Is T.V. better than the movies?

No, TV isn’t better than movies, nor vice versa. Both have always provided and will continue to provide excellent content and awful content.

Not yet. There is still a lot of magic in films.

Okay – so…why do you think they’re equivalent? Does one do anything better than the other?

@marinelife – all right…so why not?

@iamthemob Because of the size of the screen. Because of the stature of the actors. Because of the budgets and special effects.

I can get behind budget and special effects – but in so many ways, that’s why we get CRAP films…

I still love going to a movie, but with so much invested, so many producers and studio influence turn what could be a good movie into a “sure thing.” I often look to “Buffy” the movie v. the series as an example of this point.

Well, they’re remaking old classic movies, and making movies out of TV shows. Movies have dipped a bit. It’s all about special effects and not too much on the story

What’re you serious? How many detective, reality, and worlds funniest/dumbest shows are there on TV right now? How many TV shows give you chills and evoke emotion Like Saving Private Ryan, Tears of the Sun, and Inception?

Television and film provide different entrances into realm. In television, for the most part, you revisit the same realm and characters throughout the series run. In film, for the most part, you get one peek into the lives of the characters and then hear from them no more. I enjoy having both of these opportunities and have found that there are positive and negative conditions.

Take Scrubs, for example. That was a favourite of mine. It had a long run. Eventually, the writers exhausted the storylines, the characters became Flanderized versions of themselves and I lost interest. The series was fantastic, but it got old. With TV shows, sometimes nobody takes the initiative to either improve the creative trajectory or pull the plug. Audiences are sensitive to change, sure, but they can also be abhorrent to “It Stayed The Same, Now It Sucks”.

What I do like about television that we cannot always acquire in film is the writers can explore those characters in the background. I love when there is an episode that shifts focus to a minor character. This was recently exhibited in Covert Affairs when Auggie was given an episode where we learned more about his back story. In films, you are more likely to follow one character only.

However, I still enjoy film and do not think that I will ever stop finding a good movie to watch. Think of them as single novels instead of a series of books. In a film like Fantastic Mr. Fox the director pays minute detail to every little item that is in front of the camera. You are only able to capture so many minutes, so much dialogue… you make everything count. I like that. I’m more likely to watch a movie multiple times than an entire television for this reason.

No matter what, you are going to get bad shows and good shows, bad films and good films not to mention good books and bad books, good music and bad music… That’s the entertainment industry in a nutshell.

In a film, you don’t have to get so invested in the deep motivations of the characters. Plot is more important. It’s only for two hours. You’re basically telling one story. On a TV show, these people and all their stories will presumably be in your homes every week for 6–22 weeks. You get to know them and their world. You want to know their deal. Totally different takes on storytelling. What works on TV doesn’t work on film and vice versa.

Anyway, for every remake of a remake of a remake of an old vaudeville play or Victorian melodrama on screen, we get babies falling off porches off someone’s video cam at home. At the same time, for every epic, masterfully crafted masterpiece like There Will Be Blood, we get Mad Men.

@Blackberry – totally serious, but thanks for asking! And I’d say, Band of Brothers, The Civil War, and The X Files – but there are many, many more.

You can’t say there’s crap television, good movies, and therefore film is better.

I’d throw out “Orgazmo” as a counter to begin with on that point….;-)

@muppetish

Very good points all. My concern isn’t that there is no good film anymore – but rather, that film is at a point where the budgets mandate return, and therefore outside the indie arena, there is no real motivation to experiment.

A lot of television, on the other hand, has been motivated by innovation because there is so much product to compete with – sure, there’s still the “safe sitcom” etc., but there are stories like this one that seem to show how there’s a general opinion that this ability to innovate means television is the medium where more good product can be made…

@aprilsimnel

Good points – I’m not assuming this is what you’re saying of course – but doesn’t your assessment of the difference between film and television easily (though not necessarily) lead to the conclusion that film is a more shallow medium?

Not shallow, necessarily. Sometimes all you need is the one story, one time.

