This is a show I’ve been meaning to get around to for quite some time now. The first time I remember hearing about it was some three years ago when I was watching a program about “the arts” on NRK 1 (a state-funded Norwegian channel) where the host asked what TV show everyone’s been missing out on lately. The answer was, of course, “The Wire”! Among the phrases used was “Fantastic in every way!, “Probably the best cop show ever made!” and “So realistic it nearly hurts!”, and then they rounded the whole spot up with bemoaning the fact that no one had bought the rights to it yet, so us vikings would have to by the DVDs if we wanted to be “in the know”.
Since then I’ve been practically bombarded with recommendations from various and sundry, all saying much of the same with varying degrees of exasperated inflexions when I told them I hadn’t watched it. I quickly realized that I would eventually have to watch it , even though I’ve never been the biggest fan of cop shows. So I watched the pilot; thought it should have been convicted on thirty counts of boringness, and put “the Wire” away until peer pressure again had me feeling like I was culturally retarded for not having finished it. Oh, I know no one of you ever said it outright and in my face, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t to be found between the lines, pulsing like a clogged artery ready to pop.
Well, I’m happy to report that you can all cut down on the nitro-glycerine, ’cause I’ve done what you wanted and finished the entire season. Does that mean I like it, you ask, heart all a-twittering? Nah. On second thought, maybe you had better pop another pill before you continue reading.

“The Wire” is set to the crime infested city of Baltimore. One of the biggest dope king pins goes by the name of Avon Barksdale, whose territory includes nearly half of the entire city. Avon and his crew are slowly quenching the life out of the city, and you’d think the cops would be all over his case, but here’s the catch: no one knows who the fuck he is. The guy has been pulling this stunt for years and there’s never been opened a file on him, never been a single investigation where his name has come up, hell, no one outside a little circle knows what he even looks like! But when one of Avon’s crew beats the rap on a clear cut case of murder because a witness is turned at the last second, Detective McNulty decides that someone should stand up for Baltimore. He mentions Avon’s name in the ear of a new judge he knows who in turn gets the ball rolling. Soon everyone knows who Avon Barksdale is, even though no one except the judge and McNulty are especially pleased with the prospect of investigating him. After all, no one wants to upset the status quo… However, a wire gets opened, snitches starts snitching and before you know it a new player has entered the Game.
Now, I knew going into this show that I’d have to sit through five to eight episodes (of thirteen total) before things started heating up for real. And sure enough it did actually take about that long before the show quickened its pace and shit started hitting the fan, but even then it felt like someone was throwing nicely packed pieces of manure towards said fan, and not the veritable shit storm you’d except from the set-up. That being said though, once we were thrown a bone to chew, this show knew how the dress the meal.
Because while I never actually liked “the Wire” as a whole, there were a lot of gems in it that really sparkled. The problem was how to put it all together, to make the vehicle as brightly as the parts that went into it. I really liked some of the characters, like Detective McNulty, who was the only character you could really symphatize with. There was also a lot of other cool characters that I have to give props to; Avon Barksdale and Stringer Bell were refreshing in the roles of the big bad bosses, Detective Freeman was always intriguing and Major Rawls could lay a verbal smackdown with the best of the best.
However, season 1 of “the Wire” doesn’t get many points for good characterization, at least not if we’re talking about rich characterization, ’cause it isn’t a person-driven series. The people portrayed had more often than not settle for sitting in the backseat when the show’s was trying to tell its story about the crooked ways of life, only giving them the chance to shine whenever it gets out of its own, slow-going, convoluted way.
This is a show that aspires to a lot more than it accomplishes. Or at least that’s the impression I was left with after the first season of it. It tries to tell a highly realistic story that touches upon the many walks of life. It’s a tale about corruption of the street, of the higher authorites and the way this rot has spread through every inch of the system. Against this behemoth of a concept it pits a band of unsuccessful people who’ve all fallen prey to more or less the same viles, but that are now forced to fight them as well as their own instincts. It had the potential for a great story that, if taken care by some more skilled writers and producers, could’ve sparkled brightly in a Hollywood infused medium suffering from its own navel-gazing. But it cut itself short when it traded away the recipe of the genre as well as the boundaries, and while I must acknowledge the fact that realism of it rang true, it didn’t chose to offer up a feeling of desperation in stead of that much needed gleam of light. I wanted the light, ’cause that’s the kind of story I like and that’s the kind of story that serves a purpose higher than itself.
