ap
New Member
@ap
Posts: 12
Likes: 3
|
Post by ap on Mar 11, 2017 0:34:10 GMT
It seems that movies aren't as special as they once were and people are more invested in TV these days. With cable and services like Netflix, TV shows can experiment a lot more, binging is encouraged, and audiences can invest themselves in long, satisfying character and storyarcs. Movies seem to be playing it safe nowadays with a lot of blockbusters and stuff.
That said, I love a good blockbuster.
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on Mar 11, 2017 1:30:17 GMT
Thank you so much. and yes tv has made much more recognizable characters recently, outside of Super heroes film haven't made any interesting character. Though i just watched Sherlock Holmes with Downey Jr and I think he is the best of the modern portrayals of the character. Downey Jr is the most charming and charismatic of the three new Sherlocks and the most believable as the cocky smart guy better than anyone. He is the one who mKes the most sense that Shore was inspired on Holmes to create House. The scruffy look, the attitude ad the pranks with Watson. You see those movies by Guy Ritchie and you think i bet Dr House was inspired on this character but yeah outside of Holmes tv is doing a much better work creating interesting and iconic characters In the time I've been on these boards, I've found much that I agree with in your opinions, and always enjoy your posts. In the case of casting Sherlock, I respectfully disagree. I read the books as a kid, and was always fascinated by the character. Having first seen Basil Rathbone's treatment of Sherlock, I've often been disappointed by the casting of the character, until seeing Cumberbatch play him. I felt that, at last, an actor captured the intellect, the ego, arrogance, and aloofness, and the obsessiveness of Holmes. Robert Downey, Jr. (one of my favorite actors) can certainly play all of that, but it was my feeling that a bit too much of Downey peeps through in his interpretation. Both actors are good choices, but I feel Cumberbatch disappears into the character more completely. Okay i feel terrible but i never read a single Sherlock Holmes novel and got interested in the character last year thanks to my House obsession and knowing David Shore based the House character on Sherlock Holmes. so maybe the closest to the novels is Benedict who did a very good Job but the most Housian is Rober Downey Jr who is also becoming one of my favorite actors his screen presence and charisma are so magnetic that sooner or latter he wins you over. Like Hugh Laurie (another big favorite of mine ) RDJ has the ability to do comedy and drama with equal ease. there are actors who wonderful at drama but feel like a fish out of water doing comedy and viceversa but there are a very few who feel equally comfortable doing both genres and that's the biggest gift of Hugh Laurie and Robert Downey Jr. I need to get invested a little more in Sherlock to make the proper evaluation but i understand what you mean on RDJ and his portrayal of Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by marlonbrawndo on Mar 14, 2017 2:34:45 GMT
In the time I've been on these boards, I've found much that I agree with in your opinions, and always enjoy your posts. In the case of casting Sherlock, I respectfully disagree. I read the books as a kid, and was always fascinated by the character. Having first seen Basil Rathbone's treatment of Sherlock, I've often been disappointed by the casting of the character, until seeing Cumberbatch play him. I felt that, at last, an actor captured the intellect, the ego, arrogance, and aloofness, and the obsessiveness of Holmes. Robert Downey, Jr. (one of my favorite actors) can certainly play all of that, but it was my feeling that a bit too much of Downey peeps through in his interpretation. Both actors are good choices, but I feel Cumberbatch disappears into the character more completely. Okay i feel terrible but i never read a single Sherlock Holmes novel and got interested in the character last year thanks to my House obsession and knowing David Shore based the House character on Sherlock Holmes. so maybe the closest to the novels is Benedict who did a very good Job but the most Housian is Rober Downey Jr who is also becoming one of my favorite actors his screen presence and charisma are so magnetic that sooner or latter he wins you over. Like Hugh Laurie (another big favorite of mine ) RDJ has the ability to do comedy and drama with equal ease. there are actors who wonderful at drama but feel like a fish out of water doing comedy and viceversa but there are a very few who feel equally comfortable doing both genres and that's the biggest gift of Hugh Laurie and Robert Downey Jr. I need to get invested a little more in Sherlock to make the proper evaluation but i understand what you mean on RDJ and his portrayal of Sherlock. I appreciate your giving my opinion a fair hearing. I'd add that I'm not steadfast in believing that there's any single "correct" way to portray an iconic fictional figure, whether Sherlock, the Joker, or Capt. Ahab. Fans of the original presentation of these characters will most likely favor the interpretation which is most faithful to their first experience of them. Others, whether or not they're familiar with the original, might connect better with some new, different portrayal. I just think it's refreshing to discuss different views without claws and fangs coming out. Folks who wig out when someone has a differing viewpoint go right off my radar.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Mar 14, 2017 2:41:03 GMT
I agree, sadly. Used to love movies so much, but the movies of the 2010s just don't do much for me.
But Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, House of Cards, Eastbound & Down, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The OA, Vice Principals, etc, are all so good, way better than anything I see in the movie theater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 4:02:07 GMT
I think that there is a distorted perception here, the ability for a network to audience test and turn-around a series during it's development is almost impossible to do with a film being released into a theater.
If you are going to be fair- then you would have to compare made-for-t.v. movies with theatrical releases.
Then we have the immense size of the Televised product line, look at how many shows are released in a year and how many that you are noting as Quality? How much of a percent is that?
10 percent of total yearly releases? 100 percent?
That said, due to the inherent inbreeding of the mature Hollywood production scene and the constant need to go outside to finance and return a world-wide marketable 'product' that is blatantly generic at it's worst,
Then Yes, Television is of a far greater quality than films, just because the freedom is there to create and innovate.
|
|
|
Post by marlonbrawndo on Mar 14, 2017 4:20:17 GMT
I think that there is a distorted perception here, the ability for a network to audience test and turn-around a series during it's development is almost impossible to do with a film being released into a theater. If you are going to be fair- then you would have to compare made-for-t.v. movies with theatrical releases. Then we have the immense size of the Televised product line, look at how many shows are released in a year and how many that you are noting as Quality? How much of a percent is that? 10 percent of total yearly releases? 100 percent? That said, due to the inherent inbreeding of the mature Hollywood production scene and the constant need to go outside to finance and return a world-wide marketable 'product' that is blatantly generic at it's worst, Then Yes, Television is of a far greater quality than films, just because the freedom is there to create and innovate. Thanks. A very informed, perceptive, and thought-provoking analysis.
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on Mar 14, 2017 7:44:51 GMT
Okay i feel terrible but i never read a single Sherlock Holmes novel and got interested in the character last year thanks to my House obsession and knowing David Shore based the House character on Sherlock Holmes. so maybe the closest to the novels is Benedict who did a very good Job but the most Housian is Rober Downey Jr who is also becoming one of my favorite actors his screen presence and charisma are so magnetic that sooner or latter he wins you over. Like Hugh Laurie (another big favorite of mine ) RDJ has the ability to do comedy and drama with equal ease. there are actors who wonderful at drama but feel like a fish out of water doing comedy and viceversa but there are a very few who feel equally comfortable doing both genres and that's the biggest gift of Hugh Laurie and Robert Downey Jr. I need to get invested a little more in Sherlock to make the proper evaluation but i understand what you mean on RDJ and his portrayal of Sherlock. I appreciate your giving my opinion a fair hearing. I'd add that I'm not steadfast in believing that there's any single "correct" way to portray an iconic fictional figure, whether Sherlock, the Joker, or Capt. Ahab. Fans of the original presentation of these characters will most likely favor the interpretation which is most faithful to their first experience of them. Others, whether or not they're familiar with the original, might connect better with some new, different portrayal. I just think it's refreshing to discuss different views without claws and fangs coming out. Folks who wig out when someone has a differing viewpoint go right off my radar. Okay we are agreeing so much lately. its so true there isn't just one correct way to portray an Iconic character and how often the first actor we saw in that role turns out to be our favorite due to being the guy of our generation and the portrayal we grew up with. A clear example of it is James Bond. I respect all the actors who have portrayed the character and each one of them gave something special to the character but my Favorites are Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery. pierce for introducing me to the franchise (though a little late since my first Bond film was Die Another Day) and because i loved how much he enjoyed playing Bond its something it just translates well to the big screen. he felt he was James Bond: the cool attitude, the charm, charisma and being pretty good in Action. Sean Connery for being so ahead of his times. Unpolitically correct, funny, charming and said and did what he wanted and loved his voice. On every iconic character there is room to esch actor give its own interpretation and we all have our reasons to prefer a specific portrayal
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 14, 2017 11:10:34 GMT
Surpassed? No.
