Movies v TV

[DieselDaisy]

Films. Films, moving pictures, are the last great art form to arrive, joining art, literature, architecture, music and theatre. Television is merely a spin off of films, a shoddy imitator. For a start, cinema has been around, entertaining crowds, far longer than television. Cinema had already produced masterpieces like Wings, Nosferato, M, The Lodger - and the early talkies - way before the television entered our lives. Cinema had already established genuine serious artistry (as opposed to merely existing as something, to entertain the masses) such as German Expressionism and Russian montage, before the television had even been invented. Secondly, there is something sacred about attending the cinema - even the horrible modern multiplexes are not completely devoid of some of the magic of cinema. You enter a baroque style building with gaudy but glorious Chinoserie or Egyptian decor. The lights dim and you enter another world. The crowd responds universally, applause, laughter to the joys of Keaton and Chaplin (or even, Jackie Chan), fear, shock, admiration - it is communal. The television is something that you stick in your fucking room. You watch, say, Coronation Street and end up having a conversation over it. It is just a diversion. Like farting around on the internet. Just something to relieve the time. In contrast, cinema actually means something.

Look at the stars also - the stars! Has any television actor looked more macho that Mitchim, Eastwood, Wayne - or in a different way, Bruce Lee? Has any television actress looked more beautiful than Bow, Dietrich, Kelly, Bergman or Hayworth? Has there ever been acting performances on the box that rivals Newman, Clift, Brando or De Nero?

No, is the answer.

Television is something actors want to leave. They want to progress to, film. Granted its stock is a bit superior now but TV is viewed as a mere, ’stepping stone’, to either the stage or cinema.

Now, I am not denying that television has had its terrific moments such as Star Trek TOS, Starsky and Hutch, Mission Impossible, Z Cars, Minder, British sitcoms (not to mention, great documentaries like World at War and Planet Earth). At its greatest, television can compete with the general run of cinema. I am also not denying that American Hollywood cinema is now, absolutely fuckin’ shite. If you were to pit current Hollywood cinema in fact, Iron Man 7, against current television, say, HBO’s The Pacific, television would be the probable winner because you are catching - American cinema at least - at an all time historic low. But if you bring in other regions of the world and pit the whole history of cinema, against the whole history of television, cinema absolutely destroys television - absolutely obliterates it. Just look at the masterpieces. Name a television series that even comes close to Hitchcock's Notorious, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Scorsese's TaxiDriver, Kubrick’s 2001, Fellini's I Vitelloni, De Sica's Bicycle Thieves., Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu, Bergman's Wild Strawberries. These are, artworks. In contrast, television just looks cheap. I mention the filmmaker’s names there because they are colossal, they are 'auteurs', they are like the renaissance era artists of our modern times. In contrast, nobody remembers television makes with a few possible exceptions (Rodenberry). People just do not care as, all the guy has done is, produce a television show.

Edited April 8, 2014 by DieselDaisy

[Thin White Duke]

But I hate people who complain about the current state of cinema just as much as television snobs- generally speaking it's no worse than it has ever been since the seventies ended. Your asses are just too lazy to look outside the multiplex, to explore foreign regions, etc.

I mostly agree with your post but I just wanted to add one thing given that you mentioned foreign films. There is a lot of imagiantion and talent out there but not every film from an exotic place is good. I've been dragged to see some films which were supposed to be amazing and they were awful. And I've come to the conclusion that people only told about them as good because they were Croatian, Iranian, etc. There is a few foreign films snobs too.

Edit: I've just realized I read that comment wrong. Never mind then.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Thin White Duke

[Snake-Pit]

TV.

Because it's shorter.

[Georgy Zhukov]

I dislike movie snobs and pretty much most movies that come out nowadays. I can honestly say, the last time I truely enjoyed a mainstream film that did not involve action and comedy was Departures.

Edit: Okay, I liked A Serious Man also, but that film wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Georgy Zhukov

[Ace Nova]

I had to null vote...probably 50/50....and that's primarily due to the fact that I've really been getting into a lot of TV shows within the last several years.

TV series like Breaking Bad, True Detective, Sopranos, Deadwood, Rome and American Horror Story are as good as some of the best movies out there. Even the 2nd-tier shows like Bates Motel, Dexter, Hannibal, Lost, etc. are just as good, if not better, than the average film nowadays....and the TV series are dozens of hours of entertainment vs. 90 minutes.

The only thing that still gives films that 50/50 split is because you'll always have at least 4 or 5 films a year that will knock it out of the park....plus, I tend to like the big budget blockbusters, like Thor and Avengers, etc....and there's just not enough money in TV to produce shows like that.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Kasanova King

[wasted]

don't forget Chuck. One of the pinnacles of the television.

I think it's more about just being honest about what you like, not which you think is better on paper.

My feeling is audiences lean mostly towards and characters and story. Which is what tv does best. There's not much indulgence from the directors.

Movies can do all that and add some magic which isn't always appreciated. Hand held stuff, too many weird lingering scenery shots and obscure soundtrack music.

Videogames are the rock n roll of the 21st century.

Edited April 9, 2014 by wasted

[MEXzilla]

I love shows but I feel that TV is just hitting it's stride and that there's not enough shows that can be said to rival movies. Will it eventually, yes of course and I will be there to root for TV but as of right now I just can't find any TV shows that I myself would consider better than the classics in film.

The one genre were I feel shows best movies is comedy without question shows have been bringing it in that department since the 60s.

[OmarBradley]

Videogames are rock n roll of the 21st century.

Hah, of all the "<insert thing here> is the rock n roll of the 21st century" statements I've heard, I think I like that one the best. It's definitely worth it's own discussion, so I won't derail this thread with it.

