Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

Zachary Nguyen2 said:Doesn't every single show focus on human relationships?
What other shows are actually about animal interactions?

And what, are we not animals too?
I honestly think the real issue here is this overwhelming commercialization driven by streaming shows. You see all these massive US news outlets obsessing over episode ratings and polling audiences on how they think a plot should wrap up. I mean—sure, there might be some benefits to engagement, but what kind of actual storytelling results from that process?

Zachary Nguyen2 said:Doesn't every single show focus on human relationships?
What other shows are actually about animal interactions?

The show is about zombies, but the action and the undead elements are secondary—unlike those zombie movies where mindless action is the whole point. Given the subject matter, those human dynamics are naturally going to be front and center.

If you find that boring, that's your problem, not mine. And as for those comedies on your list? I've watched them, and I didn't laugh more than three times in an entire movie. You gave them a 7; I wouldn't even give them a 4. If you think they're funny, fine, but I don't.

I don't know about you. 😁
I'm definitely not the only one who found Walking Dead boring and just gave up on it this season—honestly, I've lost track of which season they're even on now.

James Garcia50 said:You claimed those random Danish shows that got remade by US studios were unimportant. You're wrong.
And you said foreign films bore audiences? Wrong again.

An American series will never touch the quality of a British one; they can only dream.

We aren't splitting hairs here; we're talking about movies and shows, which means we're talking about authorship.

It’s not the same.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed at the office. Huge difference.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108906/?ref_=nv_sr_1
The Americans tried to copy it, but when it doesn't work, it just doesn't work.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324864/?ref_=nv_sr_1
☕

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1321511/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_8
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1921070/?ref_=nv_sr_2
It’s not working. 😁

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:I don't know about you. 😁
I'm definitely not the only one who found Walking Dead boring and just gave up on it this season—honestly, I've lost track of which season they're even on now.

It's your call. Just like I have mine. It wouldn't be any good if we all thought exactly the same thing, would it?

I'll leave the rest of this discussion for tomorrow.

Look, this isn't the place to be dropping spoilers for shows. *The Walking Dead* is one of a kind—and yeah, maybe some people find it slow, but I don't find it boring at all because I’m completely sucked into that world while I'm watching. People can say whatever they want, but honestly? It handles its themes incredibly well.

That's a stretch, Victor.
And there's a cultural mindset at play here too.

shadowangler50 said:

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

So what are your conclusions, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

shadowangler50 said:

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

There’s no such thing as a "current" show or movie.
Art stands on its own, regardless of when it was filmed.

shadowangler50 said:

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

I'm not even trying; you're misreading me.
I'm not dismissing it—it dismissed itself.

There you go again with the sweeping (and wrong) generalizations.
How do you know who cares and who doesn't? Pure guesswork.
The core question of art is whether the credit goes to the artist or the thief.

James Garcia50 said:That's a stretch, Victor.
And there's a cultural mindset at play here too.

So what are your conclusions, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

There’s no such thing as a "current" show or movie.
Art stands on its own, regardless of when it was filmed.

I'm not even trying; you're misreading me.
I'm not dismissing it—it dismissed itself.

There you go again with the sweeping (and wrong) generalizations.
How do you know who cares and who doesn't? Pure guesswork.
The core question of art is whether the credit goes to the artist or the thief.

What, are we supposed to just have a heart attack to make you happy? Or maybe end up behind bars because of some seasonal flu? Honestly, Victor—most shows out there are total trash. It’s hard to find anything actually worth watching, which, if you think about it, is pretty much how people work, too.

I’m going to say this for the thousandth time—and yes, I realize I sound like a broken record on this thread—but I have to: it is fundamentally unfair to draw direct parallels between films and series. They are two entirely different beasts. What do they actually share? Acting and cinematography? Sure, fine, but that's about it.

Let’s pivot the debate for a second—I'm sure there are sports fans lurking here anyway—who is the superior athlete: Michael Jordan or Diego Maradona? 😁

They are both legends, but if you forced them into a one-on-one matchup, who comes out on top? 🙂

Most people probably hate this analogy, but I had to reach for it because, again, comparing movies to TV shows is a false equivalence. There are plenty of people here who love both mediums, myself included.

If someone were to corner me and force me to choose—under duress, mind you—between a movie and a series, I’d pick the movie. But honestly, it’s a cheap tactic for anyone trying to force a choice between two things that don't belong in the same category.

