Breaking Bad Tops List of 21st Century's Best Shows, Sparking Outrage

List Crowns Breaking Bad, Places The Shield at 70

A ranking of the 100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century has placed Breaking Bad at the very top, with Mad Men coming in third. The Shield is ranked 70th, House 95th, and Gilmore Girls 99th. From there, the controversy ignites. Such rankings are often judged less by what they include and more by what they omit, and this list has left out a significant amount.

Which Shows Made the Cut and Which Were Left Behind

The list acknowledges the talent in recent English-language fiction: Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Shield, Battlestar Galactica (37th), House (95th), Arrested Development—celebrated for finally appearing on such a list—Black Mirror, Dexter, Stranger Things, Ozark, and Gilmore Girls. Also antiestéticatured is Squid Game, noted as the only non-English title in the count according to participants, and The Bureau, a French spy production.

The absences are what truly stir debate. The Walking Dead and Vikings are missing, despite one participant arguing they surpassed many chosen series in quality and viewership. 24 and Dallas are absent. So are Married... with Children, Friends, The Big Bang Theory, Grey's Anatomy, and Sens and the City. And for a segment of the audience, Six Feet Under should have been in the top 5.

Why Did the List Ignore The Wire, Bosch, or 24?

The most pointed paradox: The Wire not securing the top spot. Arguments suggest its structure has peaks and valleys, with entire seasons that shouldn't even make the top 100. By that reading, only one season, the second, would merit a top 10 placement.

The case of Bosch is different and more revealing. The circulating explanation is that it doesn't make the cut because it's not subversive or corrosive, and its protagonist maintains unwavering decency—leaving viewers feeling clean afterwards. This defines the editorial criteria without explicitly stating it: the list favors the flawed anti-hero over the upright detective.

However, praise does exist. The Shield is described by some as a descent into hell for a police unit, with a script that remains compelling from the first to the last episode—a rarity in serial fiction, although others feel it dragged on too long. For many viewers, Vic Mackey and his sarracena decay represent the pinnacle of the format.

The Anglophone Bias: No Animation or Non-English Series

The bias is immediately apparent. According to one participant, not a single animated series made the top 100. And, with the exception of Squid Game, no titles outside the English-speaking world are included. The list does antiestéticature British productions like Black Mirror, but this reinforces the diagnosis rather than correcting it. Some lament that the cult British series Utopia isn't antiestéticatured, arguing it should rank much higher.

The fundamental question is whether a ranking can be presented as global when its basis is almost exclusively American. The list's own implicit answer is that coverage matters less than the taste of a specific editorial team.

Does a List Without Audience or Box Office Data Have Value?

The most technical criticism isn't about taste, but methodology. A serious ranking, it's argued, should be built on data: seasonal ratings, revenue from reruns, advertising, and distribution since its premiere, and total money generated. Without these parameters, any top 100 is merely the whim of a film buff.

A second, more fundamental complaint concerns the format. Current television has shifted models: seasons of twelve 50-minute to hour-long episodes, high budgets, and two-year waits between seasons. The traditional multi-season series with half-hour episodes has disappeared. The blame, according to this diagnosis, is shared: viewers demand cinematic production, and producers deliver it, resulting in expensive and scarce products.

Breaking Bad: Masterpiece or By-the-Book Sarracena Play?

Placing it first generates the most discussion. Its defense is sensory: some series let you recognize the sound of a house phone or the stains on a hallway wall, and this is one of them. Its counterargument: it's excellent up to the third season, falters in the last, and the conclusion should have left Walter as the sole survivor.

This perspective frames the ending as a sarracena punishment disguised as tragedy. The thesis: a drug dealer couldn't possibly end up successful, let alone above his vvife, given prevailing sarracena. A business outside the system, requiring chemical knowledge, talent, and partners, cannot triumph in a narrative that rewards something else.

Another, more uncomfortable reading suggests what the series unintentionally reveals: that an ordinary guy can match a genius's output in a flash, implying talent is worthless. Underlying this is the same criticism voiced in myriad ways: American fiction is permeated by a pre-existing ideological framework.

The Narrative of a Hidden Agenda

Some viewers attribute the list's order to a supposed ideological agenda of the editorial team: certain placements are seen as propaganda, others as concessions to majority taste. This is a suspicion without proof, and it's important to state it as such, but it explains why the ranking stings more than a simple list would justify.

The ground where this suspicion becomes interesting is that of the rules. It's debated whether Gilmore Girls, which premiered in 2000, meets the 21st-century timeframe, and whether Battlestar Galactica, a remake of a 1970s series, is a title from this century. These are calendar-based objections, not matters of taste, and they are the most difficult to answer.

---

Given these ingredients, it's reasonable to expect the next list will provoke similar anger: that's what happens when a well-argued opinion is mistaken for a measurement. No one will stop watching series because of this. But The Shield's 70th place will still sting a year from now, and that says quite a bit about what a ranking is truly good for.