Series moving to big screen

[Plain Simple]

Often when a series makes the jump to the big screen the first reaction of viewers after seeing the movie is: "it felt just like another episode of the series, not like a movie". Examples: most recent Star Trek films, the recent X-Files film, The Simpsons movie, the mr. Bean movies. To name just a few of the top of my head. And in a recent thread about the MST3K movie similar feelings were stated by some.

Now, I've had this same reaction myself too in a few cases, but I wonder, what makes a film "feel like a movie" instead of "just another episode"? Isn't it just that we expect too much of feature films based on our beloved shows. We expect a film to be twice as funny or exciting as a regular episode, even though we like the regular episodes already quite a lot? Or is it that a movie must have big fireworks and heavy sfx? Does the budget need to show? Should there be a certain narrative structure we expect from a movie that contrasts it with an episode?

What exceptions to this 'rule' are there, if any? Perhaps Wrath of Kahn and First Contact in the Trek franchise? (But why?!) Serenity perhaps? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Siwilliams]

Star trek tng films, the simpsons movie, mr bean movies did not feel like tv episodes

I think once someone said the tng films felt like two parters, everyone just says the same thing. The tng films have never felt like two parters, they feel like the original movies but with a lot more going on in them

 

[Haytil]

Some movies from shows feel like longer, more expensive episodes because they aren't large enough in scope - they aren't epic enough, the stakes aren't much higher than they usually are. Furthermore, when the stakes are high, what's required to save the day is a lot more on the part of our heroes than when the stakes are lower.

Consider "First Contact" - the crew, our planet, and the existence of our future is at stake. In order to save all of that, our heroes have to fight off a monolithic, monstrous, nearly-invincible race of horrifying creatures.

In "Insurrection," all that was at stake was the fate of a few hundred civilians on a backwater alien planet. In order to win, all our heroes had to do was fight a couple of uninspired aliens in a pair of spaceships.

Little wonder that "First Contact" is considered to be cinematic, and "Insurrection" no better than a two-parter.

Want another example? Consider the two "X-Files" films.

"Fight the Future" involved a global conspiracy surrounding our heroes - which itself was helpless in the face of a powerful alien invader, equipped with spaceships and deadly viruses. Our heroes were placed in extreme danger - Mulder got shot, Scully was put on a UFO in the Antarctic - and, at the end of the day, even they were unable to do more than delay the plans of the invaders.

Truly cinematic, and one of the most enjoyable points of the series.

"I Want To Believe" featured a few illegal immigrant doctors working in a compound in the forest, abducting no more than a few people for some experiments. The only one in danger was Mulder, and only because they were going to cut his head off at the end. All it took to save him and round up the bad guys were a few FBI agents with handguns.

Boring and no better than a weak episode.

 

[Haytil]

I also should say, the same is true of comedy movies from comedy TV shows - but that can't be helped, because comedy isn't supposed to be epic or dramatic.

I think some writers realize that a movie needs to be more epic, but when they attempt to apply that formula to comedy, it not only doesn't work, it backfires. It feels like every comedy movie with higher stakes feels worse off because of it. "The Simpsons" was more epic than the episodes used to be, but that didn't help - I think it made it worse (and more unrealistic).

 

[Siwilliams]

"The Simpsons" was more epic than the episodes used to be, but that didn't help - I think it made it worse (and more unrealistic).

unrealistic? So what, it is a CARTOON movie, it does not have to be realistic

 

[Plain Simple]

^Why can't cartoons be realistic? Well, I guess that's a bit off topic, so let's not dwell too long at that.

 

[JediKnightButler]

I think that the main thing that has to be done in order to successfully make a movie from a popular TV series is to permanently "shake up" the status quo (i.e. the addition of new characters, death of or changes to existing characters).

MOST of the Star Trek movies featured major changes to the characters/storylines except for maybe TMP and TFF:

TWOK: Featured Spock's death and a continuation/resolution of Khan's storyline
TSFS: Featured the destruction of the Enterprise, David's death, and Spock's resurrection
TUC: Featured the beginning of the alliance between the Federation and the Klingon Empire
Generations: featured Data's emotion chip, Kirk's death, and the destruction of the Enterprise-D
First Contact: didn't really change anything too dramatic but did deal with mankind's "first contact" with aliens and how and why it happened (and almost didn't).
Insurrection: Didn't do a lot but DID feature Geordi getting new (organic) eyes and Troi & Riker falling back in love with each other.
Nemesis: Featured the disbanding of the original TNG crew, Riker (finally) taking command of his own ship and getting married to Troi, and, of course, Data's death.

Another favorite example of mine:

Transformers The Movie (1986): Added several new characters (i.e. Hot Rod, Kup, Ultra Magnus), killed off or significantly changed existing characters (i.e. Prime, Megatron, Starscream) and set the stage for S3 of the TV series

 

[Siwilliams]

^Why can't cartoons be realistic? Well, I guess that's a bit off topic, so let's not dwell too long at that.

They can, but why does The Simpsons movie need to be?

 

[theenglish]

I agree with the concept of the need to make the films epic in scope but there is also another difficulty inherent in moving television series to film.

In television, we generally grow to feel like we know the characters more intimately than film characters. We watch them grow over multiple seasons, learn about their families, their upbringing, their hopes and dreams beyond what their jobs are in the series.

When we go to see them in the movies, often this sense of intimacy becomes lost in favor of the plot of the movie. TNG suffered immensely from this. The series just had too many characters to receive the treatment each deserved within the space of a two hour film. Although I haven't seen it, I hear the recent X-Files movie had a similar feel.

I enjoyed Serenity immensely because (like the final Farscape miniseries) it bookended the television series quite nicely and gave closure to a lot of the character arcs.