A few pages back in this discussion, I laid out the strengths of film versus television; now, it occurred to me to mention one specific advantage a series can hold. For instance, I can think of one particular show that exemplifies this.

My professional background is in Arch and Pov, and one of my all-time favorite series has to be HBO's Rome. Why? Because in all my life, I have never seen any other production—film or otherwise—reconstruct ancient Rome and its world with such faithful accuracy.

If we look at films, perhaps you could compare it to Mel Gibson's Passion—setting aside the depiction of Jesus and the Biblical elements, I am talking strictly about archaeological authenticity. In that regard, and even regarding linguistic authenticity, I tip my hat to Gibson (just as I did for Apocalypto). But the point remains: in terms of long-term impact, HBO's Rome, with its portrayal of the Republic and the Empire, absolutely crushed every single Roman epic ever made through sheer authenticity.

And let me be clear: I am talking about authenticity... not necessarily which one is the "greater" work of art.

That is precisely where a series holds the upper hand in this context.

What else can you say about The Sopranos?

It is such a high-caliber series—the acting, the writing, the narrative arc—that if it had been condensed into a film, it wouldn't have come anywhere close to being this good. As it stands, it's masterful.

The same logic applies to (my personal favorite) The X-Files in terms of its genre and atmosphere.

Et cetera, et cetera...

This will be my final contribution to this thread, but I felt compelled to get these thoughts out there.

My conclusion remains unchanged: you cannot compare a FILM TO A SERIES. Why would anyone even try to weigh one against the other to see which is "better"? To me, the premise makes zero sense. So, go ahead, write whatever you want. 🙂

James Garcia50 said:You claimed those random Danish shows that got remade by US studios were unimportant. You're wrong.
And you said foreign films bore audiences? Wrong again.

An American series will never touch the quality of a British one; they can only dream.

We aren't splitting hairs here; we're talking about movies and shows, which means we're talking about authorship.

It’s not the same.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed at the office. Huge difference.

🤦

Patrick Martin said:The absolute greatest series ever made is I, Claudius

It’s basically the only thing that actually deserves to be mentioned alongside the best films out there. Everything else? Total garbage. ☕

I’m seriously about to start calling up NBC to demand they rerun it. 😒

That one show alone is enough to make all these other series look like amateur hour.
Honestly, it's just stupid even trying to compare them.
I don't see the point. 🤷

I can somewhat agree with that, though I won't be buying into your movie list—not that it matters. They say there's no accounting for taste, after all. 😬
When it comes to ancient history, I find Rome much more compelling, though let’s be clear about that first season 🙂.
To be honest, I used to consider myself a cinephile. I say "used to" because lately, I've been subjected to so much garbage—so many hyped-up films that turned out to be absolute trash, pretentious nonsense, or just someone's delusional fever dream (you name it). Over the last few years, I've found myself gravitating toward series instead, and I have zero regrets.
Rome, Band of Brothers, Battlestar Galactica, Dexter (but strictly the first three or four seasons 😁), House of Cards, Oz, Breaking Bad, GOT, and so on (not to mention the classics like The Wire, Black Swan, Seinfeld, etc.)

Let's be fair: series can be just as pretentious as movies, but they can also pull you in much deeper than any film ever could 😬 (the best example being Dexter—I watched the whole thing and, man, what a ride 😢). It’s undeniable that series are becoming higher quality, higher budget, with increasingly stellar casts and production values
.
To put it simply, series are my go-to winter ritual 😁. When it's cold and dark outside, I just curl up and knock out three or four episodes in a single night 😁 👍

Ultimately, comparing movies to series is an apples-to-oranges comparison. They are different formats entirely; they are structured differently and immerse us in the narrative in different ways
. Besides, it all comes down to preference 🙂
It's like comparing classical music to rock. In both genres, you'll find masterpieces and total junk. You'll find crowd-pleasers and complex compositions meant for "connoisseurs." Is Mozart better than The Rolling Stones? Is U2 better than Bach?
It depends on the person and the moment... 😁
Because honestly, is sushi better than a backyard BBQ? A wok stir-fry or a plate of comfort food? Shrimp or lamb?
It’s the exact same logic with movies versus series...

shadowangler50 said:The show is about zombies, but the action and the undead elements are secondary—unlike those zombie movies where mindless action is the whole point. Given the subject matter, those human dynamics are naturally going to be front and center.

