articulate way. Not to mention, it's been years since I've watched it, so I'm nervous about speaking confidently through the fog of memory.

But, to address one aspect in particular, one of my favorite episodes of the show was Fly. It is, to say the least, polarizing. It takes place almost exclusively in one location, over one day, and largely revolves around killing a fly. Or at least, that's the action of the episode. But the meat of it is the tension between the two characters locked in this room, the secrets they are keeping from each other, and the games they play to try and make sure at the end of the day they're the one that wins if someone has to lose, while balancing the fact that there is some degree of care still present, and at this moment, they still need each other. I find it absolutely fascinating, this cat and mouse game, where the predator is constantly shifting, and you have no idea what the consequences are going to be at the end of the day, because there are multiple and varied outcomes that all are waiting expectantly at the door, ready to burst in if the right one is cracked.

And a lot of fans don't care for it because all they do is hunt a fly and talk. Especially in the context of how charged with energy the rest of the plot is at that moment in time.

Breaking Bad is fascinating to me because it is a character study of two people, who, because they fell into each other's orbit, are radically destroying the fabric of their respective worlds. Their sense of self, their place in the world, how they act is absolutely rent asunder by the impact of this person who could have so easily been largely a stranger. Walt and Jesse at the start of the show look almost alien to how they exit it, but the magic in the show is showing how each step they take down this destructive path is informed by who they are, even as that person is undergoing a volatile reaction.

That's why I don't think it'd work well in a much shorter form. Sure, you could condense the most important elements of the plot down. But then you lose the journey that you are going on these characters with. Not just the leads, but every person who gets close to them. Getting to watch all of these characters transform in a way that is unpredictable and yet entirely plausible, thanks to the relatively simple catalyst of a medical diagnosis, is why the show garners the acclaim it does. The plot isn't what sells the show, though it's fun. And it'd be foolish to discount the great acting, the confident direction, etc., etc.. But it's the fascinatingly real characters that make it amazing, and that's why you need the time to let every decision they make feel justified and earned.

At least for me!

 

[payn]

I'm grateful for Snarf's post, because it conveyed a lot of my thoughts in a much more articulate way. Not to mention, it's been years since I've watched it, so I'm nervous about speaking confidently through the fog of memory.

But, to address one aspect in particular, one of my favorite episodes of the show was Fly. It is, to say the least, polarizing. It takes place almost exclusively in one location, over one day, and largely revolves around killing a fly. Or at least, that's the action of the episode. But the meat of it is the tension between the two characters locked in this room, the secrets they are keeping from each other, and the games they play to try and make sure at the end of the day they're the one that wins if someone has to lose, while balancing the fact that there is some degree of care still present, and at this moment, they still need each other. I find it absolutely fascinating, this cat and mouse game, where the predator is constantly shifting, and you have no idea what the consequences are going to be at the end of the day, because there are multiple and varied outcomes that all are waiting expectantly at the door, ready to burst in if the right one is cracked.

And a lot of fans don't care for it because all they do is hunt a fly and talk. Especially in the context of how charged with energy the rest of the plot is at that moment in time.

Breaking Bad is fascinating to me because it is a character study of two people, who, because they fell into each other's orbit, are radically destroying the fabric of their respective worlds. Their sense of self, their place in the world, how they act is absolutely rent asunder by the impact of this person who could have so easily been largely a stranger. Walt and Jesse at the start of the show look almost alien to how they exit it, but the magic in the show is showing how each step they take down this destructive path is informed by who they are, even as that person is undergoing a volatile reaction.

That's why I don't think it'd work well in a much shorter form. Sure, you could condense the most important elements of the plot down. But then you lose the journey that you are going on these characters with. Not just the leads, but every person who gets close to them. Getting to watch all of these characters transform in a way that is unpredictable and yet entirely plausible, thanks to the relatively simple catalyst of a medical diagnosis, is why the show garners the acclaim it does. The plot isn't what sells the show, though it's fun. And it'd be foolish to discount the great acting, the confident direction, etc., etc.. But it's the fascinatingly real characters that make it amazing, and that's why you need the time to let every decision they make feel justified and earned.

At least for me!

An excellent take. Makes me think of why I enjoyed the movie Logan so much. It's not a great movie on its own. Though, if you take all the comics, movies, and stories about these characters, it has an impact because of the understanding of them. A co-worker asked me about it. He had not seen any of the X-Men movies and felt it was just so-so. The context matters if you have it, or even want it.

That BB fly episode is great because it examines the past of these characters. The impact that Walt had in his decision about Jane on both Jessie and her father. Jesse is so close to finding out the truth, but doesn't quite get there. A continual theme in the show about just how much dumb luck these two had in their escapades and the fallout of their decisions. How in the beginning they are just down on their luck trying to make a buck, and become something entirely different by the end. A cycle repeated in BCS with Mike Ermantraut. Though, you completely nailed it that the episode is boring and pointless without the context.

 

[DetachedObserver]

The OP is 100% correct. I could barely get through the first season.

 

[Zardnaar]

The OP is 100% correct. I could barely get through the first season.

It's a show they're inherently subjective. I loved it if it's not for you oh well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The story has a lot of metaphorical layers, and it showed the gradual fall/corruption of people as worse and worse things became normalised.

There are dozens of Oscar winning movies that manage to tell that kind of story in two hours.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And a lot of fans don't care for it because all they do is hunt a fly and talk. Especially in the context of how charged with energy the rest of the plot is at that moment in time.

I'm a fan of bottle episodes. I maintain that arguably the greatest single hour of television was an episode of Homicide that's largely Andre Braugher going in and out of an interrogation room, wearing down a suspect the detectives are sure is guilty of murder, but just won't crack and they don't have the evidence to convict without him.

If folks are reading my post and deciding that me not liking seeing a bedridden man order geodes means I don't like drama or dialogue, OK, but I promise, that's not true.

 

[Xamnam]

I'm a fan of bottle episodes. I maintain that arguably the greatest single hour of television was an episode of Homicide that's largely Andre Braugher going in and out of an interrogation room, wearing down a suspect the detectives are sure is guilty of murder, but just won't crack and they don't have the evidence to convict without him.

If folks are reading my post and deciding that me not liking seeing a bedridden man order geodes means I don't like drama or dialogue, OK, but I promise, that's not true.

I'm not accusing you of that. In fact, I made that comment you quoted specifically more to show that what I love about it isn't universally agreed upon. I may disagree with them, but I'm not deriding anyone for not caring for it. But for the people who would defend the vast majorities of scenes in that show, I do think that episode embodies a lot of why we think the whole is phenomenal.

There are dozens of Oscar winning movies that manage to tell that kind of story in two hours.

I would say the shape may be the same, but the tone, color, and texture are wildly different, just by sheer virtue of the qualities of the medium and what it both allows you and encourages you to focus on.