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?
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
Last edited by Flynners; 23-04-2012 at 12:37 AM.