If you find that boring, that's your problem, not mine. And as for those comedies on your list? I've watched them, and I didn't laugh more than three times in an entire movie. You gave them a 7; I wouldn't even give them a 4. If you think they're funny, fine, but I don't.

You didn't laugh more than three times?
Then tell me, what actually counts as a good comedy to you?
Don't tell me it's The Big Bang Theory.🤣

Zachary Nguyen2 said:You didn't laugh more than three times?
Then tell me, what actually counts as a good comedy to you?
Don't tell me it's The Big Bang Theory.🤣

Looking at anything released in the last few years, I can't think of a single one. The only thing that comes to mind is The Intouchables. Comedies lately have been absolute garbage.

I prefer the classics like The Princess Bride, Les Visiteurs, Charlie's Angels, or even the relatively newer ones like Rush Hour 1 and 2, White Chicks, and Death AT a Funeral.
Those are the first ones that pop into my head, though there are surely others.

So what’s your logic, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

I only said 60 because I was tired of repeating that they're watched far more often. Maybe those remakes aren't as popular because they lack quality, but American shows are globally much more widely viewed.

There's no such thing as "current" series or "current" films.
A series is a work of art; when it was filmed doesn't matter.

What are you even talking about? You seem to have missed the point entirely. The topic is the current state of television, not the inherent characteristics of works of art.

I'm not even trying, you're misreading me.
I'm not presenting it; I'm just stating who I am.

There you go again with those global (and inaccurate) conclusions.
How could you possibly know who cares and who doesn't? It's pure guesswork.
That is the fundamental question of art: does the artist sign the series, or does a thief?

That only proves the creator is a thief and a fraud, not that the show itself is bad. What, are we judging the value of a work based on the creator's morality? Would Twin Peaks suddenly become a worse show if it turned out its creator stole the idea?
Anyone judging a work this way clearly doesn't understand what art is. Art is what is beautiful. Watch the movie Incognito; it deals with exactly this.
True Detective isn't high quality and popular just because of the concept—there are a million detective shows out there, and we've seen it all before. It's popular because of the top-tier acting, the atmosphere, and the cinematography.
Besides, your entire premise falls apart since it hasn't been proven that True Detective is a plagiarism. One of the basic tenets of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So, you're actually the one doing the speculating here.

shadowangler50 said:

So what’s your logic, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

I only said 60 because I was tired of repeating that they're watched far more often. Maybe those remakes aren't as popular because they lack quality, but American shows are globally much more widely viewed.

There's no such thing as "current" series or "current" films.
A series is a work of art; when it was filmed doesn't matter.

What are you even talking about? You seem to have missed the point entirely. The topic is the current state of television, not the inherent characteristics of works of art.

I'm not even trying, you're misreading me.
I'm not presenting it; I'm just stating who I am.

There you go again with those global (and inaccurate) conclusions.
How could you possibly know who cares and who doesn't? It's pure guesswork.
That is the fundamental question of art: does the artist sign the series, or does a thief?

That only proves the creator is a thief and a fraud, not that the show itself is bad. What, are we judging the value of a work based on the creator's morality? Would Twin Peaks suddenly become a worse show if it turned out its creator stole the idea?
Anyone judging a work this way clearly doesn't understand what art is. Art is what is beautiful. Watch the movie Incognito; it deals with exactly this.
True Detective isn't high quality and popular just because of the concept—there are a million detective shows out there, and we've seen it all before. It's popular because of the top-tier acting, the atmosphere, and the cinematography.
Besides, your entire premise falls apart since it hasn't been proven that True Detective is a plagiarism. One of the basic tenets of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So, you're actually the one doing the speculating here.

Nah, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both series and movies count as works of art. Don't they?
So, according to you, quality doesn't matter, plagiarism isn't an issue—nothing matters as long as people are watching? If that's the case, you might as well just watch paint dry on a wall.

shadowangler50 said:

So what’s your logic, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

I only said 60 because I was tired of repeating that they're watched far more often. Maybe those remakes aren't as popular because they lack quality, but American shows are globally much more widely viewed.

There's no such thing as "current" series or "current" films.
A series is a work of art; when it was filmed doesn't matter.

What are you even talking about? You seem to have missed the point entirely. The topic is the current state of television, not the inherent characteristics of works of art.