But then again, I never did like cop shows. This one is probably the best one I’ve seen so far, but for me it was way too slow with a lot of problems with its storytelling sucked away much of the potential enjoyment.
I will not be watching any more of it.
7.0/10 (strong)

(Un)Interesting blog trivia: This is my 400th post on A Slight Apocalypse. I think it was a good one.
Congrats on 400 posts!
I absolutely love The Wire, but I’m a big fan of cop shows.
And the scene in episode four – “Old Cases” – where McNulty and Moreland are digging up old evidence in that apartment and the only word they say for ~4 minutes is ‘fuck’ was absolutely brilliant and hilarious at the same time.
I think that may be the single best scene of television I’ve ever seen.
Thank you, REG! Hopefully I’ll be around for at least four hundred more, eh?
Yeah, that scene was really, really good. A lot of the scenes with McNulty and his partner were fantastic; it was one of those things that worked above and beyond what I’m used to. Too bad they didn’t get that many :/
I don’t know why, but from the way you talked about this show after having seen the pilot, I was expecting this despite never having heard anyone say anything bad about it ever before. In fact, I’m half-surprised you gave it a strong 7 and not a weak 6 or somesuch..
By the way, I strongly dislike cop-shows, too, as a general rule. Loved this show, though. Isn’t really a cop-show at all, it’s a show about corruption and crime, cops only being a (big, but still only a) part of the whole.
I might have felt a little like you say you did here about season 2 (less so, but a little like it) which I found to be weaker and less interesting than the rest of the series – but none of the other three. Season 1 is not _quite_ my favourite – that’s season 3 – but it’s close, and so I can’t really say I in any way get how anyone can watch this and not love it. So, sorry, dude, I guess I’ll just have to still be one of those guys potentially making you feel like the clogged artery about to burst. If not for the contempoary setting and the overwhelming feel of realism (so well done it’s stronger than I actually prefer in my shows… I want realism like in Deadwood or West Wing – characters who are slightly bigger than life-people in a slightly bigger than-life-world, that’s the right amount of realism – but here everyone feels like a real, utterly believable person, which is an incredibly impressive thing to pull off, but to me slightly less entertaining to watch in the long run) this would certainly have reached my top three shows ever. As it is, it’s hovering around spot five or so.
The light – I would agree, if not for this: there IS light in there. It’s just hard to see because it’s so real that the only light that’s there is the kind that you find in the garden-variety real world that’s actually out there. The kind “bleeding-heart liberals” are so crazy about and most of us others ignore exist. That one’s in the show, and sometimes it actually bears fruit. I don’t see this show as having less of a light outlook than, say, “Rome”. And it’s certainly brighter than “The Sopranos” in many ways. Of course, it’s difficult for me to judge only the first season alone, this show is very clearly constructed as a series of five mega-movies, each one a chapter in a gigantic and impressive accomplishment of a television-show that’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a visual media managing the complexity of a well-written novel. In some ways, I’d go so far as to say that “The Wire” is television’s answer to the graphic novel’s “Watchmen”. And yes, I am aware of how insanely high praise that is. Anyway, considering that, I might be retconning some of the beams of light I might have noticed in later seasons into the first (Unlikely though – if you thought season 1 was bleak, I wonder what you’d say of 2 and 5…), but I doubt I would have kept watching with as much of a burning interest as I did back then if season 1 hadn’t given me enough of it to go on. To be honest, season 1 of Mad Men struck me as just as gloomy, only with less interesting stuff going on, and you seemed to like that.
Oh, and before I submit the comment, you mention that the show aspires to more than it accomplishes – I’ve honestly no idea how it could accomplish much more than it does.
I have no idea how you can say that there is no characterization in this show. Seriously, man. For shame. I will not be able to back up my arguments, seeing as it is almost half a year since I watched this, but I feel that watching the Wire as “a cop show” would be the wrong mindset. It is a piece of fiction about the dysfunctional American system, shown (in the first season) from the viewpoint of the policemen whose job it is to maintain the status quo. In season two we get to see it from the eyes of the blue-collar dock-worker, in season three it switches back to crime, but this time with more focus on the criminals (oh my fucking god I love Stringer Bell), and in season four it focuses more on politicians. It is not just a series about solving the case, but also about the conditions that influence the solving of the case, the system in which the case gets processed.
