Movies vs. TV series: Which side are you on?

frozenraven39 said:I haven't really sat down with 30 Rock—looks decent enough—but honestly, any movie by Judd Apatow or Seth Rogen is funnier than TBBT (which is fine, I guess) or HIMYM (which feels overrated just because there isn't much better out there). And those are just standard, grounded movies. For them, The Guard is basically their version of Amarcord.

Look, personally, I think those are a total disaster. 😁

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia makes me laugh a hundred times more than those movies ever could. I guess it’s just a matter of taste. Generally speaking, I feel like we've had more great sitcoms than actual comedy movies over the last 20 years, and frankly, I've never seen a movie with humor nearly as sharp as Arrested Development.

Movies are usually my go-to, but occasionally a series will catch me totally off guard... For instance, if you haven't seen Banshee yet, do yourself a favor and watch it. It’s way too underrated, and the cast is top-tier even if they aren't household names everywhere...

My most recent surprise was definitely The Leftovers...

Arrested Development is top tier. Just like Jerry Seinfeld, The Wonder Years, or Python enthusiasts.

Lately, I’d say Office Space stands out as one of the better picks from the last two decades.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/

Comparing shows to movies is a losing game. There are more movies out there, sure, but the average quality of TV series seems much lower than film. Even in today's mediocre era of cinema, I still find far more solid movies than series.

Modern sitcom humor just doesn't hold a candle to movies. There's too much garbage. If there's one thing I can't stand about comedy shows, it's the family sitcoms. They used to be rare, but now they're everywhere. Back then, we actually had gems like The Wonder Years, if anyone remembers. Fred Savage. His brother was stuck in that trash Boy Meets World.

Even a decent show like Fresh Prince is better than most modern stuff, and that's being generous. Honestly, screw today's humor. Credit to the exceptions.

I’m honestly down for either approach.
It’s even better when a movie picks up right where a series left off—or vice versa—because I live for those tightly woven, complex storylines that just keep spinning forever without a clear end.😁

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/

This was an unusually great series. 😁

Noah Roberts46 said:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248654/

This was an unusually great series. 😁

I'm actually revisiting it right now.
Easily ranks among the absolute best, alongside The Wire, Oz, and The Sopranos...

frozenraven39 said:Because that's the whole point of the thread.

The original post lays out the argument that people are constantly claiming "TV series have overtaken movies"—so this is our space to tear that thesis apart or back it up with our own takes. If you don't have a horse in the race, just say you're neutral.

Yeah, sure, except the first post is framed like you have to pick a side, like it’s some kind of binary choice between loving movies or loving series. Like, if you're into shows, you can't possibly enjoy films? And vice versa? At least that's how I read it... which is totally wrong. Plenty of us love both mediums equally. I mean, obviously, when they actually bother to make them good! There’s an equal amount of absolute garbage being pumped out on TV as there is in theaters, so this whole idea that series have somehow dethroned movies just doesn't hold water for me. Sure, we've got incredible series popping up everywhere, more and more "A-list" movie stars are jumping ship to do TV, and budgets are getting massive... but there will always be an audience that just wants to hit the cinema and experience a story told in two hours. You only have to look at the box office numbers for recent blockbusters to see that.

I’m way more of a movie person. When I try to list the TV series that actually touched my soul, I can barely get a few names out, but the pile of movies I want to watch before I die? It’s endless...

Every single year, I can rattle off about thirty absolute masterpieces from the big screen, whereas with series, I’m lucky if I find a handful every decade...

Take the 90s, for example: the only shows that really hit home for me were The Simpsons, Twin Peaks, The X-Files, Red Dwarf, and Jerry Seinfeld.... but
with movies from that same era, I could give you a hundred just to start—especially starting from '94. And don't even get me started on the 70s
because there were so many genius films, and I just don't feel that same connection with TV shows.

So, I’ve decided to spend what's left of my life diving into cinema. I mean, we're all heading to the grave eventually, so why spend my final moments regretting that I didn't even catch 30% of the stuff I actually wanted to see?

The bottom line is this: sure, some series might feel like epic movies right now, but the reason we're seeing so many mediocre films and endless shows is because of all the advertising and the lost soul of the industry. People have become addicted to fast food, so they don't appreciate a real, home-cooked meal anymore.

TV shows are just a quick distraction, but a great movie? That’s a timeless postcard.

goldenskipper72 said:I’m way more of a movie person. When I try to list the TV series that actually touched my soul, I can barely get a few names out, but the pile of movies I want to watch before I die? It’s endless...

Every single year, I can rattle off about thirty absolute masterpieces from the big screen, whereas with series, I’m lucky if I find a handful every decade...

Take the 90s, for example: the only shows that really hit home for me were The Simpsons, Twin Peaks, The X-Files, Red Dwarf, and Jerry Seinfeld.... but
with movies from that same era, I could give you a hundred just to start—especially starting from '94. And don't even get me started on the 70s
because there were so many genius films, and I just don't feel that same connection with TV shows.