But it has come a long way in the past 20 years. With different studios alloying the budget for movie quality effects and a supremely polished finish, it's to be expected.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Mar 14, 2017 16:30:34 GMT
You can just do more with television. With film you only have 2-3 hours to tell a story. In TV you can get 100 hours or more to develop characters, a world, and story (barring its a successful show). That's precisely my problem with TV today. It's like they take a concept that could be told in 2 hours and string it out to 12 or more (for a season). I get bored from the pace of TV. Too much being strung along until the good parts happen. I feel like I'm watching a daytime soap opera without the melodrama. I prefer either episodic television or a standalone film. But that's just me. Others can feel differently.
|
|
|
Post by marlonbrawndo on Mar 29, 2017 3:16:10 GMT
You can just do more with television. With film you only have 2-3 hours to tell a story. In TV you can get 100 hours or more to develop characters, a world, and story (barring its a successful show). That's precisely my problem with TV today. It's like they take a concept that could be told in 2 hours and string it out to 12 or more (for a season). I get bored from the pace of TV. Too much being strung along until the good parts happen. I feel like I'm watching a daytime soap opera without the melodrama. I prefer either episodic television or a standalone film. But that's just me. Others can feel differently. As you say, reasonable people can differ on this. What some, those who might prefer a beginning-middle-end structure contained in two or three hours, might feel TV's longer-form storytelling is "stringing out" a plot line, others (like me) savor the detail and nuance of character and story that having a much longer time-frame allows. I've never felt bored or restless when watching beautifully done work like "The Sopranos", "Deadwood", or, currently, "Game of Thrones." I think it might also be a matter of some folks liking resolution of stories, which almost always happens in film. Continuing series always have something unresolved, otherwise why continue? And even at the end of some, there are loose threads. "Deadwood" is an example, euthanized due to high production costs, plot lines left hanging. And even when some run their course, it's not always tied up in a tidy bow. When the last episode of "The Sopranos" ended as it did, some viewers went absolutely mental. I liked it. To each his or her own, right?
|
|
|
Post by marlonbrawndo on Apr 10, 2017 2:19:01 GMT
I agree, sadly. Used to love movies so much, but the movies of the 2010s just don't do much for me. But Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, House of Cards, Eastbound & Down, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The OA, Vice Principals, etc, are all so good, way better than anything I see in the movie theater. We agree on much that can be considered "high quality." One thing many of the TV shows you list have in common is the need for a higher level of education and general knowledge for the viewer to grasp the plot and dialogue. Movies are continually aiming for a lower common denominator of these qualities, which matches up, generally, with a younger audience, who are more likely to leave their homes and attend theaters.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Apr 10, 2017 3:34:29 GMT
I agree, sadly. Used to love movies so much, but the movies of the 2010s just don't do much for me. But Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, House of Cards, Eastbound & Down, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The OA, Vice Principals, etc, are all so good, way better than anything I see in the movie theater. We agree on much that can be considered "high quality." One thing many of the TV shows you list have in common is the need for a higher level of education and general knowledge for the viewer to grasp the plot and dialogue. Movies are continually aiming for a lower common denominator of these qualities, which matches up, generally, with a younger audience, who are more likely to leave their homes and attend theaters. Well said!
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on Apr 10, 2017 5:29:02 GMT
I agree, sadly. Used to love movies so much, but the movies of the 2010s just don't do much for me. But Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, House of Cards, Eastbound & Down, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The OA, Vice Principals, etc, are all so good, way better than anything I see in the movie theater. We agree on much that can be considered "high quality." One thing many of the TV shows you list have in common is the need for a higher level of education and general knowledge for the viewer to grasp the plot and dialogue. Movies are continually aiming for a lower common denominator of these qualities, which matches up, generally, with a younger audience, who are more likely to leave their homes and attend theaters. Which causes a big dilema for us. I prefer the structure of film : beginning, ending resolution and Time( finishing something in let's say three hours) but tv is doing a better job on giving us memorable characters and originality. Like you said film is aiming way too much to people who just go to movies to hang out with their friends and a going out activity. So my solution on tv is checking mini series like the Night Manager, episodic shows like House and series which each season can be completely different like 24 which each season was a different case and different threat. Or watching series of stories i already knew like The Tudors
|
|
|
Post by marlonbrawndo on Apr 23, 2017 16:02:54 GMT
We agree on much that can be considered "high quality." One thing many of the TV shows you list have in common is the need for a higher level of education and general knowledge for the viewer to grasp the plot and dialogue. Movies are continually aiming for a lower common denominator of these qualities, which matches up, generally, with a younger audience, who are more likely to leave their homes and attend theaters. Which causes a big dilema for us. I prefer the structure of film : beginning, ending resolution and Time( finishing something in let's say three hours) but tv is doing a better job on giving us memorable characters and originality. Like you said film is aiming way too much to people who just go to movies to hang out with their friends and a going out activity. So my solution on tv is checking mini series like the Night Manager, episodic shows like House and series which each season can be completely different like 24 which each season was a different case and different threat. Or watching series of stories i already knew like The Tudors I can see where someone craving resolution of all plot points would prefer the free-standing nature of films. (It doesn't bother me that there are loose threads, a great example being the finale of The Sopranos. That utterly wigged out some fans, but I loved it.) I sympathize with viewers who like the self-containment of story in films, from the standpoint that so much is aimed at immature minds, degrading the experience. It seems, increasingly, that one is forced to choose between intellectually satisfying content (principally in premium TV) and that preferred format.