And seriously, the portrayal of the individuals inside that system is achieved with both believability and pathos. Many arcs go over three or four seasons, so I guess it’s hard to see them from the beginning, but they are there, and most of them show huge amounts of character development. But, y’know, opinions differ. Some people vote FrP. Some people don’t like the Wire.
Needless to say (but saying it anyway) I agree in what Ole says here. Would nuance one thing, about the different focal points during the seasons, and say the politicians are gradually phased in during season 2 and 3 and reach a high-point in season 4 before becoming slightly less in-focus in season 5 again, and rather mention the school-system and the press as respectively the two distinguishing elements of 4 and 5. The police, the criminals and (to an admitedly less extent) the politicians are kind of ever-present, but with different amounts of weight in each season, whereas the blue collar worker, the schools and the press are much more one-off-portrayals in seasons 2, 4 and 5.
“But, y’know, opinions differ. Some people vote FrP. Some people don’t like the Wire.”
You have no idea how close I was to posting that very same thing last night, but I figured I was a better person than that. XD (Seems I might have been wrong)
(Oh, and yeah, and on that noe, if I’m to be completley honest, simply calling this a cop-show is kind of like calling The Lord of the Rings a story about the issues of having stunted growth.
)
*note
Sorry ^^ I really need to start proof-reading my postings one of these years.
Thank you both for bothering to leave such long and meaty comments. Writing this stuff wouldn’t be half as fun if I didn’t know somebody would care enough to comment on it, and I kind of knew this one would be a home-dinger in that respect. Sorry if I’m not going to quibble with you guys over every little detail. It’ll only end with me reiterating myself until I’ve used all my synonyms like so many times before, and we don’t want that, do we?
“I have no idea how you can say that there is no characterization in this show. ” – Ole
I didn’t say exactly that, did I? I just pointed out that, considering how much time this show spends not moving the plot forward, it spends a surprisingly small amount of time on the characters you’d think should get it. Part of the reason behind this is of course the fact that this show has a very large and diverse cast, and an other part is that it tries to pull the “less is more” act from times to times without coming up with the pay-off as consistently as I’d expect. I for one hold good characterization as one of my Important Standards, and “the Wire” felt often a little lacking.
“Oh, and before I submit the comment, you mention that the show aspires to more than it accomplishes – I’ve honestly no idea how it could accomplish much more than it does.” – Loki
That sentence was primarily directed at the way it chose to tell the story, which was as far from a normal build-up and execution as I’ve ever seen. In many ways I appreciated the originality of it, but in others I was also forced to acknowledge that the “new direction” often left the storyline hanging too much and I find myself wanting to see some old methods put to use to liven things up.
“Some people vote FrP. Some people don’t like the Wire.” – Ole
Well, I guess I had it coming, huh? That being said, I can’t help but point out that I’m far from the only one who didn’t like “the Wire”. It’s opposition may not be vocal, because – hey, it’s an above average show and one can’t argue against that when you’re used to eating crap – but t hat doesn’t take away the fact that “the Wire” was the most under-performing drama on HBO in terms of audience numbers. The only reason it was kept alive as long as it did was because channel REALLY liked it. There was no other logic in it. And while it’s obvious that I’d be pitching my tent with the vast majority of the American people on this one (*shudders*), I’m also very glad that “the Wire” lived as long as it did. After all, it’s one of television’s most regarded shows and nothing can change that.
Thanks for appreciatin’ our less-than-nice comments.
You keep talking about the show’s storytelling taking a “new direction” – I just don’t see that. Of course, there’s two reasons I might be of a different impression, the first and most obvious being that I watched all five seasons in a row without break, and the structure could possibly strike you as more normal if you see it all as one long story like I do. Second, but maybe more important, in the four months preceeding my watching “The Wire” I watched “The Sopranos” from end to end, and I’d also relatively recently checked out “Deadwood” (I think about a year before that), both of which have a less than traditional approach to the outline of the story. I think that by the time I got to “The Wire”, there wasn’t anything that struck me as new or different about things you might have been reacting to. (Of course, it might also be that I’m just too thick to notice the things they did differently from the norm.)
Yo bro’!
So you finally got around to watching this show? Well, good for you! (How’s school by the way? Thought you aspired something in that direction this year…? Taking up The Wire might not be such a good idea, considering it’s length…)
I disagree in a lot of what you’re saying.
