I put on Gunsmoke every now and then and kind of leave as background noise and sometimes get into it. It's a good show obviously. But then one day I watched a whole episode before realizing it was Bonanza not Gunsmoke. Now if I play close enough attention I would have noticed they are clearly two different shows, both of which would keep my interest if I didn't distract myself with my phone or computer.
So which is the which is the better show?
I would say Bonanza is more entertaining, and wasn't afraid to do silly stuff, but Gunsmoke was a higher-quality show in terms of scripts and acting performances.
I enjoy a lot of the ham acting on Bonanza. There were a lot of episodes where Lorne Greene really got to chew up the scenery.
The better show was Have Gun, Will Travel, which kicked both of these Oaters to the kerb. (“Kerb” is a noun, “to curb” is a verb.) Nobody put Palladin on for freaking BACKGROUND wallpaper!
I know, indeed rather hope, the dimwit OP is dead by now. I write this for posterity.
In North American English, curb is also a noun for the concrete or stone edging of a road.
shareTo me, if I rate "Gunsmoke" a 10, "Bonanza" gets a 9.5. Both excellent shows.
shareGunsmoke. Bonanza was a cartoon compared to Gunsmoke.
shareNeither. Have Gun, Will Travel.
shareTwo VERY different kinds of series, and no reason to choose a "best one". Western fans enjoyed both and watched both equally.
The same is true for Paladin. True fans of Westerns watched ALL three. ;-)
When I was younger, I preferred "Bonanza". Now, I like "Gunsmoke" more, especially the earlier, black-and-white seasons with Chester.
share