Do HBO Shows Count as Being Groundbreaking?

[Adamantium]

I don't think so. People say that "Sex and the City" was groundbreaking, but I don't see how. Because it's on HBO, they don't have all the restrictions that network television has. I think HBO itself is groundbreaking, but the shows on it, would be if they aired on the networks, but because it's HBO, they're not groundbreaking.

What do you think on this topic?

[Janice]

Restrictions or not, HBO puts out some of the most creative and original dramas, sitcoms and movies ever. The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Big Love, and Sex And The City -- brilliant and groundbreaking.

[Mikado]

If a show is TRULY groundbreaking, it doesnt matter where it airs. I'ts the content that makes for something original, not where the show airs, or doesnt air.

[Brian Damage]

If a show is TRULY groundbreaking, it doesnt matter where it airs. I'ts the content that makes for something original, not where the show airs, or doesnt air.


Agreed, The Sopranos was a groundbreaking show. It made a little known character actor named James Gandolfini into a multi millionaire. Don't forget 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' another brilliant sitcom from HBO.

[Adamantium]

Alright, I understand what you're all saying.

And I want it duly noted that I'm not bashing HBO shows (Curb is in my top ten favorite shows list). I don't have HBO, so I only watch some select shows on DVD.

It's just my feeling has been that when a show "breaks ground" they're breaking it for network television. Taking those restrictions and pushing them a bit. But since HBO has no such restrictions (that I'm aware of) there's nothing to push. But again, that's just how I feel about it.

[dawsongirl]

I agree. They probably would either have just been like all the other shows on the regular networks, or they would not aired altogether if not for HBO. Personally, I have seen wonderful drama and great writing and acting come from procedurals on CBS. But no one recognizes them because they have the stigma of being a "procedural." puke: I ****ing DESPISE that excuse. Open your eyes, bigots.

I've seen Sopranos and Sex and the City. I thought both were horrid. All the swearing did nothing for me on the Sopranos. Ooo, groundbreaking...they can swear. And I thought everyone was a nasty SOB. And Sex and the City...puke: Annoying harpies. And thanks but no thanks to seeing Kim Cattral's breasts. Overt sexuality does nothing for me. And most of the time it's not in there to move the plot along (I'm speaking in general with that statement, not just SatC).

I'd like to add Showtime's crap heap. I was reading that article in the newest TV Guide about Californication and a new HBO show Tell Me You Love Me, where they show what seems to me to be a level above soft core porn. And for what? How does showing us body parts and a bunch of the actual act make the plot any better than if you just teased us and let the viewer's imaginations run wild? You'll never convince me it does. Never.

Ok, off my :soapbox: And I'm sure I'll get flamed.

[Brian Damage]

I agree. They probably would either have just been like all the other shows on the regular networks, or they would not aired altogether if not for HBO. Personally, I have seen wonderful drama and great writing and acting come from procedurals on CBS. But no one recognizes them because they have the stigma of being a "procedural." puke: I ****ing DESPISE that excuse. Open your eyes, bigots.

I've seen Sopranos and Sex and the City. I thought both were horrid. All the swearing did nothing for me on the Sopranos. Ooo, groundbreaking...they can swear. And I thought everyone was a nasty SOB. And Sex and the City...puke: Annoying harpies. And thanks but no thanks to seeing Kim Cattral's breasts. Overt sexuality does nothing for me. And most of the time it's not in there to move the plot along (I'm speaking in general with that statement, not just SatC).

I'd like to add Showtime's crap heap. I was reading that article in the newest TV Guide about Californication and a new HBO show Tell Me You Love Me, where they show what seems to me to be a level above soft core porn. And for what? How does showing us body parts and a bunch of the actual act make the plot any better than if you just teased us and let the viewer's imaginations run wild? You'll never convince me it does. Never.

Ok, off my :soapbox: And I'm sure I'll get flamed.

Gee, tell us how you really feel! ;) That's ok, you are entitled to your opinion. :) I still say that HBO has some good quality programs.

[dawsongirl]

Gee, tell us how you really feel! ;) That's ok, you are entitled to your opinion. :) I still say that HBO has some good quality programs.
ok I will! lol


Yeah, I don't care what people watch. That's why there's variety; something for every taste.

[TJL]

Alright, I understand what you're all saying.