“And sure enough it did actually take about that long before the show quickened its pace and shit started hitting the fan, but even then it felt like someone was throwing nicely packed pieces of manure towards said fan, and not the veritable shit storm you’d except from the set-up.”
(Should I start by saying; you need to practice making smaller sentences!) Furthermore: I never expected a “veritable shit storm” (shouldn’t that be one word?). The style of this show was slow, arty, figurative, dark, sarcastic etc. They never promised us action of the Hollywood kind. If action had suddenly started to take the form of car chases, explosions, shoot-outs and heros in the form of great police-officers, this show would have lost its original platform. And it would have become just like “all other policeshows” (probably with exceptions, haven’t seen them all by far…) And thereby unwatchable…
Actually, I just got cut off by an other appointment, and I have to write the rest of this comment later. In till then, enjoy!
“The style of this show was slow, arty, figurative, dark, sarcastic etc. They never promised us action of the Hollywood kind. ”
Indeed.
“So you finally got around to watching this show? Well, good for you! (How’s school by the way? Thought you aspired something in that direction this year…? Taking up The Wire might not be such a good idea, considering it’s length…)”
(Oh, good enough, I guess. I did passably well at a physics test. Should end up with a strong 5 or somesuch, which is okay for the first test of the year. I really liked the short story I wrote for my Norwegian class and have considered posting it here, but don’t know whether anyone would be interested in a naturalistic, depressing story. I’m a little worried about the upcoming math test though, but then again, I’m always worried about math tests.)
“I disagree in a lot of what you’re saying.”
As does 99% of my readership. Still, while I’d love the proverbial “nothing” more than love “the Wire”, I also find it comforting that I can go against the common opinion of something and not just fall in line like a good doggie. A lot of reviewers do that; they pull their punches when they shouldn’t be afraid to say that they didn’t like it. It’s is, after all, not a (big) sin.
“(Should I start by saying; you need to practice making smaller sentences!) ”
(Well, I suppose I could start by using a smaller font, but then my master plan would be foiled -foiled, I say! – by the evil feature “ctrl +”
. In all seriousness though, I can see what you’re saying and I’ll make a note about it for the future).
” The style of this show was slow, arty, figurative, dark, sarcastic etc. They never promised us action of the Hollywood kind. If action had suddenly started to take the form of car chases, explosions, shoot-outs and heros in the form of great police-officers, this show would have lost its original platform. And it would have become just like “all other policeshows” (probably with exceptions, haven’t seen them all by far…) And thereby unwatchable…
I think you understand that I realize this fact perfectly well, but that doesn’t take away the fact that this is at times an incredibly slow-going show. Now, you can go about changing that via many routes. You could amp up the drama between the characters, amp up the drama of the story or you can make use of worn out, but still servicable plot devices. Obviously none of this would have made the show “unwatchable”, because last time I checked, good drama series were doing pretty well in the US and if there’s a stalwart among the drama series, then it’s certainly the cop shows…
And if you’re telling me that the unanimously hailed writers of “the Wire” aren’t able to write original takes on that stuff, then they aren’t worth their salt.
You keep saying it was slow-moving. I’m, like, wondering how they’re so slow that it’s a bad thing? Sure, it doesn’t go incredibly rapid and punch-punch-punch on you, but it’s got rather complex plots. Considering these complex plots, it can’t really go much quicker without sacrificing some of the depth that’s the show’s main strength. Something’s happening all the time, every episode brought several plots and character-arcs way further along. Saying this is slow is a lot like saying the Malazan-books are a slow read just because it takes a while to set up everything that’s awesome about them. They _wouldn’t_ be awesome if they didn’t take their time.
I think it’s a fair argument about several of the Malazan books that they could have easily been edited down a little. In fact, every book save DG and MoI should have been trimmed and wouldn’t have suffered from it.
Again, I don’t see why a faster moving, or in other words; more exciting show couldn’t have brought much of the same depth to the story (and the characters, which wouldn’t have been hard at all). It’s just a matter of storytelling and how they choose to do it, and this show’s course didn’t appeal to me.
