TV is great, but has yet to overtake film - some thoughts on why

johnny_ultimate

Inspired by the posts in this thread. And I haven't written a nice long post in a while, so no apologies for the TL;DR-ness

It's an argument I for one hear a lot: TV has overtaken film as the storytelling medium of the moment. Or that film has gotten worse while TV has gotten better. Or various riffs on that general idea.

There are two reasons, IMO, why this train of thought is so common. First is the infantalisation and conservatism of mainstream blockbusters and 'tentpole' films, some exceptions aside. Second is the comparatively rapid maturation of television as a medium in the last decade or two. There is truth in both points, that is hard to deny. But they're also far from the whole story.

To me, cinema still occupies a completely different realm to even the best television. That's not to hate on TV: there are some superb things being done in the TV space, and plenty of shows I absolutely adore. And it's not about film being necessarily 'better' (although it undoubtedly does certain things better) - ultimately, they are very different modes of expression, each with their own unique strengths. But IMO film needs a bit of defending, and here's a few reasons why:

Aesthetics:
This is the core point that separates the two mediums, and where cinema stands alone. While some shows have become more stylistically interesting in recent times, the sheer artistic and technical craftsmanship on display in the best cinema has few to no direct matches in TV. To pick some personal favourites in recent times, the likes of Leviathan (both the documentary and fiction films), Under the Skin, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Upstream Colour etc... (I could name dozens more from the last few years) are so rich and articulate in terms of their editing, cinematography and sound that I really cannot think of many direct matches in television, even the ones that boast impeccable production values. Formally, too, film has much to offer compared to the typically straightforward, linear narratives offered by TV (Arrested Development Season 4 being an exceedingly rare deviation).

In fairness to television, there are practical reasons for this: the sheer workload involved in TV, the lower budgets and tight turnaround times means TV producers simply do not have the time or resources to put the same TLC into their productions (not that some films don't suffer from these unavoidable practical issues too, by the way). And things are getting better - shows like Utopia or The Returned boast quite vivid stylisation that really make them stand out from the crowd, as does the attention to detail (e.g. series-long colour schemes reflecting the moods of the characters) that helped define Breaking Bad.

Too many cooks:
Not the weird Adult Swim sketch, although it is awesome.
There's a lot of debate around the value of 'auteur theory', but let's be honest: directors help define films far more than showrunners. David Milch, David Chase, Matthew Weiner etc... are fascinating artists, but they do not exert the total or near total control over their creations the way, say, Wes Anderson or Jean Luc Godard do. The very nature of TV means a sort of uniformity has to be adopted by all in the writing room (unless you're Aaron Sorkin) to achieve a consistency - individual writing voices can and do emerge, sometimes in quite intriguing ways (such as in individual 'bottle' episodes), but rarely to anywhere near the same extent as film.
There are some benefits to that - fresh and varied perspectives are beneficial in long-form storytelling. And slowly but surely TV auteurs are emerging. What Louis CK is doing is of particular note.

The perils of serialised storytelling:
Long-form narratives are TV's greatest strength. The depth and scope of something like The Wire is basically impossible to capture in any other form, even novels. Undoubtedly great TV can bring its characters in more dynamic, unpredictable directions than film.
Yet there are also drawbacks. There's always something to be said about one story, viewed in one sitting - it allows for an unbroken engagement and connection with the characters, themes, situations etc... TV is fractured by its very nature, even when binge watching.
The sheer scale of television storytelling means consistency is harder to achieve (even great TV often has off episodes or sometimes entire seasons *coughthewestwingcough*), and cliffhangers and other cheap tricks are used to keep the viewer interested enough to come back for the next episode. And then there's the problem with nailing the ending - the inevitably colourful discussions surrounding the end of any major series say it all, in that it becomes increasingly hard to offer a wholly satisfying conclusion after dozens of hours. Hell, great TV often isn't even granted the luxury of an ending - cancellation is something very few films need to worry about.