So, I’ve decided to spend what's left of my life diving into cinema. I mean, we're all heading to the grave eventually, so why spend my final moments regretting that I didn't even catch 30% of the stuff I actually wanted to see?

The bottom line is this: sure, some series might feel like epic movies right now, but the reason we're seeing so many mediocre films and endless shows is because of all the advertising and the lost soul of the industry. People have become addicted to fast food, so they don't appreciate a real, home-cooked meal anymore.

TV shows are just a quick distraction, but a great movie? That’s a timeless postcard.

I'm pretty much on the exact same page as you, though this thread seems intended for more recent stuff. We should probably stick to the last 10 or 15 years and leave the '70s and '90s out of it.

P.S. For those of us living in nostalgia: the era from the mid-'60s to the mid-'90s was the absolute golden age of pop culture. I'm just glad I caught the tail end of it firsthand.😉

To me, Sapunice is basically the cherry on top of the sundae 🙂 nothing else about it really hits the mark for me

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, personally, I think those are a total disaster. 😁

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia makes me laugh a hundred times more than those movies ever could. I guess it’s just a matter of taste. Generally speaking, I feel like we've had more great sitcoms than actual comedy movies over the last 20 years, and frankly, I've never seen a movie with humor nearly as sharp as Arrested Development.

Arrested is better than 90% of the "great" comedies out there. And Sunny? That belongs in the dark comedy category. Not for everyone, sure, but they're brilliant. 😁

frozenraven39 said:I'm pretty much on the exact same page as you, though this thread seems intended for more recent stuff. We should probably stick to the last 10 or 15 years and leave the '70s and '90s out of it.

P.S. For those of us living in nostalgia: the era from the mid-'60s to the mid-'90s was the absolute golden age of pop culture. I'm just glad I caught the tail end of it firsthand.😉

Heh, I guess I just gave in to basic tribalism and psychology (you know, split everyone into two groups and give them different colored jerseys—pure chaos)

...and look, there are thousands of great movies out there (from Japan and Oceania to Canada and Europe) and I have plenty of options. Why would I waste my time on something mediocre? That's just me being incredibly subjective, but honestly, it's like when I'm hungry—just give me the whole pizza right now, don't bring me one tiny slice every twenty minutes.
If I feel like watching some B-movie where sushi turns people into zombies spitting rice, or maybe a heavy psychological drama about Oedipal complexes, I'll pick a movie accordingly...

Richard Wilson4 said:Arrested is better than 90% of the "great" comedies out there. And Sunny? That belongs in the dark comedy category. Not for everyone, sure, but they're brilliant. 😁

Fatty, you and those two alongside Jerry Seinfeld make up the holy trinity for me. But yeah, I’ll give you that—Sunny isn't for everyone.

frozenraven39 said:I'm pretty much on the exact same page as you, though this thread seems intended for more recent stuff. We should probably stick to the last 10 or 15 years and leave the '70s and '90s out of it.

P.S. For those of us living in nostalgia: the era from the mid-'60s to the mid-'90s was the absolute golden age of pop culture. I'm just glad I caught the tail end of it firsthand.😉

Not quite.
You didn't actually set a timeframe in your opening post:

frozenraven39 said:This is the thread where we hash out the age-old debate: movies versus TV series.

They say we're living in the golden age of television—you know, those endless arguments about how the popularity, cultural impact, and even the artistic merit of TV series have finally overtaken cinema. The idea being that movies are becoming passé while series define our zeitgeist.

Do you actually buy that?
Why do you think things shifted this way?
Forget the objective truth for a second—what’s your personal preference?

Let's see if we can dig up some answers to these questions...

(It probably makes sense to open an identical thread over on the Series subforum, though I'm not sure if we can have the exact same topic in two places—I'll just start both and let the moderators sort it out 😉 )

Movies are true art, whereas most series are just eye candy—with a few notable exceptions, of course. That said, I happily watch both, though I find myself gravitating toward the classics rather than modern releases; think along the lines of The Twilight Zone, Alohas, Only Fools and Horses, M*A*S*H, The Addams Family, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, or Twin Peaks...

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Not quite.
You didn't actually set a timeframe in your opening post:

Movies are true art, whereas most series are just eye candy—with a few notable exceptions, of course. That said, I happily watch both, though I find myself gravitating toward the classics rather than modern releases; think along the lines of The Twilight Zone, Alohas, Only Fools and Horses, M*A*S*H, The Addams Family, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, or Twin Peaks...

Hmm, right after that sentence you quoted from my intro, I added this: "People claim we’re living in the golden age of television—that the popularity, social impact, and even the artistic weight of TV series have overtaken film. Movies are becoming passé; series are our zeitgeist."