You ever see Sunset Boulevard? That film is a slap in the face and far from shallow. You can’t make a series out of that film. Does anyone need to see batty Norma Desmond trying to hang on to her illusions every week? Or even Ratatouille, to give another example. I don’t need to know that Remy’s going to keep struggling to be the best little rat chef in Paris until he keels over in a pot au feu a couple of years hence. I got what I got out of it on the first telling and that’s fine.

This is where I think Hollywood cheats. Instead of risking telling more new stories, they keep rehashing the old ones, where people do start to feel as if they’re going out to watch another episode of a show and the movies get shallower and shallower as they add spectacle, rely on shorthand from the last movie instead of better characterization and decent interaction between characters and remove everything else. There’s a lot of lazy writing going on. I think every working Hollywood writer and exec with the power to greenlight should be forced to read Aristotle’s Poetics before even sitting in on their first pitch session.

@aprilsimnel

Not saying that it IS shallow, of course…or that it necessarily means each result will be shallow – but that generally, it is more shallow than what is required from television.

(Yes, both those movies are AWESOME. I’m gay, so “Sunset Boulevard” is required reading).

@iamthemob “has been motivated by innovation” – then this absolutely selfish fan wants Pushing Daisies and Wonderfalls back on the air. I do agree that innovation is being encouraged to an extent, especially on cable networks like TBS, USA and TNT. Shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad would not be on the air if creativity weren’t allowed to flourish. Regular networks, who still put credibility in Nielsen Ratings and rely heavily on commercial sponsorship, will axe shows that are innovate and wonderful (even if they earn their fair share of accolades!) This is my major tiff with TV.

I wish there was a way for “Indie Television” to flourish. I think this is where the Internet will play a strong role in years to come. Low-budget does not always mean bad.

I don’t mind independent films being the shining light of the film industry today. Buster Keaton is one of my favourite directors of all time, and he rarely saw big bucks come his way after a film’s release. I think directors/actors moving away from Big Budget Hollywood just means that they are looking for greater creative control. I’ve never been a fan of the flash, big budget films (... like Avatar) and relish in the quiet wonders of the little-engine-that-could films, like Once.

@aprilsimnel I’m delighted the Animation industry has been kicking major ass lately. 2009 was one of the only years I was biting my nails because I could not decide which film I wanted to win more.

@muppetish

I’ll raise you a “Wonderfalls” with a “Firefly” ... but that’s because I’m a huge Joss Whedon geek. (Wonderfalls was AWESOME).

@muppetish

I’ve never been a fan of the flash, big budget films (... like Avatar) and relish in the quiet wonders of the little-engine-that-could films, like Once.

It’s interesting you mention “Avatar.” I walked out of that film infuriated…I’m sorry, but simple-living spiritual native folk teach a lesson on what’s really important to members of the corporate-military complex? Haven’t I SEEN that? And the rampant violations of international human rights standards in a situation where we would be MORE careful as this is the only other intelligent life we know of? And we aren’t even told why “unobtanium” is so important as to warrant that? AND IT’S CALLED “UNOBTANIUM”?!? WHAT MORON MISSED THAT THAT WAS A WORKING NAME!?!

But…phew…after a second viewing, I realized that something simple but big and pretty like that is important to get messages out to a mass audience. This is one of the reasons I think film is important still, but I think that television may be better suited to produce better quality art more often….

@iamthemob – Hmm. I don’t know. I think, in a way, more is required of a good film because you have a shorter time span and limited opportunities in that span to delineate your characters, their relationships, the conflict and its resolution. To do it right and memorably is a lot harder than on TV. Plus, they can have a bit of spectacle. Until everyone’s home is outfitted with 70” HDTV-of-the-future sets, Star Wars doesn’t quite work at home. Sometimes people want to be awed. I have all of The Lord of the Rings series on DVD and they just don’t work as well watching them on my TV as it did in the theatre. By contrast, the low-rent, rinky-dink effects on Doctor Who are charming.

I mean, I’m on TWOP’s Mad Men forum, and we devour the hell out of the mise en scene out of that sucker every week. They can get away with an off episode or two a season because we know next week something brilliant’s bound to happen, and that even the worst written episode of Mad Men will be ten times better than the 956th lame excuse for exposition tossed off by Ice Cube on L&O SVU. You have time to work out the kinks on a series in the way a movie doesn’t. At least for an episode or two.

