TV *or* Movies?

[Hermiod]

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.

I am simply giving a reason why I chose movies over TV. That's my personal choice, I am not running around unplugging people's television sets. When the Head of Drama at the BBC can only name three series - Hustle, Spooks and Torchwood - that his department has made in the past year with male viewers in mind, there is something wrong. (Admittedly, I was surprised that he did not mention Ashes to Ashes but even with that the total still comes in at around 20 hours of TV a year.)

ITV only care about lowest common denominator ratings, Channel 4 only makes shows for teenagers and Five doesn't produce very much of its own programming at all.

I am not comparing the issue of TV to other men's issues. I don't bother talking about anything more serious on here anymore because I will just get one of the many apologists on here complaining that I shouldn't talk about such things because the women's issues they care about are "more important".

 

[Kegg]

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'd disagree. For starters, there is a wide variety of international films, and this is more diverse, and a tradition decades older, than TV. There were hundreds of good films already in existence before the first TV broadcast, and the evolution of TV towards this has been a trifle slower (and often influenced by movies, or so my ignorance would have it - try to make me name a great European series and the likelihood I'll mention Ingmar Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage is pretty high.)

Movie documentaries are also far richer than TV documentaries in terms of quality, precisely because there are more of them which are cinematic as opposed to the bland talking heads formula typical to TV. Grizzly Man, an Errol Morris film, whatever.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

You say that like it's a good thing...

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.

Sure, there was the laughing emoticon and everything, no problem.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

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.

I am simply giving a reason why I chose movies over TV. That's my personal choice, I am not running around unplugging people's television sets. When the Head of Drama at the BBC can only name three series - Hustle, Spooks and Torchwood - that his department has made in the past year with male viewers in mind, there is something wrong. (Admittedly, I was surprised that he did not mention Ashes to Ashes but even with that the total still comes in at around 20 hours of TV a year.)

ITV only care about lowest common denominator ratings, Channel 4 only makes shows for teenagers and Five doesn't produce very much of its own programming at all.

I am not comparing the issue of TV to other men's issues. I don't bother talking about anything more serious on here anymore because I will just get one of the many apologists on here complaining that I shouldn't talk about such things because the women's issues they care about are "more important".

I think real world issues about sexism towards men and racism towards whites is an issue as well as the reverse, I don't think in a lot of cases it's quite as big an issue, but to dismiss all cases is just a symptom of the problem in that white men appear to be seen as the oppressors and therefore cannot possibly be suffering any for of discrimination themselves, or if they are they deserve it.

But in the same way I can relate with characters of any ethnicity, gender or sexuality, I don't think a TV show has to be aimed squarely at men for me to enjoy it.

 

[Hermiod]

I think real world issues about sexism towards men and racism towards whites is an issue as well as the reverse, I don't think in a lot of cases it's quite as big an issue, but to dismiss all cases is just a symptom of the problem in that white men appear to be seen as the oppressors and therefore cannot possibly be suffering any for of discrimination themselves, or if they are they deserve it.

The message I get from this board is that male issues don't matter because of who is affected by them (namely men and not women) and the existing female issues that they believe should have overriding priority.

But in the same way I can relate with characters of any ethnicity, gender or sexuality, I don't think a TV show has to be aimed squarely at men for me to enjoy it.

Me neither. However, this is where the pandering part comes in to it - pandering by incorporating Mary Sues in to many shows - infallible, perfect and invariably female characters who never fail at anything. I can't relate to characters like that and I find their inclusion a sign of the writers' laziness.

 

[LitmusDragon]

A year ago I would have said TV without hesitation, but now that I'm actually watching more movies I'm not so sure. Movies are kind of cultural time capsules and really give you the sense of where society was at when they were made, I find that really appealing. On the other hand TV is reliable, if you sit down with your favorite show it's less a gamble of your time than watching some unknown movie. If I couldn't watch movies at all, I would feel like I was missing out on an important part of my own culture. So right now I would say movies, movies are more interesting to me at the moment. Although not being able to see the end of "Lost" would be horrible, it wouldn't be quite as bad as missing out on the next Avatar or Lord of the Rings and discussing it ad nauseum.

If the question were worded slightly differently, for example- "if you had to choose between your thirty favorite movies or your favorite TV series being the only DVDs that you own" I would probably pick the TV series, since I think TV is more rewatchable than movies. A lot of the appeal in movies is seeing something I haven't seen before.

 

[Geckothan]

TV, but not trashy reality shit.