You DO know there's more than 4 stations on television with quite a few options these days.
TV *or* Movies?
- Thread starter Mr Light
- Start date
You DO know there's more than 4 stations on television with quite a few options these days.
But the sheer number of quality product compared to TV is higher still, and that's the bit that matters.
I'd probably go with film for just about everything other than comedy. No movies make me laugh like a great episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia or Community can.
It's one of the things that helped me out of depression, so yeah, it's a good thing.
Character development is soap opera. Character exploration is done in the movies better than on television because movies are better than television. And that's because movies do not make fitting in commercial breaks the number one writing priority. Giving the protagonist the scenes instead of putting characters in for contractual reasons or to pacify their fans makes for better character drama too. Focusing on an actual crisis, that is, turning point, usually makes for better drama than the crisis of the week as well.
The only advantage TV has is the easier physical ability to watch single stories the necessarily are more than four hours long, things like John Adams or Rome. (Although the Dexters or the Breaking Bads are well done, they are still dragged out and the essential stories in fact could be done as movies.) And you know what? TV doesn't do many of them any how.
Movies are better.
Movies are better.
Movies are better.
Have I made myself clear?
The only advantage TV has is the easier physical ability to watch single stories the necessarily are more than four hours long, things like John Adams or Rome. (Although the Dexters or the Breaking Bads are well done, they are still dragged out and the essential stories in fact could be done as movies.) And you know what? TV doesn't do many of them any how.
Movies are better.
Movies are better.
Movies are better.
Have I made myself clear?
People. We're on a Star Trek board. Let's compare our choices there:
You can sit at home with 14 years worth of these DVDs plus these DVDs.
OR...
You could enjoy this or possibly this.
Yeah, ok. You 'movie' people have fun with that.
That's it. You're watching 'Generations' twice, now, because of that one.
If you're going to hold up Star Trek: Generations as a standard of cinematic excellence, surely I should be allowed to hold up Code of Honor as the standard bearer of television?
I think I'll skip both and watch a Ross McElwee documentary instead. Because there are things out there besides Star Trek.
I think I'll skip both and watch a Ross McElwee documentary instead. Because there are things out there besides Star Trek.
I was comparing Star Trek to itself. If 'movies are better' is such an absolute concept, surely it would stand within the Star Trek universe as well.
Was there a Code of Honor film? And was it way better than the TV show?
If anyone is arguing that movies are better than television, and that is an absolute statement, then I couldn't agree. My opinion is rather like Kegg's. Mainly, that there are more hours of quality cinema than there are hours of quality television, and if I had to choose between one medium or the other, I would have to go with cinema.
No, but there was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called 'Code of Honor,' and there was a Star Trek: The Next Generation film called 'First Contact,' and I truly hope that people don't prefer the episode over the movie.
When it comes to Trek, I think most would agree that it has had a better track record on television than on the big screen. But a few of the movies are rather good. And a few of the episodes (more than a few, probably, since there are so many) are terrible.
But we're not just talking Star Trek here. And I think I'll stop talking now, lest I start making a point of some sort.
Small White Car said:
No, but there was a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called 'Code of Honor,' and there was a Star Trek: The Next Generation film called 'First Contact,' and I truly hope that people don't prefer the episode over the movie.
When it comes to Trek, I think most would agree that it has had a better track record on television than on the big screen. But a few of the movies are rather good. And a few of the episodes (more than a few, probably, since there are so many) are terrible.
But we're not just talking Star Trek here. And I think I'll stop talking now, lest I start making a point of some sort.
Ooh, good point. Even in this case, The Motion Picture is far more epically science fictional than Nomad or the senior Decker's episode. The Wrath of Khan is more exciting than Balance of Terror and more moving than The Naked Now. The Voyage Home is funnier than A Piece of the Action. And to get to these, you don't have to watch Spock's Brain and such. The ratio of good to bad is dramatically higher in movies.
But you're still right that I sounded as if I meant universally. I meant to come off more tongue in cheek. Nonetheless, I do firmly believe that generally movies are better than TV. The best movies are better than the best TV episodes (and not just for the budgets, although that must be part.) And the average movies are better than the average TV episodes.
^Clearly you're unfamiliar with the works of such artistes as Uwe Boll.
There are a great number of amazing movies out there, but I would surely miss the likes of LOST and Six Feet Under, and I can't imagine how either of them could truly work well as movies versus episode television.
There are a great number of amazing movies out there, but I would surely miss the likes of LOST and Six Feet Under, and I can't imagine how either of them could truly work well as movies versus episode television.
People say this, and I can see why. But is this REALLY true?
If one were to add up every single hour that could be considered quality (whatever that means) television vs EVERY single hour of movies that could be considered quality, I bet numerically, TV would win.
I mean, a list of the 100 greatest movies ever for some reason seems pretty simple to narrow down all over the net.
Condensing the 100 greatest episodes of every television series, television mini series, television documentary, television special... I've never seen that.
And I bet every show, from every era that we don't even remember, has at minimum a quality episode to their name. Something people don't really consider if they dismiss the series as a whole.
Acknowledging that 'quality' is an entirely subjective and loosely defined criteria, I still stand by that statement. Consider, for example, how many films were added or dropped by the AFI (a rather conservative body in choosing films, opting for those of conventional form, production, and distribution) when it produced a new list of the 100 best fiction films produced in the United States. That list came out in 2007, the previous list only nine years earlier in 1998.
And that is a list that doesn't include American nonfiction films nor does it include any productions made outside of the United States.
The ability to watch something more than once is also a factor. I tend to consider PBS' Frontline, for example, to be a terrific nonfiction program. But the documentaries it produces aren't that exciting in form (compared to, say, an Errol Morris or a Ross McElwee documentary) nor do they have the shelf-lives of films by those feature directors.
Approaching the question from another angle, I think of something like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. In my opinion, it's well-written and exceptionally well-crafted, both visually and aurally. It's no surprise that it took years to produce. Is there something on television that can match a film like that? I haven't seen it yet.
Television without a doubt.
I have access to something like 800 channels. The only ones with anything to watch on them are the ones I pay a premium subscription for and most of those are sports channels.
Our equivalent of your "4 stations" would be BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 and Five which are amongst the worst of the male-bashing, pandering, dumbed down bunch.
It's one of the things that helped me out of depression, so yeah, it's a good thing.
Good for you.
I hope you realised my comment was a joke.
I'm sorry but I really don't see it. A lot of your complaints strike me as the kind I put down to over-sensitivity whenever they come from "minority" groups or any other kind of group to be honest, so I guess I'd say the same for you.
I mean I can understand the basis of some of your complaints, I just think they're either blown up out of all proportion or so slight as to be not worth caring about.
I can understand it in real life when it comes to things like "Women only" groups, but men wouldn't be allowed a men only group, or single mothers' group without offering a single fathers' group, but the stuff you complain about on TV just doesn't even seem worth thinking about, never mind complaining about.
Similar threads
