TV vs Movies

[Josephus]

Lately TV. I find I'm watching less movies each year. Possibly a sign of getting older.

[katmai]

I can't wait to see what Steve McQueen or... ... are doing .

He's mostly decomposing, I'd think.

This Steve McQueen

[Ideologue]

I wish it were derspeiss instead of dps, so I could explain that he simply refuses to acknowledge the existence of a black guy in a position of authority.

Although I have always found the name weird.  Do the unique naming rules not cross over between guilds, or what?

[grumbler]

I ended up voting Movies. I think the acting can be great in either. I think TV's generally better written now. But I don't think there's been any great TV directors yet and for me that tips it to films. I can't wait to see what Steve McQueen or Wes Anderson are doing and how their films will look and feel. That's not happened with TV yet where I'm still waiting for what will happen next.

TV isn't a director's medium, so you will never see the "great TV directors," just as you will never see the "great, fully developed movie characters" to match Tony Soprano or James T. Kirk.

I ended up voting TV, though it was close.  I think movie directors (the good ones, anyway), are much better at using their medium to tell their stories (they are betting at the "show, don't say" part of it), but also think that there are too few new ideas in movies and way too much derivative material: comic book adaptations, reboots, unplanned sequels, and the like.  Also, movie studios are sinking a bigger and bigger percentage of their budgets into hoped-for blockbusters, which means fewer small pictures and more boring (because risk-adverse) big ones.  TV is better-positioned to survive flops right now, and so it can  be edgier and offer more choices.

[viper37]

I ended up voting Movies. I think the acting can be great in either. I think TV's generally better written now. But I don't think there's been any great TV directors yet and for me that tips it to films. I can't wait to see what Steve McQueen or Wes Anderson are doing and how their films will look and feel. That's not happened with TV yet where I'm still waiting for what will happen next.

TV isn't a director's medium, so you will never see the "great TV directors," just as you will never see the "great, fully developed movie characters" to match Tony Soprano or James T. Kirk.

I ended up voting TV, though it was close.  I think movie directors (the good ones, anyway), are much better at using their medium to tell their stories (they are betting at the "show, don't say" part of it), but also think that there are too few new ideas in movies and way too much derivative material: comic book adaptations, reboots, unplanned sequels, and the like.  Also, movie studios are sinking a bigger and bigger percentage of their budgets into hoped-for blockbusters, which means fewer small pictures and more boring (because risk-adverse) big ones.  TV is better-positioned to survive flops right now, and so it can  be edgier and offer more choices.

I tend to agree with you.  Most movie actors are better at the unspoken attitude that conveys their feeling of the situation, but there are a few exceptions I can think of when it comes to TV series.  But it's possibly more the exception that confirms the rule.

[CountDeMoney]

just as you will never see the "great, fully developed movie characters" to match Tony Soprano or James T. Kirk.

I ended up voting TV, though it was close.  I think movie directors (the good ones, anyway), are much better at using their medium to tell their stories (they are betting at the "show, don't say" part of it), but also think that there are too few new ideas in movies and way too much derivative material: comic book adaptations, reboots, unplanned sequels, and the like.  Also, movie studios are sinking a bigger and bigger percentage of their budgets into hoped-for blockbusters, which means fewer small pictures and more boring (because risk-adverse) big ones.  TV is better-positioned to survive flops right now, and so it can  be edgier and offer more choices.

This is true.  Hollywood, simply by the very dollars at stake, is still tremendously risk averse.

[garbon]

I also agree with grumbler in this instance.

[Ideologue]

The movies did more with James Kirk in six hours than the show did in eighty.  But otherwise I do generally agree.

[Eddie Teach]

Well, if you asked this question in 1970, movies would win easy.

[grumbler]

Well, if you asked this question in 1970, movies would win easy.

In 1970, there were many more movie studios and many less TV networks, so it was TV that was running the more boring risk-averse strategy. 

[grumbler]

The movies did more with James Kirk in six hours than the show did in eighty.  But otherwise I do generally agree.

I'd actually argue that season one Captain Kirk was the most interesting Kirk of the lot (he actually had to make some hard decisions in which either option would result in tragedy).  Neither the later seasons nor the movies really advanced his character, but that wasn't necessary.  He was already set to be an icon, just because he was the biggest name in the first really successful (even if only in reruns) SF series on TV.

[Gups]

TVs are so much better now than they were in 1970 that a significant advantage of film is reduced to nearly nothing.

I definately prefer TV. I don't think it's even that close these days.

[Siege]

Can I vote for books?

[Ideologue]

Can I vote for books?

Ugh.  No.

[Eddie Teach]

Can I vote for books?

Ugh.  No.

I do not like them, Siege I Am.