And I want it duly noted that I'm not bashing HBO shows (Curb is in my top ten favorite shows list). I don't have HBO, so I only watch some select shows on DVD.

It's just my feeling has been that when a show "breaks ground" they're breaking it for network television. Taking those restrictions and pushing them a bit. But since HBO has no such restrictions (that I'm aware of) there's nothing to push. But again, that's just how I feel about it.

I agree with you. HBO does have a slight advantage over regular TV. They can push things further.

I do think that HBO does go overboard with the "groundbreaking" talk. Not all of thier shows are gems, and like the networks, they've had a few clunkers.

"John From Cincinnati" is the most recent example.

[Stuck In The '70's]

I agree with you. HBO does have a slight advantage over regular TV. They can push things further.

I do think that HBO does go overboard with the "groundbreaking" talk. Not all of thier shows are gems, and like the networks, they've had a few clunkers.

"John From Cincinnati" is the most recent example.
John From Cincinnati sucked. I can't believe they canceled Deadwood for that. :ohno:

[Janice]

I agree with you. HBO does have a slight advantage over regular TV. They can push things further.

I do think that HBO does go overboard with the "groundbreaking" talk. Not all of thier shows are gems, and like the networks, they've had a few clunkers.

"John From Cincinnati" is the most recent example.
They've had plenty of clunkers, and quite a few gems.

[JT]

I sorta agree with Adam. It's easy for a show to be called "groundbreaking" when it's on a channel that regularly airs softcore porn every Thursday night. If HBO and Showtime weren't channels that have been airing uncut, unedited motion pictures with nudity, profanity, violence, etc, for the last 30 years, well then those shows could be called "groundbreaking." Hell, when you think about it, they're just serialized movies. The only thing groundbreaking about them is that they actually are TV series and not movies.

For the record, I'm not really a fan of those shows anyway. "The Sopranos" is dull, boring garbage unless you are actually interested in it. "Sex and the City" is good, but only in small doses. "Oz" and "Six Feet Under" were actually enjoyable shows, but SFU got really old, really fast. Don't even ask me why anybody even cares about "Entourage." It sucks. I liked the little that I've seen of "Queer as Folk."

[Mikado]

To be honest, I do think many of these shows were indeed groundbreaking, on the other hand, I dont really think that necessarily meant that they were any good! :D

[factsoflife]

I don't think so. People say that "Sex and the City" was groundbreaking, but I don't see how. Because it's on HBO, they don't have all the restrictions that network television has. I think HBO itself is groundbreaking, but the shows on it, would be if they aired on the networks, but because it's HBO, they're not groundbreaking.

What do you think on this topic?


in the case of SATC i find it equally silly that it's considered ground-breaking when shows like "The Golden Girls", "Ally McBeal" and "Ellen" all featured female characters discussing their love lifes before that show ever aired...

[wkomorow]

Both Showtime and HBO have had their share of groundbreaking shows - as has network TV. Not every show on premium tv is groundbreaking. I don't see Sex in the City as groundbreaking. But there have been a number of groundbreaking show are Showtime - Brothers, QAF, It's Garry Shandling, Stargate SG1. HBO had its Deadwood, Sopranos, Oz.

[MLBonTBS]

I agree with you. I guess you could say these shows are "groundbreaking" for premium TV, but the majority of TV viewers don't even get HBO.

That's why it annoys me so much that HBO shows are always nominated for the same awards as network and cable shows. They should have separate categories for each.

These HBO shows don't have to prove themselves with ratings and advertisers like the network shows.. that's really an unfair advantage in these award categories.

[GoldenGirlsFan92]

I don't think so. People say that "Sex and the City" was groundbreaking, but I don't see how. Because it's on HBO, they don't have all the restrictions that network television has. I think HBO itself is groundbreaking, but the shows on it, would be if they aired on the networks, but because it's HBO, they're not groundbreaking.

What do you think on this topic?
Personally I dont find "Sex & The City" groundbreaking. To me...it' somewhat of a newer version of The Golden Girls,but dirtier. I think Golden Girls was groundbreaking talking about all the things they taked about. So to me...I don't find HBO Groundbreaking shws.

[Psparks]

These HBO shows don't have to prove themselves with ratings and advertisers like the network shows..

And that's why people like them....heck I've heard many people complain how certain hbo shows don't get the same award nominations as the regular tv networks (ie: Deadwood, The Wire).