There's nothing wrong with serialized TV series - and in fact in the absolute opposite of the OP's comment, my best friend refuses to watch TV shows that aren't serialized because he wants a story that lasts for years, not 42 minutes plus commercials (an exception being Doctor Who and even then he's quite happy with the current arc taking 2 seasons and counting to tell).
My opinion is it depends on the skill of the writers, whether the show's concept actually is arc-friendly, and whether the makers of the TV show have a game plan or at least an endgame. The best arc shows are those that have been planned out from the start; I think Babylon 5 falls into that category (someone correct me). nuBSG apparently didn't, and we saw what happened. Steven Moffat apparently has the basics of his arc mapped out for Doctor Who, at the very least. So the arcs work.
Of course one big benefit movies have over TV shows is TV show arcs are extremely risky, because if the show is cancelled, there's a chance the story will remain forever unfinished. One good example being Threshold which had a 3-year story planned out, but died after a dozen episodes. Babylon 5 had a 5-year plan, only to get cancelled after 4 (though it got its 5th year after another network white knighted it).
With movies there was no risk that, say, Solaris or Fifth Element or 2001: A Space Odyssey would be cancelled midway through. Of course this doesn't apply to multi-film series, as those who are waiting for the second film adaptation of Pullman's His Dark Materials series or Atlas Shrugged Pt. 2 to come out can attest. (The latter I know isn't necessarily SF but it shows the risks of multi-film series.)
Alex