Originally Posted by DonDadda59
Ok, how about this---> James Gandolfini and Edie Falco outclass each and every actor on the Wire by a mile, the only one who even came close was Andre Royo and many times his performance came off as contrived and phony. The Wire never left the level of a documentary (until season 4), whereas the Sopranos was more like an arthouse piece the Wire was more like a history book, which isn't a bad thing mind you but it never got as deep as the Sopranos. Whereas the Sopranos had episodes that were weaker than the rest of the series, the Wire had entire seasons (2, 5, parts of 3). The Wire was more detailed in it's writing but not necesarily better in terms of dialogue and creativity. There were a million characters in the Wire and I'd say 70% of them got too much camera/story time and their arcs amounted to **** and no one really cared about them.
That's just off of the top of my head, I can get deeper if I take the time, but I really don't feel like it right now. Hopefully that cuts it for you.
LOL it's comical listening to you play your opinions off as fact. Especially when you're discussing the amount of 'creativity' involved in a show that catered to old women. The Sopranos an art house piece? GTFO. The Wire is visionary literature. There has never been anything on TV quite like it hence why it's in a class of it's own. The Sopranos is a glorified soap opera. Each season of the Wire was like a prolonged chapter it was like reading Proust or Mark Twain or some sh*t.