The problem I have with this is just that I don’t understand it. If something’s slow-moving, I’m usually the first to complain about it. When people talk highly of something and I end up not liking it anyway, my arguments of why are almost always spearheaded by “well, it felt like it moved much too slowly”. I never once felt that here, and so, it’s so strange to me that this one factor that I’m usually so sensitive to is something I’ve basically not even _noticed_ on a show where it’s something you consider a major faulting. If I in general didn’t mind stuff that felt like it moved slowly, I’d get it, different tastes. But I DO. And I never felt like that was an issue here, so it’s just so incredibly difficult to wrap my head around that being a reason you didn’t like it. To my brain, it’s a little bit like someone saying “I don’t like the colour yellow because there’s too much blue in it”, you know?
Well, I understand what you’re saying, if that’s what you mean. I guess you’ll just have to settle with being confounded this time around, eh?
I suppose. I don’t like being confounded.
It’s confounding, is what it is.
No, mostly it’s just a downer.
Sorry, promising more than i got to…
I would like to write something more in-depth about the wire season one, but I not sure that I really can… It’s at least six months since i finished it, and since then four more season’s made there impression on me. The Wire was kinda slow moving, I agree to that, but on the other hand, it would have lost all kind of realism if it’d been to much action. Really – there’s not much action at all… And why isn’t that so strange? Perhaps – and this is me taking a guess – people don’t like to get seriously injured or die, and thereby in real life do not search for the opportunity of an explosion. In real life policework is dangerous, and precautions are made for any intervention. I like that the writes has made an effort to not include money-making explosions and car-chases.
I don’t think that his scene is from season one, but still, it’s one of my favorites: McNulty is dead drunk and drives his car through the night. He crashes in to a pole. No explosion, no lights, no serious damage, just a serious bulk to the car. McNulty goes out to observe the damage. After a couple of moments of dead-drunken-logic he get’s in to the car and drives it straight in to the pole again.
Anyway, bro’, I hear you’re not joining us in November? In case you’re thinking about coming here some time this autumn ( which would be great!), I have two things in mind. First – The National Bank plays on October 2nd, and Calexico on October 26th. Haven’t heard Calexico without Iron and Wine, but what they did together was very good. On 24th of October there’s a jazzconcert that might be awesome, but you might not be in to jazz just yet? Anyway… (If you don’t want personal info on you site, than make your self available in other ways!)
I’m happy; I haven’t watched anything of “The Wire”, so I won’t have to read all your pointless arguing back and forth.
Pointless? How dare you demean our voluntarily chosen spare-time activities like that? You arrogant bastard! Clearly, we’re all feeling we get something out of doing this.
Also, you’d adore The Wire.
You probably would.
I know. In fact, when my Rome trip fell through last week, I considered spending the thousands of NOK I’d intended to spend on it on TV shows instead, and The Wire would have been at the top of my to-buy list. Now, when it looks as if the Rome trip might actually happen anyway, this plan falters a bit, but I suppose I could still afford a season or two, just to find out if it’s my kinda thing.
And there was also another thing I was gonna say here, but it must have evaporated or something, ’cause damn if I know what it was.
Well, it should be seriously straight up your alley as far as premise, content and execution goes. More so than any other non-fantasy/sci-fi/period-show I can think of save perhaps the best seasons of West Wing.
Thursday last week, I went to this electronics store to buy a new digital camera for my Rome trip, and as I was there anyway I figured I might as well spend a couple hundred on things I don’t really need. One of those things was a The Wire, Season 1 DVD.
Then, on Saturday, after having spent 3 hours walking in the forest, I fell down on the couch with a pizza, and wanted something to watch while I ate, before I went back to my Ancient Rome term paper. I didn’t quite feel like Doctor Who, so I thought I’d just watch the first episode of The Wire.
Naturally, I was stuck there until I could hardly keep my eyes up.
The next morning, I had planned to start working on the term paper early, but before I got that far I needed to break my fast, so to say, and once again I craved something to watch. I still wasn’t in the mood for the Doctor, and there weren’t any new The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, so I decided to watch an episode of The Wire. One would have thought that I was able to learn from my past mistakes, but no; seven hours and about as many episodes later, I still had the remnants of my breakfast on the living room table in front of me, and I still hadn’t done squat on my term paper since Saturday morning.
I guess what I’m trying to say in all this ranting, is that in retrospect I am happy I didn’t read this review, as it might have doused my desire to watch The Wire enough to keep me from buying that first season.
Hihi. I knew this would be just your thing. Probably even more so than me.
Yeah, there’s hardly anything about this show I don’t like. If I remember enough of it and can find the time, I will even write a short review when I get back from Rome.
Awesome, looking forward to that.
Know you do that, I will commit myself to remembering to write such a review by writing myself a memo on a post-it and leaving it on my computer.
Hooray!
Wow. I’m usually late with replies, but this time I’ve outdone myself.
My attention was directed here by Loki on MSN a good 3 months ago. At first I had no idea what to write. The thought of someone not liking The Wire was incomprehensible to me. How is it humanly possible not to like it.
After a while of trying to figure out how best to express my feelings of apocalyptic disapproval and righteous fury, I realised that I had to wait for my raging discontent to release me from its fiery grip before I could properly express myself. And so, I waited.
In other words: I simply forgot. That is, until Loki was so good as to remind me on MSN last night. So here… we… go.
First of, The Wire’s lack of ratings doesn’t surprise me too much. It’s intricate, complicated , hard to digest, and difficult to follow for most people. It does not favour casual viewers. If you’re looking for action, and frequent twist and turns, then this is not a show for you. It is a slow paced, heavy show that requires your utmost attention in order to both understand it and enjoy it.
Which is why I am severely surprised (And a tad bit offended as well) that you did not enjoy it, Amras. When ever I am asked what The Wire is like, I usually compare it to especially Deadwood, but also Oz.
Deadwood and The Wire are similar in many ways, for example in the senae that both are extremely complicated shows, that requires high amounts of devotion when watching. Both are slow-paced, and do not depend almost entirely on 1 on going plot-line. Sure, the Baltimore police’s pursuit to bring an end to the Barksdale organization is important, but so is everything that surrounds it.
The Wire is more a depiction of a society as a whole, from the most privileged upper class politician, to the lowliest dope fiend on of the streets. Could the show have been edited down, and increased the focus on the police’s pursuit, and the gangsters’ evading them? Probably, but it would not have been the same show, and it would, in my opinion, have severely damaged its quality. Its debth and, to some extent, its realism would have faded away, and The Wire would most likely have been reduced to a simple cop show.
It is not meant to appease the the action addicts or drama bunnies. It is, to me, excillerating in a very different way that is difficult to describe.
Amping up the drama would be a terrible idea in my opinion, probably due to the fact that i rarely enjoy drama shows, but also because I usually find them horribly unrealistic.
I am grateful for the lack of drama between the characters, because frankly, It’s getting a bit fucking tedious with all the over-the-top drama and ludicrous depictions of relationships frequently being presented as “real life” in drama shows and even sit-coms.
What exactly you mean by “stories that serves a higher purpose that itself” I do not know
As for the the gleams of light, I agree with Loki. They are there, but in a more subtle way than we’re used to.
There’s not much more for me to say at the moment that hasn’t already been said by others here (particularly by Loki).
I apologise for resurrecting this post, but I am, after all, a class A slacker.
Also sorry if this comment seems rather incoherent, or messy, but it is written rather hastily in the middle of the night.
Hee, commenting six months after the post and apologising that you’re incoherent because you wrote it in the middle of the night seems to have a logic flaw somewhere. But don’t worry, it wasn’t incoherent at all.
You raise some good points that I think the rest of us didn’t cover, and it was a fun read. ^^ You compare it to Deadwood and Oz – you haven’t seen the Sopranos, or? To me, that would seem the most apparent comparison, possibly even more so than the admittedl close Deadwood.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Shirgaal, even if it’s slightly creepy that you and Loki plot my downfall on MSN (I’m kidding, of course). I dunno exactly what you want from me here? Do you want to me to address all of the points you raise, because I frankly don’t see what purpose that would serve here.
I do agree that it’s a shame I don’t like “the Wire”, all though mostly because I feels like the entire world is laughing its ass off because of this great joke, and I’m the foreign dude standing in the corner, going: “Sprechen sie English?”.
Sometimes though, I just have to accept that there’s stuff out there that doesn’t click with me. Now, as to the why of that… It’s hard to say, really. That’s probably why the review reads more like a lame “Ten Things That Could Have Made Me Like This Show” article rather than a proper analysis of its strengths and faults.
It’s tempting to say that the reason for that is because “the Wire” doesn’t really have any faults. It really is G. R. E. A. T. television; both original and brave in a lot ways. For me though, the first rule of story-telling is to make the audience *care*. I don’t give a damn about what it is I’m supposed to give a crap about, but it should be SOMETHING.