Variety of perspectives:
TV is a commercial medium. As is cinema, of course. But there's also a vibrant world and independent scene in film that has yet to really emerge in TV, certainly not to the same scale. Certainly Iranian or Thai or Japanese (anime aside) or international TV is rarely if ever distributed here, and while the independent TV scene does exist, it definitely does not enjoy the visibility - perhaps even the quality - of independent cinema.
There are slow improvements in this respect too - the success of The Killing, Borgen, The Bridge et al has shown there is a market for high quality subtitled TV (from Scandinavia anyway!), aided by digital stations and streaming. But definitely cinema currently leads the way in offering alternatives to the more mainstream fare (and the question remains if there even is much great 'world television')

That's the rambling done for now, so I'll open this one up to the floor. Do you agree that film edges TV in many key respects? Does contemporary TV's strengths overshadow film's? Again, I'd like to restress, as we head into 2015, that television is in a very exciting place - certainly from my perspective we're all better off by having access to both TV and film, even if one or the other needs a bit of defending from time to time

DoYouEvenLift

Said it on here a few times, but as technological advancements in producing bigger televisions happens alongside the increasing ease and reduced costs to do higher quality CGI we are getting closer to TV shows being written on a scale that'll be better than movies. I'll choose watching a more in-depth and developed character(s) stories play out over several weeks on my >100" TV in the future rather than go to the cinema. Season 4, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones is an example and basically a teaser of what I at least hope a lot of other TV shows can do in the future.

Still have to agree with you about the fragmented feeling of pretty much all shows. You can watch episodes of a new, great show where it's all about your favourite character and then it has to cut away to parts about a character you nor nobody gives a sh!t about so you're pretty much stuck waiting it out until it goes back to the good character. Like Daenerys in Game of Thrones - hardly anybody likes her anymore, I just look forward to the scenes with Arya and The Hound.

True Detective is about the best cinematic experience in TV so far. It was all filmed on 35mm.

Hyzepher

In truth both mediums are starting to blend. The more On Demand services we get, the better the broadband speeds, the Netflix models, and let's be frank the speed to market of illegal downloads all contribute to people watching stuff at home.

Sure even the PC has eroded into the physical TV market - lots don't even watch TV on TVs any more.

As this begins to happen we'll start to see film produce lower budget movies and TV start to invest more to the point that they become as close to one as possible.

The turning point will be when either one of the big cable companies buy the rights to a huge franchise and start to produce "TV" movies or a Netflix type service starts to become a major movie creator

It's a while off yet and in the meantime film just edges the "experience" for me. TV is more comforting and more convenient which makes cinema an event. Once that event becomes diluted TV will win

Right Turn Clyde

I agree that both mediums are beginning to blend. When we talk about the quality and maturity of modern series' we're really just pointing out that they're starting to look and feel like films. In fact, one of the earliest observations of series' like The Wire and The Sopranos was that they that they didn't feel like TV. That's certainly how I felt about them. However, I don't think we're ever going to arrive at a point where TV will 'win', because TV is not trying to replace film, it's simply trying to turn into it, or a version of it. Ultimately, I think we're going to arrive at a point where some 'films' arrive in 10 parts, or over a number of seasons. Maybe that's already happening. I mean, was Mildred Pierce a TV mini-series, or just a five part story from Todd Haynes. I'm not so sure. It's telling that that series, along with many others, have received solid coverage in Sight & Sound, which is surely one of the last bastions of Cinema as Art. Things are changing rapidly, that's for sure. But I'm still waiting on a multi-season TV series, with numerous writers and directors, to produce something as uniform as our best cinema. I don't think that has happened yet, (despite the many fine entries into the TV canon) but I'm sure it will.

conorhal

It's a thoughtful post, but the pitfalls of television you describe are largely negated by the rise of the short form series like Fargo, True Detective, Breaking Bad and Mad Man.
All were asthetically cinematic. They also bypass the problem of serialized story telling by declining to expand the narrative beyond what it can naturally sustained, so it may run 5 seasons with a predetermined arc or just 10 episodes. The creative control that top notch show runners have these days also manages to maintain a degree of focus and quality, many BBC shows are often written by one or two writers since they only have to produce 4-6 episodes a year.

johnny_ultimate

conorhal wrote: »

It's a thoughtful post, but the pitfalls of television you describe are largely negated by the rise of the short form series like Fargo, True Detective, Breaking Bad and Mad Man.
All were asthetically cinematic.

