Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:45 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
TV vs Movies 
Author Message
Post TV vs Movies
Maybe I'm totally wrong but I have the impression that TV series are usually of higher quality than movies are. Lost, House MD, Desperate Houswives etc. Not only those. It happens all the time that I watch a movie and didn' like it. But I like most of the TV stuff. Was I just lucky or are TV people more serious about their job? Or maybe we can't really compare the two?


Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:40 pm
Post Re: TV vs Movies
It's my opinion that while being the crafters of a very similar art their means are entirely different and for the directors and writers and everyone involved it requires a differently tweaked skill set. If you can get your hands on Lost season 3 bonus DVD there is a neat independent study done that details their day-to-day work.

In TV you have to be a much more proficient time manager. While there are months (if not over a year) allocated to the average production, photography, editing, and marketing of the final product, series get no more than 2-3 weeks per episode. If an average episode is 40 min before commercials (like Lost), so half the length of a feature film, that's still a massive undertaking in the proportion of the time they receive. You still need costumes, and set designs, and time for effects. The fact that most can attain a quality highly comparable to that of a regular movie really speaks to their ability to work in fast paced, high stress, limited resources situations.

On the other hand though, a film has a lot banked on its success which is why the release and marketing must be maximized for the return. Series negotiate a contract and time slot based on a pilot or release ratings, but afterwards, if you have one episode that isn't as favourable as others, the impact is smoothened because you can make up for it elsewhere. There is at least one episode in every one of our beloved series we view as a blasphemy.. but that's just it with films, their potential screw ups bear a much higher consequence.


Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:37 pm
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Quite frankly, except for some rare exceptions, I don't put TV on anywhere near the same scale as movies. I mean, when you watch a movie, you could get Apocalypse Now, you could get Dark City, or Pulp fiction. TV, eeeh.


Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:48 pm
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Wow, really? I think that movies are on a whole other level as far as integrity and quality. Needless to say, there are some TV Shows that should be mentioned in the same breath as some of the elite movies (The Wire, for instance), but at the same time, movies are so much more powerful, and they are just a better overall experience, compared to something that is a little more dragged out, like a Television Show is.


Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:54 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
etifupleez wrote:
. Needless to say, there are some TV Shows that should be mentioned in the same breath as some of the elite movies (The Wire, for instance)

Yep, that's why I said "except for a few exceptions"


Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:06 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
I keep trying to watch TV series and abandoning them. I would love to find a great show.

Lie To Me is the latest and I really like Tim Roth. If a 90 minute version of that was shown in a cinema....

I am incredibly frustrated by the typical structure and format of a show. 24 tried to break the mould but even that is suffering.

I know that some will quote Lost. So far my girlfriend has spent about 100 hours trying to find out that stuff and I watched about 50 great movies instead. I rest my case.

I tried Fringe, Life on Mars, I could go on...

Rob


Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:49 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Perhaps you should look at this at a deeper level:
Let's compare progames with films
Pride and Predjudice.
there was a film with Kiera Knightly and a BBC serial with Colin Firth. I have seen them both and i am of the opinion that the BBC series was far superior than the the film version.

I am sorry, i cannot think of any more films and programes that were created indpendantly of each other.

Look at comedies. There are very few films that are consistantly funny most most of it. with comedy on TV , Sitcoms this i not the case. There are plenty of sitcoms out there that keep you at chuckling for half their content.

Look at drama's. i beleive that films have the edge here. but it is not as clear cut as you might expect. With a film you have 1-2 hours to tell a complete story but with a tv progamme it can take years for it to go through it arc. compare the film fugitive to the origional tv series. Compare Hill Street Blues to any cop drama movie.

Lets look at the different charactors. Nearly all the favourite charactors. My favourite chanractors are Becker, Cox, House. The reason I have cionnected with these characors so much is because I see them regularly and I have seen them develope as poeple over the years. I care more about them because of this. this rarely happens with films. the only example of this might be Forest Gump. At the end of this film I was dissapointed becuase I didn't get to see what happened to him next.
I think with tv you connect more with the charactors because eventually you spend more time with them than you do with film.

After writing this piece i have decided that in the last 30 years Tv has improved enough to be considered the same quality as movies. I think tv is better than films at the moment.


Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:22 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
p604 wrote:
Perhaps you should look at this at a deeper level:
Let's compare progames with films
Pride and Predjudice.
there was a film with Kiera Knightly and a BBC serial with Colin Firth. I have seen them both and i am of the opinion that the BBC series was far superior than the the film version.

I am sorry, i cannot think of any more films and programes that were created indpendantly of each other.

Look at comedies. There are very few films that are consistantly funny most most of it. with comedy on TV , Sitcoms this i not the case. There are plenty of sitcoms out there that keep you at chuckling for half their content.

Look at drama's. i beleive that films have the edge here. but it is not as clear cut as you might expect. With a film you have 1-2 hours to tell a complete story but with a tv progamme it can take years for it to go through it arc. compare the film fugitive to the origional tv series. Compare Hill Street Blues to any cop drama movie.