Now, I’m perfectly willing and able to accept that a lot of people DO find stuff that resonates to them within this show. I, however, didn’t, and would ask you nicely to not let that offend you. It’s only a show after all, and I do think I’ve been respectful about my characterization of it.
I don’t think you’re entirely correct about equating “Deadwood” to “the Wire”. Yes, both shows are gritty and probably very realistic, but “Deadwood” had an historical setting that was a lot more interesting, and I had no problems finding humanity buried in all the grime and muck. And “Deadwood” has Ian McShane. “The Wire” didn’t have a single actor that was good enough to sniff his ball hair.
@Amras
The most sinister of plots are usually hatched on MSN.
Don’t worry, there is nothing that I “want from you”, I mean, it is after all 6 months since you wrote the review, and it would be absurd to make a comment , demanding for the debate to resume.
I did, however, feel it was a shame that this review had passed me by, and I had promised Loki to comment on it.
“Now, I’m perfectly willing and able to accept that a lot of people DO find stuff that resonates to them within this show. I, however, didn’t, and would ask you nicely to not let that offend you. It’s only a show after all, and I do think I’ve been respectful about my characterization of it.”
I seriously hope you didn’t think that I was honestly offended by you not liking The Wire? I put that in as a joke, as was the case with the introduction. I suppose I could have specified that I was being ironic in regards to that joke.
“I don’t think you’re entirely correct about equating “Deadwood” to “the Wire”. Yes, both shows are gritty and probably very realistic, but “Deadwood” had an historical setting that was a lot more interesting, and I had no problems finding humanity buried in all the grime and muck. And “Deadwood” has Ian McShane. “The Wire” didn’t have a single actor that was good enough to sniff his ball hair.”
I think you misunderstand me. I compared them in the sense of pace, storytelling, the way that neither shows revolve around 1 single plot-line. The Wire is a show about a city, while Deadwood is a show about a camp (slowly turning into a town), everything that happens, and even minor characters’ issues that may be completely unrelated to the main characters or what they’re doing, are still important. In away, everything that happens in Baltimore and Deadwood is a part of the plot, because the city and the camp IS the plot.
The acting is a lot better in Deadwood, though I do think that The Wire has some pretty good ones too. Deadwood’s historical setting wasn’t as important to me as it was, in for example Rome. This probably due to Anchient Rome being a time in history that I am far more interested in than late 19th century in America.
I personally had no problems finding humanity in The Wire, though I’ll admit it was a lot easier in Deadwood.
@Loki
“Hee, commenting six months after the post and apologising that you’re incoherent because you wrote it in the middle of the night seems to have a logic flaw somewhere.”
Hehehe, I realise now how incredibly ridiculous it sounds.
“You compare it to Deadwood and Oz – you haven’t seen the Sopranos, or? To me, that would seem the most apparent comparison, possibly even more so than the admittedl close Deadwood.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I view The Sopranos and The Wire as very different shows, in both structure, plot, and characterization. The Sopranos maintains a much quicker pace, it is more personal, and great portions of the plot is centered on a few characters personal issues.
I may be way off here, as I haven’t watched The Sopranos since it ended.
“The most sinister of plots are usually hatched on MSN.”
If you knew my MSN-handle, you could truly understand how well I know this to be true.
“I seriously hope you didn’t think that I was honestly offended by you not liking The Wire? I put that in as a joke, ”
Well, I hoped not. It’s hard to convey tone without inflexion, so it’s not always so easy to tell. Glad to hear it though
I wanted him to comment because I figured it would spike some discussion on your otherwise dead weblog. AND IT IS WORKING.
Hooray for me and my pseudo-manipulative ways.
Re: The acting. Something set 150 years ago will necessarily feel more Epic and Supposed To Be Over The Top than something set in the present to our eyes, and thus the actors will have an easier time doing stellar emotional stuff on Deadwood because it simply lends itself to stronger stuff. That said, they might have a smidgen on the The Wire-people as a group. I just don’t think it’s as big a difference as you’re both making it out to be, I think it’s more in the respective subject matters being less actor-friendly when it’s the present time.