Short form certainly allows for a greater degree of creative freedom and control (although I wouldn't necessarily count Mad Men and Breaking Bad in that category - they're both superb and carefully crafted, but are also very much long-form in many respects - Breaking Bad especially). I'm watching the six-episode Utopia at the moment, and its gorgeous widescreen cinematography - the explicitly cinematic 2.35:1, and unique colour palette - is definitely something that could not be achieved with a show that had, say, a 22 episode order.

And there are some very rich aesthetic moments in the shows you mentioned, and others. The final scene of the last (half) season of Mad Men stands out, or the beautiful long take monologue at the end of Louie's So Did the Fat Lady, to pick but two examples. Those are moments that express themselves in a richer way than the more straightforward shot / reverse shot storytelling seen in much TV. Mad Men has always excelled in letting a lot of nuances go unsaid, and instead resonate with more subtlety.

But even bearing that in mind, I still think when you go to upper end of visual (and audio) cinematic expression, there are things being done in film beyond the best of television. I certainly haven't seen a TV show that offers the carefully constructed long-takes and minimalist storytelling of Bela Tarr. Or the obsessive attention, utterly individual attention to detail you see in a Wes Anderson film (a mention to Pushing Daisies, which adapted a distinctive, quirky style for its short duration - not Anderson quality, but it stood out). Or the serene yet unnerving control Michael Haneke exerts over his films.

Absolutely, TV has grown more cinematic, and is likely to only become more so - especially when you have the likes of Soderburgh or Fincher working in it (I'm not a big fan of House of Cards, but it does look great at times). But in great cinema I very often get something that is exceedingly rare in television, and the sheer diversity of what even constitutes the word 'cinematic' is something yet to translate.

As an aside, a French miniseries called L'il Quinquin topped Cahiers du Cinema 'end of year' poll, and received a vote from quite a few Sight & Sound contributors. Curious to see if it gets a release over here, as it definitely seems like something that very much bridges the gap between the two mediums, in the same way the likes of Heimat or Berlin Alexanderplatz did.

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

[...]
Variety of perspectives:
TV is a commercial medium. As is cinema, of course. But there's also a vibrant world and independent scene in film that has yet to really emerge in TV, certainly not to the same scale. Certainly Iranian or Thai or Japanese (anime aside) or international TV is rarely if ever distributed here, and while the independent TV scene

I hate to pick out one specific part of your post, and I have thoughts on all the rest, but I'm too lazy to articulate it all - yet I'm just wondering on the above point: is this specifically a bad thing we don't get (for example) Iranian or Thai TV? Honestly I know little of Iranian cinema, nevermind its TV output (bar the belief that shows such as the Simpsons are apparently heavily censored so as not to offend Iranian sensibilities), so are we actually losing out on quality Iranian drama? Or is simply a case that any good material rightly filters out into the wider world, while the garbage simply stays within its borders, only to be rightly mocked on YouTube channels or whatnot? Is there even any evidence that non-English TV stations operate with a greater sense of creativity: Iranian cinema may exist as an 'indie' landscape, whereas Iranian TV may be polar opposite.

You do seem to wonder the point aloud yourself later, and you mention the popularity of Scandinavian drama in the modern world of digital distribution, but this is also a part of the world that broadcasts 9-hour knitting marathons and real-time train journeys (OK, it's niche, but even so...). It seems to me like we're getting access to the stuff worth accessing - within reason I guess, I'm sure there's stuff being lost in the ether. To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, Good TV Finds a Way...

I look to our own shores, and while there is the odd gem here and there, Love/Hate being the biggest and most successful export story of recent years, the standards of original TV drama & comedy is pretty low, if not downright dreadful.

The Black Oil

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Aesthetics:

The Guardian were recapping some of their interviews from this year, I noticed this one involving Tommy Lee Jones. I like him even though he's not that fond of doing media work. Found his thoughts on TV interesting concerning the technical details.

There is one area which holds little appeal for the great grouch: television. The small screen’s supposed golden age of The Sopranos, Mad Men, Breaking Bad and True Detective is passing him by, and that’s just fine. “I probably watch less than one hour of television a week. And when I do watch television it’s usually a football game. Sometimes I’ll watch a news broadcast for a few minutes. Otherwise I don’t have time.”

Directors such as Steven Soderbergh, Cary Fukunaga and Jonathan Demme have migrated to television, as have actors such as Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson and Sean Bean, but Jones is in no rush to follow.

As a director he is fanatical about capturing a certain look and television, he feels, is a medium of compromise. “Most of those things are so poorly lit. And they are limited a lot by their tight schedules. They have to shoot so much material and they have to shoot it so fast.” He shakes his head, appalled at the cinematographic sins. “The lighting is often rather ...” He pauses, searching for the right word. “Gross.”

I'd be inclined to disagree a little, though frankly I don't know much about what I'm posting about. :pac: It does seem to me that some shows with 10-13 episode runs are at certain points capable of capturing aesthetics that perhaps if not match film, put them quite close to it. Aside from Fincher's involvement in House of Cards, a show I also have a problem with, I don't particularly get the praise for its visuals.

Sad Professor

The aesthetics of tv aren’t the problem. Production values have come a looong way. What tv still lacks compared to cinema is visual form. You can teach a writer-producer-showrunner the importance of visual style but visual storytelling will always be the domain of directors. And in tv, directors are usually hired-hands of varying talent. We can all point to very cinematic episodes that certain shows have had, but most episodes will always be directed by guys following a style guide written by the director of the pilot.

One of the best examples of this is Twin Peaks. The Lynch-directed episodes were pure cinema. The other episodes were directed by hacks desperately trying to imitate him and falling miserably. But aesthetically they looked the same, so most viewers didn’t really notice. It’s no different with the current era of shows.

OldeCinemaSoz

Dan Curtis did some very DECENT STUFF indeed during
the mid 70s. A genius if I say so myself working
under the constraints he was in.

Wedwood

Another advantage movies still have over TV series is 're-watchability'.

Great movies become eternal and get reissued and re-released for decades and eventually centuries to come. The silent era movies from the likes of Chaplin and Keaton are approaching their Centenary years, yet are still regularly viewed either for their enjoyment or historical value.

If you look at the TV 'Gold' channels, they're mainly comprised of a handful of sitcoms and sketch shows with very little in terms of drama.

In contrast, movies from every era can be found throughout virtually every channel all the time.

While the new TV series like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Ray Donovan and True Detective are very well produced, can you see yourself watching them over again in the years to come ? The time investment needed to watch an entire series won't be there from most people, so I can't see even these well made modern series having the longevity of cinema features.

Frank O. Pinion

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

Dan Curtis did some very DECENT STUFF indeed during
the mid 70s. A genius if I say so myself working
under the constraints he was in.

I
DISARGEE. Dan CURTIS in the
MID 70S did not do some very
DECENT
stuff. The constraints he was IN
WAS overrated, in my OPINION.

Right Turn Clyde

Wedwood wrote: »

If you look at the TV 'Gold' channels, they're mainly comprised of a handful of sitcoms and sketch shows with very little in terms of drama.

This is a red herring. We're talking about the types of drama series that began in the late 90s, not sitcoms and sketch shows from the 70s and 80s. I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it makes no sense in the context of this conversation. There's no precedent for the type of TV we're seeing nowadays.

Wedwood wrote: »

While the new TV series like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, Ray Donovan and True Detective are very well produced, can you see yourself watching them over again in the years to come? The time investment needed to watch an entire series won't be there from most people, so I can't see even these well made modern series having the longevity of cinema features.

You shouldn't assume that the only way to watch these shows is by binging your way through the box-sets. I've seen The Sopranos in its entirety three times at this stage, and the only time it felt like a time commitment was when I blasted through it in about 3 weeks. The other two times I watched an episode on TV every week, and it was an absolute pleasure, not a commitment. There's no reason why people won't re-watch these shows at an episode per week, or a few episodes here and there if they own the collection. Personally, I am constantly re-watching something, at an episode or two per week. I'm sure many other people do the same, and will continue to do so long into the future.

Watching a long series is different than watching a film. You know you're in it for the long haul. I love watching them precisely because they take bloody ages. It's comforting to know that this story will be part of your life for the next few weeks or months. It's a nightly or weekly indulgence. It doesn't effect my interest in films because it's a different experience. Look at it this way: I'm a huge fan of comics, while my favourite novelist is Dostoyevsky. I can sit down and read through a trade paperback (or 'graphic novel' for those in denial) in a couple of hours, but I know that The Brother Karamazov will take me a couple of months to read at a rate of 15-20 pages per night. But I can enjoy both. One doesn't negate the other. Ultimately, I think it comes down to viewing habits. There will always be people willing to invest time. There are many niche areas of cinema thriving at the moment, all because people are passionate about what they're viewing. TV will be the same in years to come. It will be re-watched and kept alive.

Wedwood

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

This is a red herring. We're talking about the types of drama series that began in the late 90s, not sitcoms and sketch shows from the 70s and 80s. I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it makes no sense in the context of this conversation. There's no precedent for the type of TV we're seeing nowadays.




You shouldn't assume that the only way to watch these shows is by binging your way through the box-sets. I've seen The Sopranos in its entirety three times at this stage, and the only time it felt like a time commitment was when I blasted through it in about 3 weeks. The other two times I watched an episode on TV every week, and it was an absolute pleasure, not a commitment. There's no reason why people won't re-watch these shows at an episode per week, or a few episodes here and there if they own the collection. Personally, I am constantly re-watching something, at an episode or two per week. I'm sure many other people do the same, and will continue to do so long into the future.

Watching a long series is different than watching a film. You know you're in it for the long haul. I love watching them precisely because they take bloody ages. It's comforting to know that this story will be part of your life for the next few weeks or months. It's a nightly or weekly indulgence. It doesn't effect my interest in films because it's a different experience. Look at it this way: I'm a huge fan of comics, while my favourite novelist is Dostoyevsky. I can sit down and read through a trade paperback (or 'graphic novel' for those in denial) in a couple of hours, but I know that The Brother Karamazov will take me a couple of months to read at a rate of 15-20 pages per night. But I can enjoy both. One doesn't negate the other. Ultimately, I think it comes down to viewing habits. There will always be people willing to invest time. There are many niche areas of cinema thriving at the moment, all because people are passionate about what they're viewing. TV will be the same in years to come. It will be re-watched and kept alive.

Don't get me wrong, there's some excellent modern TV series out there that are very re watchable, like Band of Brothers for example, I'm talking in general terms. There may be an issue with some of the new series in that you have to have seen all the previous episodes to 'get' what going on, like Game of Thrones for example, whereas a cinema feature is usually a self contained episode.

Even in movie franchises, they usually script the movie in such a way that you don't have to have seen the previous 'episodes' to get what's happening.

I'd agree with your point that TV series may go into niche areas such as online streaming etc, so you can invest whatever time you want/ can into old TV series.

bnt

For example, if I compare Fargo the film to Fargo the TV series, what are the main differences? It's not the production values, which are uniformly excellent. The thing that strikes me the most is the difference in pacing, with the TV series able to take a more leisurely pace in exploring the character and situation.

When part one of Atlas Shrugged was made in to a movie a couple of years ago, I just shook my head. I've read the book, and its structure has TV written all over it: three parts of ten self-contained chapters, each of which would make a decent episode. It's almost written for TV, in my opinion.

So I'm pleased to hear that Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is headed for TV, rather than movies (after several failed attempts), because its chapters are also very episodic, the result of its origin as a series of short stories. Makes more sense to me to go that way.

For me the takeover of CGI from Special effects has ruined a lot of films.

Realism has just gone out the window in popular culture movies. Take Alien for example where you have an incredible lifelike costume and actor playing the Alien. Its not real, we know its not real, but still it carries some realism. The same thing made on a computer and transferred to screen simply does not have the same effect. Even bad special effects like in the old Cronenberg horror movies are more appealing to me then watching robots fight in the sky.

Take back to the Future, pure fantasy but created in such a skilful way with special effects you feel the real.

Conan the Barbarian a pure fantasy film created magnificent sets and scenes, huge amounts of work that create a realistic world. With pure graphics and CGI my brain just switches off and disengages. Is popular film more about computer design now then anything else?

TV uses less of the fake and more of the real. Series like Deadwood, Rome, John Adams, lavish affairs, hugely expensive but real, effective and engrossing because of the realism transporting you right into the show.
Sure film can still do this too, watching Foxcatcher the other night there was no CGI just pure character study. But it would hardly be a popular culture movie. Blockbusters are skating the line between cartoon and film which is making things a little more juvenile overall. Watching the trailer for the latest hobbit movie, it looks like a CGI war for a couple of hours, and I can't think of a reason to be interested in that.

Wedwood

That's a good point about the overuse of CGI in modern films.

The likes of older epics like Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia still look great because they used thousands of extras in real locations, which computers just can't replicate.

The Transformers and other superhero movies are now almost unwatchable with their super speed action cgi scenes. As you also mention, the Cgi armies look extremely fake and date very fast.

Contrast the LOTR battles with say the battle scenes from Lawrence of Arabia, the LOTR looks more like a video game in comparison.

Thankfully, series like GOT use the cgi a bit more sparingly.

Sad Professor

You are both talking about mainstream American cinema, of course, but yeah, I think the overabundance of fake-looking CGI is a huge part of it for most viewers, particularly older ones. I can’t get my mother to watch films anymore. She won’t watch foreign language films and it’s difficult to get her to watch anything without an actor she knows and likes. Like a lot of people, she tends to assume if she hasn’t heard of something it can’t be that good.

johnny_ultimate

To be honest, I put very little weight on the too much CGI argument. Yes, big blockbusters have become more fantastical and less adult-orientated, but that would only be an issue if there weren't viable alternatives. Thousands of great films are released every year, and a huge majority of them are grounded to a recognisable reality. World, independent and even Hollywood 'auteur' cinema are still as rich as ever, to the point where I'd consider blockbusters a small part of the overall cinema landscape. The most visible, certainly, but then we're down to issues like marketing and public attitudes as much as the quality of the film itself. Anyone looking beyond the multiplex while find an abundance of great content. Even CG can be used as a valuable tool of creative expression in the right hands.

It's the same way most pop cultural tv is utter junk. I don't think it's really fair to lump them in with the high quality drama series people talk about when suggesting TV has overtaken film. One has to remember many of the shows that factor in to that general area were never big hits either: the likes of Louie, Deadwood, The Bridge / Killing (originals) or Slings and Arrows remain quite niche compared to the likes of The Big Bang Theory or CSI. There are crossover hits, absolutely, but it's the same in cinema - The Grand Budapest Hotel was one of this year's most unexpected box office success stories, and then you have popular hits like Gone Girl..