Lets look at the different charactors. Nearly all the favourite charactors. My favourite chanractors are Becker, Cox, House. The reason I have cionnected with these characors so much is because I see them regularly and I have seen them develope as poeple over the years. I care more about them because of this. this rarely happens with films. the only example of this might be Forest Gump. At the end of this film I was dissapointed becuase I didn't get to see what happened to him next.
I think with tv you connect more with the charactors because eventually you spend more time with them than you do with film.

After writing this piece i have decided that in the last 30 years Tv has improved enough to be considered the same quality as movies. I think tv is better than films at the moment.



Hi there,

You are certainly correct that TV produces some great entertainment.

However i'd lay theseissues at the doorstep of TV

1) A series on TV consumes 12-24 hours and multiple evenings of my life over several months.

2) Too many series that i start are cancelled

3) In general TV seems even more geared to the lowest common denominator than movies and that is depressing. There are exceptions of course.

4) I don't see the edgy independent style fare on network TV

5) In general, actors who can't cut it at the movies go to TV, not the other way round.

6) I don't have enough tie to engage in many TV shows and watch movies.

Rob


Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:31 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Hi there,

You are certainly correct that TV produces some great entertainment.

However i'd lay theseissues at the doorstep of TV

1) A series on TV consumes 12-24 hours and multiple evenings of my life over several months.

2) Too many series that i start are cancelled

3) In general TV seems even more geared to the lowest common denominator than movies and that is depressing. There are exceptions of course.

4) I don't see the edgy independent style fare on network TV

5) In general, actors who can't cut it at the movies go to TV, not the other way round.

6) I don't have enough tie to engage in many TV shows and watch movies.


Hello Mr. Holloway

2: What are the programes that cancelation really disappointed you. The one that really bothered me was "Vengence" with Michael Madsen. it was fun to watch and charator was really cool. Also isn't it funny that progrmes that are being canceled because of ratings now. Consider 30/40 years ago Cheers, Brady Bunch did really badly in the ratngs at the start but did improve. Imagine if it ws today we couldn't have a cheers equivilent.
3: "In general TV seems even more geared to the lowest common denominator than movies and that is depressing. There are exceptions of course." Couldn't you make the exactly same arument when considering films. this is why so many film are trying to get a PG 13 rating now.
4: Define what you mean by edgy. In the UK we've had plenty of of the wall programes, ie Spaced, Saxondale.
5: i think that the stigma attached to going from film to tv is starting to lessen. Look at House. Hugh Laurie had a fairly good career before landing House and he still does.
6: I don't blame you for having better things to do that watching tv or film. If i was the same I sure i would be better at everything i do.

Don


Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:01 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Television shows can "jump the shark" virtually every one has. Movies can have anticlimactic endings. I tend to get disappointed by movie frequently especially when movies like Saw VI being made (Saw series totally jumped the shark) and I get disappointed by the overall lack of quality in television, reality shows in general such as the show Scream Queens where the winner is cast in Saw VI. In general movies are of higher quality however much of hollywoods best writers write for TV.


Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:25 pm
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Arsenal84 wrote:
Television shows can "jump the shark" virtually every one has. Movies can have anticlimactic endings. I tend to get disappointed by movie frequently especially when movies like Saw VI being made (Saw series totally jumped the shark) and I get disappointed by the overall lack of quality in television, reality shows in general such as the show Scream Queens where the winner is cast in Saw VI. In general movies are of higher quality however much of hollywoods best writers write for TV.


The worst thing about Scream Queens was that Lindsey and her juggs didn't win. She wasn't even the runner-up, neither Michelle or what's-her-face that won didn't deserve it...it was evil finally winning.


Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:29 pm
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Putting aside 'reality' TV, which IMO is just filler, TV series do have the advantage of being able to allow a larger story and set of characters the time to be developed and explored. Unfortunately, I find that most TV shows don't fulfill that potential and end up with formulaic stories, stereotypical characters, and lower-quality production values than movies. Too many shows re-use the same basic template every week, meaning that even if I find one episode interesting, after three episodes I've had enough.

There are exceptions, of course, and some series are the types of stories that work best as a TV series and couldn't be done justice in movie format.


Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:08 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Robert Holloway wrote:
2) Too many series that i start are cancelled

That's why I now wait for the season to finish its run, and then buy the DVD.


Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:08 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
I would have to say I prefer movies over TV cause usually I'll get the full experience in 2-3 hours, and it will be done. TV requires commitment, and sometimes if you miss an episode, you'll miss alot. I prefer being out doing something than watching TV, although the only show I would say I have a withstanding commitment to is the same one I've watched for 12 years. (Hint, It is on Wednesday nights 10pm EST on Comedy Central)


Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:18 am
Post Re: TV vs Movies
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles is probably the best example of a good series which translates from movies to TV. Some aspects of the franchise are best done in the movies, some aspects are better in the show. *crosses fingers so it won't get canceled*

Firefly/Serenity is a good example, but in the opposite direction.


Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:33 pm
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2109
Post Re: TV vs Movies
A few years ago I would have said that movies are FAR above tv. But, to me at least, the quality of television has really gone up. Now I love shows like 24, Lost, Prison Break, Supernatural, Fringe, House, Numb3rs, Flashpoint, The Unit, ect. are all up there with many great movies. I'm still more a movie person than a tv person, but I love both mediums.


Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:35 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr