He details his guidelines for choosing, particularly in the short video interview accompanying the list.

He gives a brief run-down of every show on the list, as well as a 30 second video clip.

Shall we compare?

Out of the list, I would certainly agree with
Arrested Development
Buffy
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Lost
Love My Way (even though Claudia Karvan as Frankie shits me to tears – I still think she’s just wrong for the part)
Nathan Barley (why did it take me so long to find out about this gem??)
The Office
Oz
Six Feet Under
The Sopranos (just you try leaving this one off the list…)
South Park
The Wire
The West Wing

Deadwood I’m sure I’ll include when I actually get around to watching it; it’s been ages since I’ve seen any of The Larry Sanders Show and don’t really recall enough to comment; I wouldn’t include I?m Alan Partridge because, to me, it just smacks a bit of The Norman Gunston Show (yes, I know – it’s not the same, but there’s enough of a similarity with the gormless hosts for me to feel it’s nothing new, just new to the next generation).

After contemplation and re-watching some eps recently, I would definitely include Sex and The City (good call, Jimbo), and I still reckon The Games deserves to be on there, if only for its freakishly prophetic nature – I pity John Clarke and Ross Stevenson that they’ve had enough contact with bureaucracy that they could predict what would happen with astonishing accuracy. In a similar vein I would consider Grass Roots, and a couple of other Australian shows – if only to give a parochial edge because, sometimes, I feel we are too eager to just eat up whatever is fed from the US; just because they spent a shitload more $ per ep doesn’t necessarily make it better. (But a bigger industry enables more programs to be made, ergo more will be better – hopefully – so I know the argument goes both ways.)

One that I doubt many (if any) people will agree with is I Am Not An Animal, which I consider to be brilliant social satire with wonderful collage animation. A pity it only ran to 6 episodes.

I would also go in to bat for Top Gear (yes, Ross – stop scoffing, it IS art; it’s also about passion, and I’m NOT a car person), except that it’s been going for nigh on 30 years, even though the current format only came about in 2001.

I might actually take the third option, which is to put my hands in my pockets, murmur “I don’t know, what do you think”, and kick at the ground a little bit.

To be honest, hypothetically assuming for the moment that I had my own podcast (let’s call it “CutBoxers”) and was doing my own Golden Age, there would be a bunch of official ones that wouldn’t make my list, only because I haven’t really watched them, including West Wing, Friday Night Lights, Deadwood, Love My Way, and even (gulp) The Sopranos (though I’m planning on catching up with that via my brother’s DVD collection). I don’t have the download abilities, so I’ve generally had to rely on free-to-air (although we got Foxtel just recently), cutting out most of those delectably enticing HBO dramas.

Those that I would definitely agree with are Arrested Development, Buffy, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Futurama, I?m Alan Partridge, The Larry Sanders Show, Lost, The Office, and South Park (mostly comedies, I just realised). I would probably add to that the Daily Show, My Name is Earl, 24, and Harvey Birdman (and possibly even The Colbert Report, which, although it was born of the Daily Show, is a step beyond and in some ways more “ground-breaking” than the Daily Show, since it mocks the bad guys seemingly from their own team). If someone was to wake up from a ten-year coma, I wouldn’t want them to miss those, to see how television had changed. Sex and the City (though I’m not a fan, because I’m, like, totally masculine) and Top Gear might also scrape through. There are other shows I like (I’m tempted to add Heroes), but not sure if they’d make the grade, criteria-wise.

Since it’s taken me over a week to get back to you, you’d think I’d have thought about this a bit more. But I truly haven’t.

Plus I, uh, don’t care…

Family Guy is not funny. Re: its inclusion in GAT,…

For a minute there, I thought I’d missed something and it was in the list. phew.

rilestar, we were asked for our opinions regarding the list. Despite the comments maybe occasionally getting a little assertive or defensive, I’m sure The Lads(TM) are loving how much discussion it has generated.

You say you don’t care one way or t’other what’s on it; I, for one, would be very interested to know of any shows you might include that haven’t already been named. Care to share?

The other thing I don?t get is how many people revere The Office (UK) and detest Curb. It would make far more sense to me if you either hated both or enjoyed both. Strange.

Stereolab is influenced heavily by Can and Neu and Faust; I don’t like any of them, yet I love Stereolab.

Perhaps I just need to see more Curb.

On Gervais, has anyone here heard his podcasts and UK radio shows? It’s very easy to see where a lot of the Extras humour came from.

While I completely understand why people wouldn’t like Curb, I find it staggering that I am the only person who seems to like it from the Boxcutters family. This is speaking in a general enjoyment capacity, not for the purposes of GAT. It’s like Seinfeld - it is so the stuff of life – the pain and suffering and torture of the every day, the ludicrous folly of existence. And it is immensely funny. Sure, not every ep, but when it is on song, which is often, it is hilarious.

The other thing I don’t get is how many people revere The Office (UK) and detest Curb. It would make far more sense to me if you either hated both or enjoyed both. Strange.

Very much looking forward to the new series.

I tried to watch Curb Your Enthusiasm but decided the gritted teeth and wincing weren’t doing me any favours and I stopped. Through sheer bravery I made it all the way through the first DVD before throwing in the towel.

The whole GAT thing is only there to generate discussion and expose some recent quality television. Of course there’ll be subjective differences. The West Wing bores the arse off me (and don’t start me on whatever the hell Curb Your Enthusiasm is), but if enough people can independently see value in something and explain that value, they’re worth listening to.

The simple fact is that all texts are open to all kinds of interpretation, however valid that might be. I never ever understood what was so good about The Red Green Show, despite aboue half my friends telling me it was unmissable.

Or perhaps I am being overly academic

(I make it sound as though SaTC is my favourite TV show ever – far from it. And I grew really bored with it by the end, but in 1999 it seemed to have a big impact on a lot of people.)

Just wanted to say that. *gets off soapbox*

yeah, nathan barley is available via the googles, but you’ll find the stage6 version are much higher quality… as is veoh.com

its a shame really, pirating tv used to be such a chore, now its so easy it takes some of the fun out of it..

and then, all you boys need some serious bsg time..

I had never heard of Spaced until now.

What will we be arguing about this week?

The only problem with the name PeBo is the association with fly-spray but hey, I’ve been called a lot worse than that.

P

Hopefully too GAT is helping people discover quality television they may not have seen. I know personally I am looking forward to catching up with Band of Brothers and Spaced based on recommendations in this thread.

In the end, there is no need for one single, definitive list.

I would value multiple and varying lists from Ross, Brett, Josh, Dave Boxcutter and anyone else who wants to take the trouble (as long as it is presented in some sort of conceptual framework that allows me to read it and ‘calibrate’ it as more than just a banal list of someone else’s favorites).

Peter (PeBo)Boxcutter

At the risk of being long-winded, can I start with a little background?

A few months ago I asked the Boxcutters for some help putting together a list of great recent TV shows. The list was intended to serve as a guide in DVD rentals and Amazon purchases.

I only had a foggy notion of what exactly I needed so I used this analogy:

If I was in a coma for ten years then woke up to hear friends and family discussing TV shows I’d missed, I would want those people to provide me with a list of the shows I would need to see to be brought up to date. There would be no expectation that I would necessarily end up loving every show on the list but I would hope it gave me a pretty good coverage of the essentials so I could make up my own mind about my favourites.

Brett was the first to respond and compiled a list that is still really useful. Yes he is a little ‘loose’ in his definitions but his list has already pointed me towards some wonderful stuff I would not have thought of and also reminded me about shows I had forgotten.

The breakthrough though, was the structure that Josh (and the envelope) applied to the task. His criteria of: ‘demonstrated influence or effective change that contributed DIRECTLY to the new GAT’ was only ever presented as a rough set of guidelines but it took the selection process away from pure value judgements (“well, I like this one but that one is crap”) and gave it a rational framework to argue within. This is demonstrated by the fact that several of his personal favourites did not make the cut.

Having said that, I actually sided with Ross, Brett (and some of the blog commentators) in several of the arguments that have ensued.

I disagree with Josh on the exclusion of TWW, Sex in the City and maybe The Daily Show (although Josh’s latest blog argument on this one is pretty convincing) I also agree that Firefly does not qualify – even though I absolutely love it, but the real point is that these arguments have weight PRECISELY because they occur within a criteria framework that has conceptual rigor. We can (and do) debate the issue, but thanks to Josh and the fuckin envelope we have the parameters that allow us to start to apply meaning to mere disagreement.

Thanks!