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be honest, I put very little weight on the too much CGI argument. Yes, big blockbusters have become more fantastical and less adult-orientated, but that would only be an issue if there weren't viable alternatives. Thousands of great films are released every year, and a huge majority of them are grounded to a recognisable reality. World, independent and even Hollywood 'auteur' cinema are still as rich as ever, to the point where I'd consider blockbusters a small part of the overall cinema landscape. The most visible, certainly, but then we're down to issues like marketing and public attitudes as much as the quality of the film itself. Anyone looking beyond the multiplex while find an abundance of great content. Even CG can be used as a valuable tool of creative expression in the right hands.

It's the same way most pop cultural tv is utter junk. I don't think it's really fair to lump them in with the high quality drama series people talk about when suggesting TV has overtaken film. One has to remember many of the shows that factor in to that general area were never big hits either: the likes of Louie, Deadwood, The Bridge / Killing (originals) or Slings and Arrows remain quite niche compared to the likes of The Big Bang Theory or CSI. There are crossover hits, absolutely, but it's the same in cinema - The Grand Budapest Hotel was one of this year's most unexpected box office success stories, and then you have popular hits like Gone Girl..

Aye johnny its easy to dismiss the argument if you spend a good deal of your time delving into the riches that film can provide which you do. Im talking about popular culture here, thats where I see the change. Sure, you can find what you want if you look, but if your just taking whats being put in front of you marketing wise I believe the CGI argument holds firm.

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

blockbusters [are] a small part of the overall cinema landscape.

This is truest thing that's been said so far. In fact, I'd extend that to mainstream cinema in general, not just blockbusters. I simply cannot keep up with the amount of quality films that are released each year. Also, if you're like me, and you carefully pick what you want to see, then you can go a long time without seeing a bad movie. There's just so much quality out there. I occasionally come across a film that's not for me, or that I have reservations about, but I cannot remember the last time I seen a properly poor movie. Everything I've watched in the past 5 years, dating back to when I first started to dig a bit deeper, has been worth watching.

duckworth

I think its wrong to say that TV doesn't have the 'visual language' of cinema as though that is a fault.

TV is a different medium, and doesn't intend to tell stories with images like cinema - its much more about the writing. It's probably evolved this way as a factor of the size of the screens involved.

TV primarily uses writing and language - images are secondary. With the best cinema its the opposite.

The Black Oil

Sad Professor wrote: »

The aesthetics of tv aren’t the problem. Production values have come a looong way. What tv still lacks compared to cinema is visual form. You can teach a writer-producer-showrunner the importance of visual style but visual storytelling will always be the domain of directors. And in tv, directors are usually hired-hands of varying talent. We can all point to very cinematic episodes that certain shows have had, but most episodes will always be directed by guys following a style guide written by the director of the pilot.

In cooking terms, a home made recipe with fresh ingredients vs. a ready meal.

I don't feel film has the edge in terms of rewatches. Naturally, depending on how invested you are, and your expectations, TV series still retain huge value (imo) in terms of reconnecting with narratives, themes, noticing details you haven't before, character stuff, etc. Maybe because certain shows are constantly repeated (Simpons, Friends, Father Ted) this can wear down their value a bit. Perhaps we shouldn't get too caught up in this whole TV vs. film exercise, though. Both mediums can become touchstones or tap into a zeitgeist the other can't. No TV show can replicate the group experience I had watching The Mist in the cinema. I recently saw someone watching Homeland on their phone on the bus, not something you'd generally with a film see unless it's long journey, though I'm sure some people watch their films on devices, in chunks. Depending on the model, TV has to compete a bit more within its own world for audience retention hence cliffhangers and 'previously on's, story delivery, etc. Fortunately, ratings seem less important in cable it's less bound by the traditional pilot system, I think.

I agree that it's worth noting that tentpole films shouldn't colour your view of the film landscape, but they probably do a bit because they are so widespread and can obscure gems. Re The Grand Budapest Hotel, wasn't word of mouth a key reason for its success?