I need to start watching “Mad Men”...don’t I…

@iamthemob I agree some TV shows are excellent, like the X-files. But this is just opinion based, and in my opinion, movies have produced better entertainment than TV.

@Blackberry

Have produced – but looking over the past couple of years of television and film, does it seem likely they will continue to produce it, and why?

@iamthemob it does not seem likely, but random gems will come out of the woodwork. I was surprised when I saw Inception for example, that movie was a masterpiece compared to the movies that had been coming out then.

I think crap movies and TV are the norm.

@Blackberry

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you there.

I’ve debated this question. It depends on your criteria. Some TV shows are better than most/some movies. I could say that much. For example, six feet under, dexter, house. It’s like a movie – almost, but it doesn’t leave you with a bitter – quick ending taste. The stories continue and have a lot of content. Especially with House, a lot of hidden content that most sporadic viewers don’t get. The only way to get this out of movies is sequels, but it’s not the same.

I like movies as well, but really enjoy shows. Especially because I can still do work (I know some of the ground-stuff, so I just pay attention to the developments).

@phoebusg

I think you bring up an interesting perspective I hadn’t really considered – the type of enjoyment one gets from a show rather than a movie.

Often, when introducing someone to a show, I am militant about making sure that they start at the beginning, that they don’t skip through…etc. It’s like I’m introducing them to a family member – and so many people I know seem to be the same way.

I feel less committed about someone seeing a certain movie.

There is really very little television (if any at all) that doesn’t depend on advertising. And because of this dependency, telelvision seeks before anything else to turn you, the viewer, into a passive receiver or so-called ‘consumer’ (though that term implies activity) of entertainment and information. The more passively you sit and watch television, the more likely the ads are going to be effective. Even pseudo-educational networks like the Discovery channel operate on this mechanism; they’re merely exploiting the ‘academic’ niche of entertainment.

The same is basically true of big budget movies, too. E.g., Inception was not made to make you think; it was made to entertain you and it was made to make money, and it did those things very well. So in most cases I’d be uninclined to compare television to film because the two media are usually driven by the same motivating factors ($).

But whereas television is all about money, there are still loads of independent films whose function isn’t reduced to selling something, to merely entertaining a passive spectator. So I think there is still some kind of non-commercial integrity to the medium of film that television, by virtue of its purpose, will never possess. This is not to say that television is bad or that it can’t also make us think as artistic films do. But one must remember that, in TV, there’s a complicated rhetoric and constant attempt to manipulate viewers that makes earnestness and sincerity, like, immanently impossible within the limitations of the medium.

Of course, there are also limitations to film. Socially/contemporaneously it seems to possess a smaller capacity for relevant discourse than television does; TV is like frighteningly good at commenting not only on the world and events as they’re happening but it’s also really good at commenting on itself in all sorts of ways (ironically, endearingly, cynically, faux-sincerely) that film, generally, cannot.

I guess it comes down to what we as viewers are individually interested (or disinterested) in. For me, film continues to be the more interesting and valuable form.

But whereas television is all about money, there are still loads of independent films whose function isn’t reduced to selling something, to merely entertaining a passive spectator.

But it does come down to this when the filmmaker is attempting to get wide distribution? The films that get this type of distribution have to prove that they’re commercially viable investments as well…

However, there is also a lot of webisode action which is much more like television than film which doesn’t require much in the way of fixed distribution cost, and therefore everything can be put into production. How does this factor in, do you think?

Great points, @absalom.

This is like asking if magazines are better than books. They have different purposes and formats. They aren’t really directly comparable.

@MacBean

Television and film are a little more similar, but I get what you’re saying.

@iamthemob As a television/film geek, I actually find magazines and books more similar than TV and movies, so I suppose it’s all relative.

pshh, expertise. ;-)

Yes. you can buy cheap candy and drinks at WalMart. the movies charge a fortune for just one candy bar or popcorn. a movie is just one movie. tv movies are a dime a dozen and cost way-less than just one movie out. and, not to mention the disorderly people in the movies. at home, you can control the noise situation. in a movie you cannot. finally, at home you can go to sleep during a movie and no one cares. at the movies, go to sleep and they call the police.