Peter Boxcutter (AKA: PeBo – I’m very happy with both names)

The Young Ones might have had a laugh track, but touched on many of the issues you claim are new. As did Monty Python. I think they probably did more savaging of norms than any of the modern shows.

True, but with the sheer scale of content we have now it’s increasingly more difficult to reinvent the wheel. Back then you could sneeze and it’d be new and original.

Gah, if you can have Futurama you can have Green Wing. I’ve yet to understand how Futurama fits.

ME
Curb demonstrated that a sitcom could be single camera, no laugh track and most importantly not confined to a studio.

DAVID
I don?t see why this needs to be demonstrated. Everybody knows it?s possible to do this.

Yes, but if nobody had ever done it before that makes Curb groundbreaking…

Also, I think you can make a case that Curb has been far more successful than Arrested ever was, after all Curb is about to start series 6, while Arrested got axed after three. Regardless, influence and popularity often have little to do with one another.

David – you’re not regular contributor Dishy in disguise are you?

but, spaced and bsg have to be above shit like curb.

anyhoo, for those wanting to see nathan barley, here are all the episodes:

http://stage6.divx.com/videos/tag:nathan+barley

On the one hand, you say that shows should be ‘different’ or groundbreaking, and on the other you seem to be saying they have to fit a formula. They are allowed to be ‘different,’ but not too different. But isn’t it radical departure which makes shows noteworthy?

The exclusion of The Family Guy in favour of Futurama is probably the best example of this. Even though Futurama is the better show, Family Guy is the more radical, risk-taking show. Unlike even South Park, it has no fear of discarding narrative and indulging in surrealism.

This type of thing is praised by you guys in Curb your Enthusiasm – the elimination of conventions like the laugh. But diverge from a plot-driven narrative, and that doesn’t seem to be cool with you. After all, that’s the main criticism Ross offers of The Family Guy. It’s just like dissing Curb simply because it lacks a laugh track.

So, regardless of how much you enjoy the show, it’s more of a departure from the tradition established by The Simpsons than any of the other animations. but I think you just like Futurama more than Family Guy.

Speaking of Curb, Ross wrote:

Curb demonstrated that a sitcom could be single camera, no laugh track and most importantly not confined to a studio.

I don’t see why this needs to be demonstrated. Everybody knows it’s possible to do this. As for allowing other shows to do this, I don’t really see it. Wasn’t the show a commercial flop? That doesn’t exactly encourage studios to follow in its footsteps. The other problem it had was that it wasn’t funny. Again, not something that’s going to encourage others.

If anything, it was Arrested Development and The Office that showed that the approach could actually be successful and work, rather than being an egotistical indulgence.

If to you it is just another sitcom, like I don?t know, Will & Grace or Becker or whatever then like I said, fundamentally different points of view.

I don’t think it’s just like shows like that. But the main difference is that it’s good, not that it has any fundamentally groundbreaking or different properties. Every sitcom has its gimmick, and Weeds just happened to use marijuana. Was Alf groundbreaking because the main character was an alien puppet, rather than a human?

As for the 70s – it’s not TV, but Cheech and Chong also used marijuana as their gimmick. Before you say it’s a ridiculous comparison, think about how each show reflects its era. Weeds simply reflects the miserable “emo” outlook and humourlessness of the late 90s-00s, while Cheech and Chong reflect the exuberance and hedonistic attitudes of the 70s.

That is why Weeds is in the Golden Age of Television for mine ? because it something completely fresh and original and darker than any comedy we?ve seen on TV and very, very, very funny.

Again, I remind you of Beverly Hills 90210 – very, very funny – and a dark, satirical take on Hollywood image-making and the morals of a consumer society. Years ahead of its time.

As for savaging society and sub/urban dreams – the British have been doing edgy TV comedy for a long time. The Young Ones might have had a laugh track, but touched on many of the issues you claim are new. As did Monty Python. I think they probably did more savaging of norms than any of the modern shows.

As for Josh:

Boxcutters exists because of the Golden Age of Television. If our TV screens were still filled entirely by the likes of Knight Rider, The A-Team and Scarecrow & Mrs King

Are you serious about this? I don’t remember any time when those kind of shows were all we had. I remember things like Monkey and Doctor Who, and of course Monty Python as mentioned above, stuff by Ben Elton, The Big Gig and The D-Generation, Astroboy, Quantum and Rubbery Figures.

I think that it is a myth that there was ever a time when we only had the choice of trashy American stuff. There’s always been good stuff around.

1. This was a definition by example:
   We built the list to describe what we thought would fit into the criteria requested of us by one of our listeners. This included, quite importantly, a note about getting things on DVD for watching later. Only drama really has the repeat viewing value for DVD purchases. (And yes, comedy is included in drama as long as it is story based).
   The examples we’ve given do not include any non-drama shows.
   It’s probably for this reason more than anything that The Daily Show is not included. We all love the pants off it but it just doesn’t fit.
2. This is not just a list of shows we like:
   Battlestar, Doctor Who, All Saints, Supernatural, Media Watch, America’s Next Top Model do not belong because they don’t meet the requirements we set; the very arbitrary requirements. I still disagree with the envelope on West Wing and think it succumbed to public pressure.
   The West Wing is a show I loved despite its many flaws (and, man, there were heaps) but it just doesn’t fit. Conversely, Six Feet Under is a show I have no consideration for whatsoever. You all know my feelings here. Yet, I understand why it’s on the list.
3. What we’re trying to do here is create a definition of a time in Television like there are definitions of times in Cinema.
   I think this is a new time in Television and I know it’s not going to last. In Cinema we saw the raw as hell films by Hopper, Boorman and Hellman with their innovations in storytelling and style. Then we had the indie film set in the 80s. Unfortunately the money always came back to take the art away from the art.
   What we have in the Golden Age of Television is a list of shows that pushed the art forwards.
   That being said, there’s nothing wrong with liking the shows that also just entertain us or make us feel good about ourselves.

Boxcutters exists because of the Golden Age of Television. If our TV screens were still filled entirely by the likes of Knight Rider, The A-Team and Scarecrow & Mrs King (ooh, and maybe Remington Steele — I loved that show), I don’t think the three of us would have thought there was anything worth talking about. That being said, if we look back to that time and we see shows like Moonlighting we can also see the kernel of what was to become the Golden Age.

Does any of this make sense?

I love the passion that everyone has displayed in this post. It’s what we created Boxcutters for and I want to see more of it.

Also: Nip/Tuck? Green Wing? Really? What are you people smoking? And why has no one noticed that Brett had Nighty Night on his list?

What kind of sitcoms were there in the 70s like Weeds? When have we seen the suburban dream so savagely maligned? To me the whole story of this attractive, normal looking soccer Mum, who has balance being a housewife with the difficulties of being a drug dealer and the moral dilemmas that poses is completely revolutionary ? similar to why people like Desperate Housewives only good ? and that it does it in this single camera, no laugh track modern style, so not only is there no moral compass, but also no insipid cue as to what to find funny ? that is unheard of. In fact has there ever been a female drug dealer on TV? It was only 10, 15 years ago everybody was lauding The Simpsons and Roseanne as dysfunctional families (something until then not seen on television) and sitcoms all had a happy ending and a message in the end. Compare that to the end of Series 2 of Weeds ? I don?t want to give away any spoilers here, Channel 9 are to screen series 2 at some point ? but it is about as far from that as you can get, especially in regards to Peter.

That is why Weeds is in the Golden Age of Television for mine ? because it something completely fresh and original and darker than any comedy we?ve seen on TV and very, very, very funny. But that is just me. If to you it is just another sitcom, like I don?t know, Will & Grace or Becker or whatever then like I said, fundamentally different points of view.

Re: Curb, what’s the Larry David or The Office connection with Arrested Development? Why couldn’t that have been made without Larry’s efforts?

Sure, I’m having a a bit of a go, but I think your music example is quite apt. Yes, it is all just music, it’s all just TV. If you’re going to use “breakthrough” as a criteria, then you have to make sure that all the list items are truly revolutionary. Yet you exclude things like The West Wing or The Daily Show for not being novel enough – but then go and include other shows which are barely novel at all.

I mean, Weeds? I enjoy the show, but can’t see what is radically different about it than any other comedy/drama. That’s innovative and groundbreaking, but the Daily Show isn’t? Weeds is almost a throwback to the 70s, while the Daily Show enganges the new generation of media consumers.

I’ll have to get onto Spaced and Band of Brothers.

**pulls the tiger’s tail**

“What exactly was groundbreaking about Lost anyway? It seems pretty much like a standard TV drama to me. Oz? Just another prison show. Buffy is just Scooby Doo with actors instead of drawings. Futurama is just The Simpsons in outer space. The Office is just an extended Monty Python sketch about accountants and merchant bankers.”

Surely you’re just having a go? Is Nirvana just Bach too? It’s all just music…

Ricky Gervais has often stated what a huge influence Larry David has been on him. In fact Larry was one of only three heroes Gervais interviewed for his Ricky Gervais Meets specials (along with Christopher Guest and Garry Shandling).

As for further influence look at the type of sitcoms that were coming out around the time Curb started in 2000 – Bette, Becker, Will & Grace, Bob Patterson, My Wife and Kids, 2 Guys and a Girl, That 70s Show, King Of Queens etc etc. Curb demonstrated that a sitcom could be single camera, no laugh track and most importantly not confined to a studio. It was shot fast and cheap, out there in the real world (or LA at least), a freedom Arrested them took up and developed upon.

I reiterate no Curb, no Office, no Arrested.

for what its worth.

Drama:
Deadwood
Carinvale
The Supranos
Band of Brothers
Twin Peaks

Comedy:
The Office (UK)
Family Guy (abstract left field stuff is good)
The Games (I still use this for teaching. Brilliant)
Absolutely Fabulous

Entertainment:
Doctor Who
SPACED (one of the greatest TV shows EVER)
Firefly
Buffy
Life on Mars
Lost
Dexter

Runners up
Prime Suspect
Ali G
Jekyll

Perhaps we just like to see how popular (or elite) our own tastes are. The above chain of comments bears out this notion.

It’s not just a comedy/satire show. It actually is a useful source of US news. I’m also a fan of The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, but these days I seem to be getting a lot more relevant news in 22 minutes of Daily Show than in 55 minutes of Newshour.

Plus there are the spinoff characters – most obviously Stephen Colbert, but also John Hodgeman and the ’shows within the show’ like Trendspotting with Dimitri Martin or even The Schmaily Schmoe with Schmon Schewart. Stewart and the show also has a great modesty and sense of self-deprecation.

Anyway…

I believe there’s a fundamental problem with the premise of GAT. I don’t think it can be anything other than a list of “our favourite shows”.

You can try to rationalise it all you like, saying that you are only including ‘worthy’ or ‘groundbreaking’ shows. The problem with this is that depending on your perspective, either everything is groundbreaking or nothing is.

For example, you all seem very fond of long-form HBO shows, and are inclined to call them all groundbreaking. But really, what have the Sopranos or other HBO shows done that Twin Peaks hasn’t already done? Sure there’s language and violence, but the structure and form has all been done before, and I don’t think that using naughty words is a significant enough difference.

I think that Twin Peaks was truly groundbreaking for TV – but everything since then (with the exception of Reality TV and the animation revolution) has simply built on the foundation that Twin Peaks established of bringing a long story form, and cinematic sensibilities to film.

If we go further back, is there anything that Twin Peaks did that hadn’t already been done in the works of Shakespeare or classic literature?

So…

What exactly was groundbreaking about Lost anyway? It seems pretty much like a standard TV drama to me. Oz? Just another prison show. Buffy is just Scooby Doo with actors instead of drawings. Futurama is just The Simpsons in outer space. The Office is just an extended Monty Python sketch about accountants and merchant bankers.

So on and so forth…

Face it guys, it’s just a list of shows you like. There’s nothing wrong with that. There’s just no real criteria or consistency to the selections.

It’d be #1 on my list. Brilliant writing, acting, direction and pushes all kinds of boundaries. Easily the best show on TV.

Thanks for the list… I can now work my way down it and watch the stuff I haven’t seen.

NIP/TUCK FTW!!!11!!!!!

How do those other shows depend on Curb at all? Heck, The Office was created in Britain, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Larry David world. Plus, the BBC has been doing comedy like that for decades. I really don’t see the connection.

Is there any evidence that the makers of Arrested Development or The Office were sitting around watching Curb Your Enthusiasm and suddenly came up with an idea for a new show?

Personally I say Firefly has to go to make way.

And you want Top Gear on? Convince us.

(I don’t want the arguing to stop now we have the Wing thing sorted.)

Now, where’s Mika’s shredder when you need it…

I’ve now taken my pills. Apologies for the outburst!