Anyway, on topic, why do we have to do TV vs. films? They're different forms of media, whilst they are similar, they're not really for the same thing (with case by case exceptions). To me this debate is analogous to someone arguing plays vs. comic books, or short stories vs. novels. It's all written text, used for different reasons, preferred by people for different reasons. Same with TV and film I think, why try to declare one better?

[wasted]

It's not really is movies better than TV. More like which do you prefer. Wolf of Wall Street or True Detective?

I would say the peak of movies was in the 70s, right now TV is peaking. So I pick TV. The crime movies coming out now don't match up against the ones that came out in the 70s. There's good directors but not matching Scorsese or Coppola in the 70s.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Films. Films, moving pictures, are the last great art form to arrive, joining art, literature, architecture, music and theatre. Television is merely a spin off of films, a shoddy imitator. For a start, cinema has been around, entertaining crowds, far longer than television. Cinema had already produced masterpieces like Wings, Nosferato, M, The Lodger - and the early talkies - way before the television entered our lives. Cinema had already established genuine serious artistry (as opposed to merely existing as something, to entertain the masses) such as German Expressionism and Russian montage, before the television had even been invented. Secondly, there is something sacred about attending the cinema - even the horrible modern multiplexes are not completely devoid of some of the magic of cinema. You enter a baroque style building with gaudy but glorious Chinoserie or Egyptian decor. The lights dim and you enter another world. The crowd responds universally, applause, laughter to the joys of Keaton and Chaplin (or even, Jackie Chan), fear, shock, admiration - it is communal. The television is something that you stick in your fucking room. You watch, say, Coronation Street and end up having a conversation over it. It is just a diversion. Like farting around on the internet. Just something to relieve the time. In contrast, cinema actually means something.

Look at the stars also - the stars! Has any television actor looked more macho that Mitchim, Eastwood, Wayne - or in a different way, Bruce Lee? Has any television actress looked more beautiful than Bow, Dietrich, Kelly, Bergman or Hayworth? Has there ever been acting performances on the box that rivals Newman, Clift, Brando or De Nero?

No, is the answer.

Television is something actors want to leave. They want to progress to, film. Granted its stock is a bit superior now but TV is viewed as a mere, ’stepping stone’, to either the stage or cinema.

Now, I am not denying that television has had its terrific moments such as Star Trek TOS, Starsky and Hutch, Mission Impossible, Z Cars, Minder, British sitcoms (not to mention, great documentaries like World at War and Planet Earth). At its greatest, television can compete with the general run of cinema. I am also not denying that American Hollywood cinema is now, absolutely fuckin’ shite. If you were to pit current Hollywood cinema in fact, Iron Man 7, against current television, say, HBO’s The Pacific, television would be the probable winner because you are catching - American cinema at least - at an all time historic low. But if you bring in other regions of the world and pit the whole history of cinema, against the whole history of television, cinema absolutely destroys television - absolutely obliterates it. Just look at the masterpieces. Name a television series that even comes close to Hitchcock's Notorious, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Scorsese's TaxiDriver, Kubrick’s 2001, Fellini's I Vitelloni, De Sica's Bicycle Thieves., Mizoguchi’s Ugetsu, Bergman's Wild Strawberries. These are, artworks. In contrast, television just looks cheap. I mention the filmmaker’s names there because they are colossal, they are 'auteurs', they are like the renaissance era artists of our modern times. In contrast, nobody remembers television makes with a few possible exceptions (Rodenberry). People just do not care as, all the guy has done is, produce a television show.

Tell em!

[Black Sabbath]

I think TV shows are a lot better at telling stories nowadays, but movies are more for quick entertainment.

Lol @ the people just absolutely downplaying movies though. There are some absolutely amazing movies out there, and still amazing movies being made. So just because the 8 hours (or just 7 if you don't count the lackluster finale) of True Detective or the last 3 seasons of Game of Thrones blew your mind doesn't mean a 2 1/2 hour movie can't do the same thing from time to time, or at least entertain you just as much.

[OmarBradley]

It's not really is movies better than TV. More like which do you prefer. Wolf of Wall Street or True Detective?

Right, I'm saying there's a time for each. Much like how one day you may feel like reading some X-Men comics, and the next day you may feel like reading some Faulkner.

Edited April 10, 2014 by OmarBradley

[wasted]

It's not really is movies better than TV. More like which do you prefer. Wolf of Wall Street or True Detective?

Right, I'm saying there's a time for each. Much like how one day you may feel like reading some X-Men comics, and the next day you may feel like reading some Faulkner.

Of course in reality both. But in this fictional thread where I posed a question, with a beretta to your dome you have to make decision at the polls, pick a side, pacifism be fucked.

But I agree, both. In fact, film is way ahead in terms of depth and breadth. But interestingly enough recently, last couple of years I'd put TV shows at the top of the list.

[DieselDaisy]

Videogames are rock n roll of the 21st century.

Hah, of all the "<insert thing here> is the rock n roll of the 21st century" statements I've heard, I think I like that one the best. It's definitely worth it's own discussion, so I won't derail this thread with it.

Anyway, on topic, why do we have to do TV vs. films? They're different forms of media, whilst they are similar, they're not really for the same thing (with case by case exceptions). To me this debate is analogous to someone arguing plays vs. comic books, or short stories vs. novels. It's all written text, used for different reasons, preferred by people for different reasons. Same with TV and film I think, why try to declare one better?

I actually agree, but the question was posed, so...

[wasted]

literals lost in the meta.

movies v jerking off. go.