I'm not even trying, you're misreading me.
I'm not presenting it; I'm just stating who I am.

There you go again with those global (and inaccurate) conclusions.
How could you possibly know who cares and who doesn't? It's pure guesswork.
That is the fundamental question of art: does the artist sign the series, or does a thief?

That only proves the creator is a thief and a fraud, not that the show itself is bad. What, are we judging the value of a work based on the creator's morality? Would Twin Peaks suddenly become a worse show if it turned out its creator stole the idea?
Anyone judging a work this way clearly doesn't understand what art is. Art is what is beautiful. Watch the movie Incognito; it deals with exactly this.
True Detective isn't high quality and popular just because of the concept—there are a million detective shows out there, and we've seen it all before. It's popular because of the top-tier acting, the atmosphere, and the cinematography.
Besides, your entire premise falls apart since it hasn't been proven that True Detective is a plagiarism. One of the basic tenets of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So, you're actually the one doing the speculating here.

We judge the value of a piece based on the talent of its creator. Doesn't that seem a bit reductive?
Copying isn't creating.
If it’s original, it’s worth something. If it’s a rip-off, it's worthless. Isn't that just how it works?

shadowangler50 said:

So what’s your logic, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

I only said 60 because I was tired of repeating that they're watched far more often. Maybe those remakes aren't as popular because they lack quality, but American shows are globally much more widely viewed.

There's no such thing as "current" series or "current" films.
A series is a work of art; when it was filmed doesn't matter.

What are you even talking about? You seem to have missed the point entirely. The topic is the current state of television, not the inherent characteristics of works of art.

I'm not even trying, you're misreading me.
I'm not presenting it; I'm just stating who I am.

There you go again with those global (and inaccurate) conclusions.
How could you possibly know who cares and who doesn't? It's pure guesswork.
That is the fundamental question of art: does the artist sign the series, or does a thief?

That only proves the creator is a thief and a fraud, not that the show itself is bad. What, are we judging the value of a work based on the creator's morality? Would Twin Peaks suddenly become a worse show if it turned out its creator stole the idea?
Anyone judging a work this way clearly doesn't understand what art is. Art is what is beautiful. Watch the movie Incognito; it deals with exactly this.
True Detective isn't high quality and popular just because of the concept—there are a million detective shows out there, and we've seen it all before. It's popular because of the top-tier acting, the atmosphere, and the cinematography.
Besides, your entire premise falls apart since it hasn't been proven that True Detective is a plagiarism. One of the basic tenets of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So, you're actually the one doing the speculating here.

We've all seen it all before. If you call yourself an artist, isn't your job to show us something we haven't already witnessed?
Art doesn't really matter. What? What's the deal? How's it going?.

So you're just guessing now because you haven't even seen the thing?
Save the "legal fundamentals" for the courtroom; we’re talking about art here.

I’m always the one pointing out how much the writers of True Detective leaned on that British series. But honestly, their show had way bigger issues than just ripping off someone else's work. A solid series needs more than just a stacked cast. Not to mention that disastrous finale and the fact that the whole thing doesn't even have a real ending.

So, what about the cinematography? What are we even doing with the camera work here?

To me, True Detective was top-tier. I honestly don't care if someone else did something similar before. Some of you seem convinced that nothing can be original anymore, but I guarantee that any thriller or drama produced today has already touched on similar themes in some previous film. How much innovation can you actually find in investigating crimes in a city? It’s the same old story. What makes this series work is the atmosphere and the acting.

Joseph Edwards4 said:To me, True Detective was top-tier. I honestly don't care if someone else did something similar before. Some of you seem convinced that nothing can be original anymore, but I guarantee that any thriller or drama produced today has already touched on similar themes in some previous film. How much innovation can you actually find in investigating crimes in a city? It’s the same old story. What makes this series work is the atmosphere and the acting.

I enjoyed watching it even though something strikingly similar came out before it. Honestly, I’d watch anything just for Matthew, but can you actually say the series is good? Does it even have a logical ending?
Atmosphere?
The atmosphere is basically just Matthew delivering long monologues promising everything will be cleared up by the end, only for nothing to happen.
Throughout the series, characters were dropping from a single shot, yet Matthew survives a literal slaughter like he's playing a video game.
Is it good compared to worse shows (like Bates Motel)? Sure. But is it actually good? Not really.

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.