|
|
sariz
Sophomore
@sariz
Posts: 422
Likes: 70
|
Post by sariz on Apr 23, 2017 16:48:44 GMT
Which causes a big dilema for us. I prefer the structure of film : beginning, ending resolution and Time( finishing something in let's say three hours) but tv is doing a better job on giving us memorable characters and originality. Like you said film is aiming way too much to people who just go to movies to hang out with their friends and a going out activity. So my solution on tv is checking mini series like the Night Manager, episodic shows like House and series which each season can be completely different like 24 which each season was a different case and different threat. Or watching series of stories i already knew like The Tudors I can see where someone craving resolution of all plot points would prefer the free-standing nature of films. (It doesn't bother me that there are loose threads, a great example being the finale of The Sopranos. That utterly wigged out some fans, but I loved it.) I sympathize with viewers who like the self-containment of story in films, from the standpoint that so much is aimed at immature minds, degrading the experience. It seems, increasingly, that one is forced to choose between intellectually satisfying content (principally in premium TV) and that preferred format. Yeees, its been a terrible situation because its choosing staying with the format we like but settling with lesser quality in story telling or finding a way to move to the small screen. Im having a hard time finding new shows to love due to the peace and format but I'm not doing that bad so far I've been able to finish 6 tv series. House my first long series I watched from start to finish 24 I started a little late with this one, I got into this in season 4. The Tudors The Borgias which had a terrible ending. Gossip Girl though with this one I skipped season 2 and 3. I watched the first and then from the 4th till the last season which is the 6th. The Night Manager Chance
|
|
medjay
Sophomore
@medjay
Posts: 668
Likes: 70
|
Post by medjay on Apr 24, 2017 10:06:23 GMT
Yess the most significant prove is how tv in recent years since the sopranos have created much more iconic characters than film in quantity and quality Tv has created since the 2000s Tony Soprano Jack Bauer Michael Scotfield Dr Gregory House Walter White Dexter Don Drapper Tyron Lannister Jamie Lannister Arya Stark Cersei Lannister Raymond Redington Remy Hadley better known as thirteen Damon Salvatore Sooki steakhouse Eric Northman Sheldon-The Big bang Theory chuck bass blair Waldorf Film created Maximus The jocker (The dark knight trilogy) Elle Woods Edward Cullen Katnis everdeen Amy Dune Harley Queen Christian Grey You are not judging world cinema and world tv.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 24, 2017 11:46:05 GMT
If comparing apples and apples, I think the quality has equalized.
There are some amazing movies released every year.
I love what TV has been able to do with action shows. I like the DC universe on TV way more than the the movie DC universe. Game of Thrones is the thing that is making me go oooh and ahhhh nowadays.
However, I don't think TV will ever surpass movies for spectacle.
Game of Thrones will never have a Captain America or Beauty and the Beast grandness.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 24, 2017 15:04:55 GMT
Yes in that sense, I agree. Television today is just so rich in thematic depth, character growth, and for better or worse, complexity. It seems like that screenwriting is not what it used to be these days even though directors and actors have grown up alittle. I was watching Sweet Smell of Success on TCM last night and that style of writing dialogue let alone storytelling with in film is nearly gone now. If it was made today, they'd crank up the sex and language but remove the wit and commentary. Because that's adult now.
|
|