Some of the examples Angelita has chosen are important to study as they adhere to the conventions of screen language and are thus more profilmic than most TV melodramas. They have richly layered subtext, so competent actors can play important beats, see https://thestorydepartment.com/breaking-bad-has-the-best-scene-on-television-ever/

Most other shows mentioned below still fall back to melodrama in crucial scenes. They are overtly talkie. What is happening to the character is in the dialogue, you just need to listen and the characters will tell you how they feel (like a radio play), so they’re not always motivated by the subtext.

I would like to see Angelita follow with an article on how local TV drama could capitalise on this new trend (revolution) in TV coming from overseas.

Although all of
these shows are well made, well written, well acted, AND definitely contain
unusual (meaning out-of-the-ordinary) subject matter, I don’t see them as
revolutionary. Not in a way that has turned the industry upside-down, or as
examples that show how to tell stories better. At best, they may serve as
examples that show a heretofore under served audience, and yet, not big enough
audiences to attract the broadcast networks.

Take Downton Abbey,
a show seen on PBS, but one that is not exactly a revolutionary show for that
network. Old farts, such as myself, remember the original template for this
show, Upstairs Downstairs. The copy of the original may have more money to
spend on production values, but that makes it no more interesting than the
original was. Furthermore, such costume dramas have very limited appeal for the
general public, which is what the big broadcast networks must appeal to. Not
since the death of Westerns has any costume drama fared well on the broadcast
networks. So while BBCAmerica may do well with Copper, HBO with Deadwood (an
astonishingly original historical western drama which dates all the way back to
2004, and which you seemingly missed), and AMC with Hell On Wheels, it remains
to be seen if such fare works for a broader audience.

The only thing
“revolutionary” about some of these shows is that more money is being
spent on production values, which includes better writing, more elaborate
settings and costumes, and more shots and editing. Even that is probably a
by-product of a cable network’s inclination to stick out from the crowd, and
not having to spend money on a full weekly lineup of prime-time shows, or a
full season of shows. However, I can point to network shows that have been
equally as well written and well-produced, and certainly as quirky and unusual:
Once Upon A Time, House, Lost, 24 Hours, Alias, West Wing, or Fringe. All of
these are (or were) serial dramas with on-going storylines using un-typical subject matter. And I could add a
bunch of shows that lasted only one or two seasons: Life on Mars, The Unusuals,
Pushing Daisies, Keen Eddie, to name but a few. These all were shows that
pushed the boundaries of TV storytelling beyond the typical cop, lawyer, or
doctor dramas. Unfortunately, on broadcast TV they couldn’t find audiences big enough
to serve the networks’ needs. On cable, these shows might have had a different
arc.

In my mind, “revolutionary” could be better used to describe I Love Lucy, which was the first to use a 3-camera scheme, or for All In The Family, which aired on prime time yet mocked typical American values of the time, or for Monty Python’s Flying Circus, which took surreal comedy on the tube to a new level, or The Phil Donahue Show, which used audience participation in a talk show in a way never seen before, or even that soap opera, Dark Shadows, the first to use vampires, ghosts, and witches in an on-going serial drama. To use the term “revolutionary” here, and for only these five shows, only indicates youth, or perhaps some level of insularity on the part of the author.

20% of his list is British, dude. Downton Abby is an English show.

In terms of network ratings (I’m sure someone could dig them up) these show still struggle next to the more popular TV sitcoms and melodramas.
The stories however seem to resonate with viewers, so studios have capitalised on selling DVD box sets, streaming/downloadable content. (see also The Wire, West Wing, Sopranos, True Blood etc, as others have pointed out).
Does popularity mean revolutionary. What’s missing in this article is evidence of what/how TV has been revolutionised. Are we talking about the film making craft, something unique in the writing or just the changing habits of audiences?

Also agree about The Wire. I need to see the ending of Breaking Bad before I can say which one is my favorite.

The ACTUAL revolution is that so many people DON’T watch these shows on TV but hire/buy the DVD/BluRay or torrent it. Or like me, pre-buy the Season pass on iTunes. Yep, I spent the money on Breaking Bad before it even aired. That’s commitment.

And that IS revolutionary for a TV show in my books.