Small Screen Vs. Big Screen: Is TV Better than the Movies?
Filed under: Comedy, Documentary, Drama, Foreign Language, Independent, Fandom, Cinematical Indie
Once a year or so for the past several years, usually around awards season, somebody somewhere writes a story about how TV has gotten so much better than the movies. This year's article on the state of TV versus the movies is over at Newsweek, and there's a lively debate going on over at Hollywood Elsewhere on the topic, with people trumpeting their favorite TV shows (The Wire, Lost, 24, Heroes, even, god help us, American Idol) over the offerings at the multiplex.Now, I can see the value of a well-made television program. I've been addicted to Jack Bauer and 24 since episode one of season one, and I'm not even sure how I feel about seeing 24 up on the big screen. There's something about the intimacy of curling up on the couch each week with Jack, Chloe and the gang that would be lost in translation to the silver screen. And I know lots of folks, some of them living in my very own house, who can't make it through a week without checking in with Heroes or Grey's Anatomy, but that doesn't mean that those shows are better than the films I can see at one of the arthouse cinemas in town (although I might buy the argument that they're better than what's showing down the road at the multiplex).
When I look at my own top ten films for 2006, I see films like Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, Liittle Children and The Proposition, films which cry out for a big screen in a dark theater. Even The Lives of Others (which would have had a spot on my list if I'd seen it in time) uses the big screen to make you feel the weight of the Stasi oppression through its gloomy cinematography. TV storytelling may have gotten better over the past decade or so, with more focus on compelling stories, but I'm not sure you can even objectively compare the two media -- even the Newsweek article says, it's like "comparing apples to tubas" -- but then author Devin Gordon goes on to do just that, asserting that television is "running circles" around the movies.
So what do you think? Are your fave TV shows better than the movies Hollywood studios are churning out?
[ via Hollywood Elsewhere ]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-20-2007 @ 10:37AM
epobirs said...
When a 60" 1080p display is coming within my budget, I suspect I may rarely visit the theater any longer. As it is, my viewing of films in theaters has been reduced to less than half a dozen per year for most of a decade now. I don't feel like I'm missing much, especially now that affordable big screens for the home are here.
TV is also doing far more to deliver satisfying storytelling. 'Heroes' has been faar more enjoyable then any theatrical superhero movie in a very long time, perhaps ever. The growth of shows with strong season length story arcs has made for far more memorable productions than the SFX spectacles.
Add to this the advent of the DVR and getting out to the theater is just a big hassle. Once you get to a certain age and so many of your friends are married with children, getting together for a movie as a social event become far harder to schedule. Storing up a set of episodes to watch when a convenient time occurs has become the norm for me.
Reply
2-20-2007 @ 11:20AM
Kevin said...
I have never been one to become obsessed with any television programs. I can't watch 24, Hero's, or any of the other shows that people have become addicted too. To me, TVs prolonged time period allows for worse story telling, not better. When you have to fill up 24 hours with plot you oftentimes end up with increasingly ridiculous sub-plots, overly dramatic acting/direction/writing, and increasingly unbelievable scenarios. I find everything about the movies to be superior, especially given the greater variation that you have. TV is preoccupied with copying itself, making more crime shows (I'm fully expecting to see CSI: Bethesda Maryland in the near future) as opposed to branching out with truly creative and challenging ideas. When you require that your funding come in the form of advertising you have to play it safe. With films your barometer of success is either critical acclaim or box office returns, both of which play to producing a quality product. The comment about the local multiplex vs. more independent theater houses is dead on, but this also demonstrates the greater diversity in styles you can get from films. Give me a huge bag of popcorn and a soda that doubles as a swimming pool anyday.
Reply
2-20-2007 @ 5:10PM
Phatman said...
I like when the writers of a TV series don't know for sure if they are going to get signed on for another season. It forces them to actually finish a story line instead of dragging it on and on and on and on...
Take the first season of Prison Break, they knew that they had to actually break out of the prison in the first season or the show would be pointless. (even still, they proabably could have done so in far fewer episodes) Then for the second season, it's a (almost) completely new story arc.
Reply
2-20-2007 @ 5:58PM
faithx5 said...
Your point about arthouse vs. multiplex theatres is exactly right (not that a good blockbuster can't be worthwhile at times), and I think that's actually one of the things that tv vs. movie debates tend to miss...even the Newsweek article is comparing the best on TV with the average at the movies. And when you consider that most of the really good movies play in a limited number of theatres, a discriminating viewer who doesn't live near a big town has a choice between multiplex fare and Heroes. And I'll choose Heroes nearly every time. Because good TV is available in many more places than good movies, it's more noticed.
Reply
2-21-2007 @ 7:42PM
Brian Neuls said...
I agree completely with the assessment that films like Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men and Casino Royale beg to be seen in a darkened theater, but the sad state of multiplex upkeep makes seeing these films a poor experience. Casino Royale was in a theater so small and with such poor sound that my 56-inch hdtv and klipsch surround system at home is MUCH better than the experience I had. And we went only on the second weekend and the film was already pushed to theater 13. Children of Men, one I couldn't WAIT to see on the big screen with other people was RUINED with the sound dropping out and the sprocket holes of the film visible in a theater so small it was smaller than the Casino Royale theater. All-in-all, a VERy poor experience with both films. On-Demand and DVD and the klipsch system will keep me out of these horrible theaters. It's a shame, really, but studios should do more to ensure their films are exhibited well.
Reply