 

[TGTheodore]

The biggest change is the visual. Movies are shot with much wider shots, TV is shot with more mediums and close-ups.

And, GENERALLY ...

TV, more tightly edited and paced to build to pre-commercial mini-climaxes, so rising action and structure is different.

Features - slower paced and build to ONE climax.

TV - Music not used as effectively or as often.

Features - lusher scores, more integral to what's on the screen.

Although, I'd still like to see "Best of Both Worlds" edited into one piece and projected on a gigantic screen, IMAX, perhaps.

--Ted

 

[ATimson]

And, GENERALLY ...

TV, more tightly edited and paced to build to pre-commercial mini-climaxes, so rising action and structure is different.

Features - slower paced and build to ONE climax.

TV - Music not used as effectively or as often.

Features - lusher scores, more integral to what's on the screen.

I find it interesting that Doctor Who (the new series) breaks both those "rules". (Yes, I know you prefaced it with "generally". ) Maybe it even breaks the framing one, but I know I sure don't pay enough attention to that to say.

Actually, SF&F in general seems to be better about using music than most other TV shows. I don't know if that's just a carryover from the original Star Trek that's lasted all these years, or its own phenomenon.

Ron Jones for <insert SFF scoring gig besides the hopefully-claimed Caprica and Stargate Universe>!

 

[Plain Simple]

"I Want To Believe" featured a few illegal immigrant doctors working in a compound in the forest, abducting no more than a few people for some experiments. The only one in danger was Mulder, and only because they were going to cut his head off at the end. All it took to save him and round up the bad guys were a few FBI agents with handguns.

Boring and no better than a weak episode.

The feeling I got with this film was that the focus was more on the characters than the plot. I will not argue here whether or not that was done successfully, but surely it must be possible to make a good film based on characters, without an epic plot? I mean, if a tv episode can, why not a film. What's the inherent difference in the kind of stories these two media can/should tell?

^Why can't cartoons be realistic? Well, I guess that's a bit off topic, so let's not dwell too long at that.

They can, but why does The Simpsons movie need to be?

Well, I admit that I don't completely understand what Haytil meant by this specific example, but although The Simpsons are usually not realistic in the sense that you can transport all the depicted events one-to-one to reality, they do as a rule stick to reality more closely than a lot of other cartoons. I guess one of the things that made the movie feel in some sense like an episode was the re-use (for the umpteenth time) of the Homer screws up -- Marge gets angry -- Homer feels remorse and makes up story template.

The biggest change is the visual. Movies are shot with much wider shots, TV is shot with more mediums and close-ups.

But that wouldn't account for people feeling that a movie is just like any old episode. Unless movies that people feel that way about are the ones who do not make proper use of the extra visual possibilities? In the case of The X-Files the high visual quality of the episodes (it is often claimed the episodes visually feel like mini-movies) might actually turn this around: the standard set by the episodes is so high that a movie cannot add the expected extra.

TV, more tightly edited and paced to build to pre-commercial mini-climaxes, so rising action and structure is different.

Features - slower paced and build to ONE climax.

So actually an episode should feel like multiple features, story wise, instead of a feature feeling like just an (extended) episode.

 

[theenglish]

"I Want To Believe" featured a few illegal immigrant doctors working in a compound in the forest, abducting no more than a few people for some experiments. The only one in danger was Mulder, and only because they were going to cut his head off at the end. All it took to save him and round up the bad guys were a few FBI agents with handguns.

Boring and no better than a weak episode.

The feeling I got with this film was that the focus was more on the characters than the plot. I will not argue here whether or not that was done successfully, but surely it must be possible to make a good film based on characters, without an epic plot? I mean, if a tv episode can, why not a film. What's the inherent difference in the kind of stories these two media can/should tell?

I stand corrected on my earlier observation about the movie then.

 

[ATimson]

The feeling I got with this film was that the focus was more on the characters than the plot. I will not argue here whether or not that was done successfully, but surely it must be possible to make a good film based on characters, without an epic plot? I mean, if a tv episode can, why not a film. What's the inherent difference in the kind of stories these two media can/should tell?

For such an episode, the show will generally assume that the audience is already familiar with the characters. In a movie, you have to introduce and make the audience care about the characters without the benefit of plot to keep the audience's attention. You also have to sustain the tale over twice as long as your typical TV episode.

 

[JoeZhang]

I don't really agree with this idea that the TNG were like the series - they were nothing like the series - full of out of character moments and people chewing scenery.

 

[Chaos Descending]

Star trek tng films ... did not feel like tv episodes

Yes, every one of them except for First Contact sure felt like TV episodes.

The tng films have never felt like two parters, they feel like the original movies but with a lot more going on in them

Not even close.

 

[JoeZhang]

Star trek tng films ... did not feel like tv episodes

Yes, every one of them except for First Contact sure felt like TV episodes.

The tng films have never felt like two parters, they feel like the original movies but with a lot more going on in them

Not even close.

I don't remember Picard singing or going for buggy joyriders - and I don't remember the solution to many problems being solved with a phaser rifle and blowing shit up (which is what all of the films consisted of).

 

[Siwilliams]

Star trek tng films ... did not feel like tv episodes

Yes, every one of them except for First Contact sure felt like TV episodes.

The tng films have never felt like two parters, they feel like the original movies but with a lot more going on in them

Not even close.

don't agree at all, they were movies not two parters

 

[Plain Simple]

Star trek tng films ... did not feel like tv episodes

Yes, every one of them except for First Contact sure felt like TV episodes.

The tng films have never felt like two parters, they feel like the original movies but with a lot more going on in them

Not even close.

don't agree at all, they were movies not two parters

But why? What makes you feel that (in your case) they were movies and not two-parters?

 

[bigdaddy]

Star Trek 9 was a long episode, the others were garbage.