News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

TV vs Movies

Started by Sheilbh, October 23, 2013, 01:20:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TV vs Movies?

TV
12 (63.2%)
Movies
6 (31.6%)
Jaronvision
1 (5.3%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Josephus

Lately TV. I find I'm watching less movies each year. Possibly a sign of getting older.
Civis Romanus Sum<br /><br />"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." Jack Layton 1950-2011

katmai

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

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. :P

Although I have always found the name weird.  Do the unique naming rules not cross over between guilds, or what?
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

grumbler

Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

viper37

Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 06:20:28 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 23, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
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.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: grumbler on October 24, 2013, 06:20:28 AM
just as you will never see the "great, fully developed movie characters" to match Tony Soprano or James T. Kirk.

:D

QuoteI 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. :hug:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Ideologue

The movies did more with James Kirk in six hours than the show did in eighty.  But otherwise I do generally agree.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Eddie Teach

Well, if you asked this question in 1970, movies would win easy.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

grumbler

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 24, 2013, 10:13:57 PM
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. 
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

grumbler

Quote from: Ideologue on October 24, 2013, 10:07:14 PM
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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

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



"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"


Ideologue

Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?