My Morning Jacket

Off-Topic => Off-Topic Ramblings => Topic started by: Chills on Jan 27, 2008, 12:46 PM

Title: movies vs television
Post by: Chills on Jan 27, 2008, 12:46 PM
I'm gonna try to keep this new theory short and sweet.
Curious to see what you think.

TV these days is better than cinema.

I'm mostly talking drama here, but actually comedy as well. There's just more time to let the characters and the plot evolve. Great scriptwriters as well (see George Pelecanos and Dennis Lehane for The Wire).

Thoughts?



 
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Jaimoe on Jan 27, 2008, 03:18 PM
It's a tough argument to prove that TV is better than film worldwide. I agree that we in North America are in the middle of another "golden age" of television, but I watch a lot of foreign-language films as well flicks from the U.S. and Canada. If you combine the best films from all over the world annually, there's more quality than you'd find on network and cable channels. That's not saying that The Wire, Rome, Battlestar Galactica, Deadwood, Lost, Heroes (Season I), Extras, The Office (English & US), Rome, Rescue Me, Dexter etc... are better or better yet, more satisfying than many films, because they are.

However, if you take a look at 2007's stellar line-up of quality films, it's a tough argument that TV was a better option last year. One thing that has evened the playing field in TV's favour is the proliferation of high-end home theatre systems and HD-TV's. Also, with around 1000 channels to choose from in North America alone, we're bound to find a number of quality shows on non-network channels.

All and all, we are in a win win situation. Two years ago I thought TV was a better option, but the film industry has rebounded in the quality department over the last three years or so. I think TV has a lot to do with film-makers getting their collective acts in gear.  
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Chills on Jan 28, 2008, 07:53 AM
QuoteTwo years ago I thought TV was a better option, but the film industry has rebounded in the quality department over the last three years or so. I think TV has a lot to do with film-makers getting their collective acts in gear.  

Appreciate your input Jaimoe.

Got a couple of good recent movies to recommend? Maybe I'm just watching the wrong stuff.

I hear there's a new Rambo coming out, that might be something  ;)
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: dragonboy on Jan 28, 2008, 07:58 AM
I find my concentration span isn't what is used to & I have to almost force myself to watch a movie sometimes. I'm definitely buying a lot more TV DVDs than I used to...
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: aMD on Jan 28, 2008, 08:18 AM
QuoteI find my concentration span isn't what is used to & I have to almost force myself to watch a movie sometimes. I'm definitely buying a lot more TV DVDs than I used to...

I was about to say the same thing.  it's difficult to admit it though.  I used to be such a film buff, now I think I'd rather watch three good tv shows than one movie.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Jaimoe on Jan 28, 2008, 07:09 PM
Quote
QuoteI find my concentration span isn't what is used to & I have to almost force myself to watch a movie sometimes. I'm definitely buying a lot more TV DVDs than I used to...

I was about to say the same thing.  it's difficult to admit it though.  I used to be such a film buff, now I think I'd rather watch three good tv shows than one movie.

Watching a season on DVD is one of the only ways programs can fight movies. Reruns aren't aired consistetly in the summer anymore, thanks in a big part to cheap reality shows.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: dragonboy on Jan 28, 2008, 07:44 PM
I think I'd still buy TV shows on DVD even if I lived in the US. Far too many commercials for my liking.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Jaimoe on Jan 28, 2008, 08:48 PM
QuoteI think I'd still buy TV shows on DVD even if I lived in the US. Far too many commercials for my liking.

With the invent of DVR's (digital video recorders) and HD-DVR's, buying isn't a that good of a deal. I fast-forward through all the breaks. Don't forget North American programs are formatted for commerical breaks. I watched Extras last night and the breaks were thrown into the scenes annoyingly - I realize breaks run after the program finishes in the U.K.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Penny Lane on Jan 29, 2008, 03:26 PM
definitely tv now...tv is so good, i haven't really seen a movie in a couple years (other than into the wild)

shows like weeds, sopranos, how i met your mother, 30 rock, the office, extras--i watch all on dvds (cuz i'm not home much during the week) and my attention span (also) is so bad now, i have to force myself to watch a movie.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: dragonboy on Jan 29, 2008, 08:03 PM
I think TV definitely wins in the comedy category. Finding a movie that makes you laugh out loud is rare these days. Shows like South Park, Family Guy, Curb, Extras, Always Sunny etc are genuinely funny the whole way through.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Jaimoe on Jan 30, 2008, 11:05 AM
Quotedefinitely tv now...tv is so good, i haven't really seen a movie in a couple years (other than into the wild)

and my attention span (also) is so bad now, i have to force myself to watch a movie.

You have to actually watch movies to make an argument. Also, some of you said that you don't have the attention-span to watch films all the way through. I think this has more to do with your undiagnosed ADD than it does with movies. For the most part, TV spoon-feeds and/or is serialized, making it easy to follow on an episode to episode basis, hence you liking TV better.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Jaimoe on Jan 30, 2008, 11:07 AM
QuoteI think TV definitely wins in the comedy category. Finding a movie that makes you laugh out loud is rare these days. Shows like South Park, Family Guy, Curb, Extras, Always Sunny etc are genuinely funny the whole way through.

I agree with you 100%.

