Is tv better than movies?
 

Debate has been going on for years as to whether or not tv or videogames could catch up to movies in the quality stakes but I'm beginning to think tv is slowly catching up.
As I wait impatiently for my beloved Nolan bat trilogy to come to a close this summer I began to think that in seven years we've only had roughly seven hours of Batman action (assuming Rises is two and a half hours), in the meantime AMC has treated us to forty six hour long episodes of Breaking Bad in four years with more due in July. Obviously it's hard to compare these two on the budget or spectacle side of things but I'm honestly, equally entertained by both.
This isn't just a quantity over quality issue, Short films have their value too, maybe different stories suit different mediums but can you imagine if The Sopranos became a movie instead? If we were denied the time to let Tony develop and blossom as we became increasingly invested in his character? Would it even have been that good?
Budget shouldn't really be an issue either, after all what could a great Indie flick utilize with limited funds that a tv show couldn't and personally I could live without 90% of movies made for over $100million.
I guess what I'm trying to say is imagine your favourite tv show and think of the connections you have with the characters after a few seasons. Does forty six hours allow for a deeper connection, particularly with slow burning character studies(Boardwalk Empire,Mad Men etc.)? can a movie's structure/length compete with that?

The writing is a lot better on TV. And with the likes of HBO etc adult material is no longer held back.

It's sad to say it but I can think of a dozen TV shows that I love just now and could watch over and over but I'd struggle to think of a dozen movies that i'd want to watch again.

The biggest problem for me though is that Hollywood has picked up on the resurgence in great TV and continuously poaches new directors and hands them big screen gigs. The result of this is a plethora of identikit, cut and paste movies with little to no sense of the 'cinematic'. These new kids like JJ Abrams and Peter Berg have no understanding of the language of cinema, they just shoot everything like an episode of TV.

These guys are not film-makers. They are jobbing TV directors who got to Hollywood on the coat-tails of well written TV shows. Could you pick out a JJ Abrams directed episode of Lost from any of the others?

Hollywood should be poaching the writers from all these great shows so we can get the movies back to somewhere approaching the golden age where storytelling and character were the most important things.

The only way I'd know is if it was full of lens flare.

Hear, hear.

This months issue of Vanity Fair looks at this very topic. To entice the gentlemen the cover is Sofia Vergara, Claire Danes, Michelle Dockery and Julianna Marguiles wearing a bed sheet.

We can't let Vanity Fair get one up on Total Film. Here's Sofia guys.

@fortunesfool- Great point about the writing, if you havn't seen 'Luck' yet I think it may have cancelled after the first season due to three horses dying on set but it's worth watching if only for the brilliant dialogue.
Hopefully in ten years we wont be talking about how all the new tv shows have become as formulatic as films. Unfortunately if people keep paying to watch these abominations hollywood will keep throwing them out until eventually, McG will win an oscar! Actually we should all make a suicide pact just in case that ever happens.

I was really enjoying 'Luck'. Bit annoyed that it got cancelled.

Having said that, I couldn't work out what half the characters were saying.

Yeah, Escalante in particular needed subtitles as did Nolte, maybe rewatching it would be good practice for Bane.

depends how do you compare, i guess put them up with one another

sporanos or goodfellas?
the wire or new jack city?
friday night lights or friday night lights?

i'll go with movies, but depends, TV is an extention of radio more dialogues, but movies the photography can be heavenly!!