I think it’s pretty obvious I was talking about the present—the current moment. As for how wide we define "the current moment," we could argue about that forever, but I’d say a 10-to-15-year window is a reasonable frame? That’s basically what most critics mean when they bring up the "golden age of television." Usually, they’re looking at everything from the era when American networks like HBO set the modern standard with shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, all the way up to today.

If you look at most of the commentary out there, the consensus seems to be that series have caught up to—if not surpassed—film when it comes to quality in mainstream, commercial productions. When commentators say today's prime-time series are better than blockbusters, that’s the target they're aiming for. But once you pivot to art house, indie, underground, or non-American productions? Not so much. Things haven't fundamentally shifted there; series still can't quite hold a candle to film.

frozenraven39 said:Hmm, right after that sentence you quoted from my intro, I added this: "People claim we’re living in the golden age of television—that the popularity, social impact, and even the artistic weight of TV series have overtaken film. Movies are becoming passé; series are our zeitgeist."

I think it’s pretty obvious I was talking about the present—the current moment. As for how wide we define "the current moment," we could argue about that forever, but I’d say a 10-to-15-year window is a reasonable frame? That’s basically what most critics mean when they bring up the "golden age of television." Usually, they’re looking at everything from the era when American networks like HBO set the modern standard with shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, all the way up to today.

If you look at most of the commentary out there, the consensus seems to be that series have caught up to—if not surpassed—film when it comes to quality in mainstream, commercial productions. When commentators say today's prime-time series are better than blockbusters, that’s the target they're aiming for. But once you pivot to art house, indie, underground, or non-American productions? Not so much. Things haven't fundamentally shifted there; series still can't quite hold a candle to film.

It’s never going to catch up, nor will it ever overtake it, because we are talking about two entirely different genres... there just isn't a fair comparison to be made.
Furthermore, using terms like "modern" versus "classic" is completely misguided, as the year a production was released has absolutely no bearing on whether a film or a series is actually good.

I have a stronger preference for series because you get to consistently follow your favorite characters 😍 though I certainly enjoy movies as well 😁

btw, we really ought to set up a poll 😉

I don't want to start a whole new thread just to ask this here. When you look up a movie on IMDb, the director, writer, and cast are right there upfront. Everything is crystal clear.

TV series are a different story. It only lists the creators—I'm not even sure if "creators" is the best term, maybe "showrunners" or "authors"? It’s only when you click > that you see the actual writers and directors, and that’s what trips me up. They almost always list a massive group of people. For instance, I randomly checked the >. That show has had 23 different directors so far. And there are 11 writers credited. It's baffling. Given that a series usually has a specific, signature style—which should be the director's job, right?—and considering how distinct the style of > is, how on earth do 23 different directors maintain that consistency without it looking disjointed? I always assumed the director was the one who provided the creative fingerprint for a film or a series. Now, seeing such a high-quality show handled by 23 different people... I don't know what to think. And > isn't an outlier; every American series I've looked at shows similar numbers. There are rare exceptions like >, but that's it.

How does the hierarchy actually work for TV? Who is truly in charge (setting producers aside)? With movies, it's simple—the director is king (again, ignoring producers). But with a series, how is it managed?

I'd love for someone who actually understands the mechanics of this to weigh in. Or at least drop a link...

frozenraven39 said:This is the thread where we hash out the age-old debate: movies versus TV series.

They say we're living in the golden age of television—you know, those endless arguments about how the popularity, cultural impact, and even the artistic merit of TV series have finally overtaken cinema. The idea being that movies are becoming passé while series define our zeitgeist.

Do you actually buy that?
Why do you think things shifted this way?
Forget the objective truth for a second—what’s your personal preference?

Let's see if we can dig up some answers to these questions...

(It probably makes sense to open an identical thread over on the Series subforum, though I'm not sure if we can have the exact same topic in two places—I'll just start both and let the moderators sort it out 😉 )

I don't really have the bandwidth to keep up with series, especially serialized ones, so I usually opt for a movie instead. Sure, I'll always carve out time for one or two favorites, but I don't lose any sleep if I miss a few episodes. ☕

In this business, the creator is the ultimate boss, and more often than not, they’re also the head writer. While directors definitely matter—especially when you have distinct stylists like Joss Whedon, Alex Graves, or Kim Manners—it’s really the writers who drive the show alongside the creator. Plus, if there's a whole team of writers, everything has to pass through the creator's hands first. That's just how a writers' room works! https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ga...oxs-the-xfiles

Movies don't really have a single "creator" figure, so the screenwriter is the closest thing we have. Honestly, a great script is the backbone of any good movie. I usually give the director the most credit, but I wouldn't say they completely overshadow the writers. Take the movie 'True Romance,' for example. It was directed by the talented Tony Scott, but since Tarantino wrote it, the first time I watched it, I was totally convinced it was a Tarantino film!

Then you have legends like Roman Polanski or Alfred Hitchcock. They have such unmistakable visual styles and ways of building tension that you can recognize their work the second it hits the screen.