The odd good or even great comedy comes out per year, but they are few and far between. You start making a list of the best comedies of this decade and it's a short list. Of course there has been good black comedies, but pure straight-up comedies are rare and/or dumbed-down.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Dorothy_Mantooth on Jan 30, 2008, 02:15 PM
QuoteI find my concentration span isn't what is used to & I have to almost force myself to watch a movie sometimes. I'm definitely buying a lot more TV DVDs than I used to...

Welcome to the click-button age. if my browser doesn't load a page in under 5 seconds, i'll close the window out of frustration.

Tivo changed my life, I will say that.

There are great films out there, you just have to dig sometimes through what other countries have to offer. Sometimes the best stuff won't be coming to your local theater.

I find live theatre to be the most satisfying. It's so instantaneous and energetic. But of course Beowulf 3-d can't be performed on the stage. OR COULD IT

Some day soon, television and the internet will be the exact same thing. your tv and your computer will be all-in-one. But that's pretty much already happening. The internet will have to be restructured in order to play movies, but some magic man with wires will do that for us.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: bowl of soup on Jan 30, 2008, 05:53 PM
Quotedefinitely tv now...tv is so good, i haven't really seen a movie in a couple years (other than into the wild)

shows like weeds, sopranos, how i met your mother, 30 rock, the office, extras--i watch all on dvds (cuz i'm not home much during the week) and my attention span (also) is so bad now, i have to force myself to watch a movie.

Thanks for the Into the Wild love - how this keeps getting shut out of awards makes me hate awards even more.  Hal Holbrook WAS that guy, but his role is not nearly as compelling or visual than a crazed killer and he's only on the screen for about 15 minutes.  Please show me better acting.

As for movies vs. t.v., I think it's just a statement on how we live.  At home entertainment is just easier and faster and t.v. has always been the domain of writers.
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Penny Lane on Jan 31, 2008, 08:56 AM
Quote
Quotedefinitely tv now...tv is so good, i haven't really seen a movie in a couple years (other than into the wild)

and my attention span (also) is so bad now, i have to force myself to watch a movie.

You have to actually watch movies to make an argument. Also, some of you said that you don't have the attention-span to watch films all the way through. I think this has more to do with your undiagnosed ADD than it does with movies. For the most part, TV spoon-feeds and/or is serialized, making it easy to follow on an episode to episode basis, hence you liking TV better.

if i want a challenge, i'll read a book--my life is already challenging enough.  i disagree though and think the better writers are writing for tv--especially the showtime, HBO shows
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: dragonboy on Jan 31, 2008, 09:07 AM
Quoteif i want a challenge, i'll read a book--my life is already challenging enough.
Good point.

Both my sisters are doctors, yet they watch (what I would consider) absolute crap on TV! I've questioned/challenged them both a few times, something along the lines of "how can you watch that?!!" to which they will always answer "because it's escapism." That or "f**k off!"  ;)
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Penny Lane on Jan 31, 2008, 10:41 AM
Quote
Quoteif i want a challenge, i'll read a book--my life is already challenging enough.
Good point.

Both my sisters are doctors, yet they watch (what I would consider) absolute crap on TV! I've questioned/challenged them both a few times, something along the lines of "how can you watch that?!!" to which they will always answer "because it's escapism." That or "f**k off!"  ;)

exactly, i spend most of the day and night w/my head in law books--the only thing i can focus on after 10pm is The Hills or Southpark. i don't need depth...lol
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Chills on Jan 31, 2008, 11:19 AM
Quote
That or "f**k off!"  ;)

Heh, that's you Brits answer to everything 'innit  ;)
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: dragonboy on Jan 31, 2008, 11:26 AM
 ;D ;D ;D

Wanker  ;)
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Chills on Jan 31, 2008, 11:42 AM
Quote

Wanker  ;)

But, I became part of this team because of the wanking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn6Z9djh8eA
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Jaimoe on Jan 31, 2008, 01:03 PM
Quote
Quote
Quotedefinitely tv now...tv is so good, i haven't really seen a movie in a couple years (other than into the wild)

and my attention span (also) is so bad now, i have to force myself to watch a movie.

You have to actually watch movies to make an argument. Also, some of you said that you don't have the attention-span to watch films all the way through. I think this has more to do with your undiagnosed ADD than it does with movies. For the most part, TV spoon-feeds and/or is serialized, making it easy to follow on an episode to episode basis, hence you liking TV better.

if i want a challenge, i'll read a book--my life is already challenging enough.  i disagree though and think the better writers are writing for tv--especially the showtime, HBO shows

Ah, but HBO and Showtime are in a grey area since they fall outside the real of network broadcasting. Their budgets per series are often way higher than regular shows; see Rome and Deadwood. It's still TV, but they are not in the same scale as  as Fox or NBC, plus they have far more freedom to do what they want, similar to movies.

Movies don't have to be challenging, many of the good ones aren't.  
Title: Re: movies vs television
Post by: Ruff Draught on Feb 03, 2008, 01:24 AM
i don't have cable and i love it. the only channel on my tv that is programmed is PBS. although i do love some regular shows that do come on tv, you can usually find a site online to watch them.

and i do have a hefty collection of dvds. but, here's the kicker... no dvd player. i know, it doesn't make any sense. i've been meaning to buy a cheap one. but other things always seem to take priority.