Re: the similarities Deadwood-Wire. Excellent point, with the camp and the city BEING the plots. I hadn’t thought of it, but very true. Certainly renders my Sopranos-comparison a little weaker. And speaking of…
Re: My Sopranos-comparison. I disagree that Sopranos moved much quicker than The Wire. Maybe a bit, yes, but hardly by much. It was way more character-focused, that’s true, but I felt the themes of corruption and trying to make life work despite or even through it were rather similar, as was the setting and the mood. Deadwood is far closer a comparison, though, I admit this.
Re: Ian McShane’s ball hair and sniffing thereof: No comment.
Re: Historical settings, that’s always a help to me. The older the better – as long as it is historical and not prehistorical, anyway – and being far away and very different doesn’t hurt either. So Rome > Deadwood on setting, which is again superior to the Wire by far in the same way. Which makes it all the sense in the world, except I actually prefer Deadwood to Rome on the whole. It’s just that awesome.
Re: Amras’ feelings: I really hope you didn’t feel offended or anything, was never the point to BUG you further with this. I just figured I’d get some more fun talky-talking out of it with a new guy’s perspective.
Re: Re: My feelings: Was not hurt in the slightest. I was simply worried about Shirgaal’s.
Re: Loki’s need to talky-talk: Is perfectly understandable, and also quite sweet. Do you miss commenting on my blog and getting into silly arguments you’d eventually win? Well, I know I do, but I just don’t feel like blogging much lately.
Re: The rest: squitch squatch fillebom-de-bom.
Re: My sweetness:I know, I AM quite sweet. Lovable, huggable and all around filled with sugary awesome, that’s me.
Re: The purpose of all this: I got Shirgaal’s Deadwood.-The Wire-comparison with the camp and the city out of this, so I’m thoroughly pleased. ^^
“I wanted him to comment because I figured it would spike some discussion on your otherwise dead weblog. AND IT IS WORKING.
Hooray for me and my pseudo-manipulative ways.”
Thus Loki reveals himself to be the true mastermind behind this devilish ploy.^^
“I disagree that Sopranos moved much quicker than The Wire. Maybe a bit, yes, but hardly by much. It was way more character-focused, that’s true, but I felt the themes of corruption and trying to make life work despite or even through it were rather similar, as was the setting and the mood. Deadwood is far closer a comparison, though, I admit this.”
Very good points. The mood, setting and themes of the two shows are very similar. It’s hard to put my finger on why I find Sopranos to move so much quicker. I suspect it may have something to do with the interpersonal drama and relationship between the characters, its structure, humour, and that each episode very often contained a unique plotline of its own. Can’t be entirely sure until I have done some rewatching of The Sopranos again (Which I really should).
“Historical settings, that’s always a help to me. The older the better – as long as it is historical and not prehistorical, anyway – and being far away and very different doesn’t hurt either. So Rome > Deadwood on setting, which is again superior to the Wire by far in the same way. Which makes it all the sense in the world, except I actually prefer Deadwood to Rome on the whole. It’s just that awesome.”
I agree with you. Though Rome is a brilliant show, with an extremely interesting setting, I consider Deadwood superior. It’s just one of those shows that excells on so many areas. Great acting, depth, characters that really come alive, historical setting, production, execution and structure… I could go on.
That HBO cancelled Deadwood is possibly the worst decision to be made since the invasion of Iraq (Well, perhaps not quite, but it still ranks very high).
“My feelings: Was not hurt in the slightest. I was simply worried about Shirgaal’s.”
Aww.
“I just don’t feel like blogging much lately.”
We have ways to make you blog!
We have ways, and more importantly – WE HAVE MEANS. Ohyes. You don’t know WHAT (this) means, but we have’m.
And we MIGHT USE THEM. Some day. Possibly. If pressured. Really, it’d be best if you just blogged on your own accord though.
Then again, me and Shirgaal might not be the best examples. I’ve written, what, three proper posts in the last four months, and he a grand total of none. (Ohyes, now I’m pressuring you too! “Her sparker vi i alle retninger”, as Almaas says.) ^^
Hey, I feel like I’m doing VERY important blogging over at my Twitter account
That’s not blogging. You can tell from the name. “Twittering” is something small birds do. “Blogging” doesn’t appear in nature, but you can tell that if it did, it wouldn’t be done by birds but by elephants. It’s weighty stuff.
Heh. I guess that depends on who writes it, really. Never been one for the weighty stuff myself
I’m talking about the words, not the content, silly.
Yes, see, “silly” is what I’m going for here. Thanks for understanding!