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

Great explanation, thanks! Just one question—take a show like Better Call Saul, for instance. The cinematography is stunning, especially those wide exterior shots. It’s consistent through every single episode and season. How exactly do so many different directors manage to align their styles like that? Do the creators give them specific stylistic directions? And if they do, does that mean TV directors have way less creative freedom than film directors...

Since Vince Gilligan is the showrunner, I’m pretty sure he was the one who called the shots here. He definitely did it with a smile on his face, too! The guy knows his stuff—he handled those sweeping exterior shots back on The X-Files when he was a writer (and let me tell you, Chris Carter gave him total creative freedom there), and then obviously mastered them on Breaking Bad. I’d bet anything that Vince gave them the green light on this style.

Yeah, I get it. So, can we basically say that TV directors are just there to handle the technical side of things, while the actual creative heavy lifting belongs to the showrunners?

Edit: What I'm really trying to get at is whether the main difference between a TV director and a film director is that TV directors lack creative freedom and just direct exactly how they're told?

It really comes down to the creators. Take Chris Carter, for example—he gave every director and writer total creative freedom on The X-Files. Some of the biggest names behind the camera there were Kim Manners, Robert Bowman, and David Nutter. Each one brought such a distinct flavor to the table; you could actually tell who was directing just by watching an episode! But honestly, you don't see that kind of autonomy very often.

You might see something similar in Whedon's work, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Firefly.

Yeah, obviously.👍

Check out this article, you might find it pretty interesting and it actually clears up a few things: https://www.indiewire.com/2019/07/bi...ee-1202156884/
It mentions a "style bible laying out the visual rules of the show, common for TV series looking to maintain consistency between different filmmaking teams."
This particular situation was a bit of an outlier where things didn't follow the standard playbook, but you can see how it usually works for most shows...

Another way people refer to the creator or the lead producer is the showrunner—kind of like how Matthew Weiner runs the show for Mad Men.

Interesting stuff, thanks!

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’ve been consuming both for years now, diving into international films and series alike. It’s pretty cool how so many foreign series are actually adaptations of movies that came out a few years prior; they complement each other perfectly, and as long as you know how to pick them, both mediums offer incredible quality. My only real gripe with series is the agonizing wait for new seasons—you end up biting your nails for years just waiting for a second season to drop. I mean, movies have their gaps too, but with series, the anticipation feels so much more intense because there's always just so much more to look forward to.

Movies.
I’ve been steering clear of the whole TV series hyper-production craze for quite some time now.
I haven't even touched Game of Thrones.
Honestly, I just don't get the impulse to binge two entire seasons of something in a single night.

feralpilot0 said:Movies.
I’ve been steering clear of the whole TV series hyper-production craze for quite some time now.
I haven't even touched Game of Thrones.
Honestly, I just don't get the impulse to binge two entire seasons of something in a single night.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

It really depends on who you ask, I suppose, but over the last decade, television series have arguably surpassed films in terms of quality.

God willing, I’m gonna be out at a massive campground this weekend, just doing some sightseeing

mistyotter35 said:It really depends on who you ask, I suppose, but over the last decade, television series have arguably surpassed films in terms of quality.

Well, obviously they are, especially now that Mel Brooks is getting up there in years.🤣🤣🤣🤣
All joking aside, though, a series just works better when you have more than a measly two hours to play with; you can actually let the plot breathe. I mean, how many series lately have been based on films from decades ago? Good grief, especially in the last couple of years, we've seen endless shows based on movies that came out ten years ago, and of course, the show ends up being superior simply because it has the luxury of time to stretch out the timeline and weave in much deeper subplots.

gentlehawk95 said:Well, obviously they are, especially now that Mel Brooks is getting up there in years.🤣🤣🤣🤣
All joking aside, though, a series just works better when you have more than a measly two hours to play with; you can actually let the plot breathe. I mean, how many series lately have been based on films from decades ago? Good grief, especially in the last couple of years, we've seen endless shows based on movies that came out ten years ago, and of course, the show ends up being superior simply because it has the luxury of time to stretch out the timeline and weave in much deeper subplots.

Not necessarily, though. I've sat through some series—maybe 8 to 10 episodes—that could've easily been squeezed into one solid two-hour movie. It feels like they just stretch things out just to hit a specific episode count. Personally, I'm more of a movie guy—I don't really have the patience to follow a show for months or even years. I'd rather watch a movie in one evening and know exactly how it ends. The only exceptions are those episodic shows where every episode stands on its own—then I might tune into something like Monko, Malcolm, or whatever.

Christian Myers said:Not necessarily, though. I've sat through some series—maybe 8 to 10 episodes—that could've easily been squeezed into one solid two-hour movie. It feels like they just stretch things out just to hit a specific episode count. Personally, I'm more of a movie guy—I don't really have the patience to follow a show for months or even years. I'd rather watch a movie in one evening and know exactly how it ends. The only exceptions are those episodic shows where every episode stands on its own—then I might tune into something like Monko, Malcolm, or whatever.

"More or less"... yeah, there's the kicker right there. Honestly, I don't really care which format I'm watching; both work for me depending on my mood. But then again, I'm pretty picky about what I pick, so I try to make sure every scene in a series actually earns its keep, because at the end of the day, everything needs to serve a purpose.

Both, honestly.

I've mostly been ignoring TV series lately. I used to be the type to binge five different shows in a single sitting, but now? Nothing.🙄

Over the last few days, I've managed to squeeze in a few horror movies and one American film.😁

Movies. As for TV series, if you ask me, they are nothing more than a massive waste of time. ☕ I don't care how brilliant the writing is or how high the production value might be. Just give me a solid film that starts and finishes within a single evening—maybe even a sequel or two over the next few days if I'm feeling ambitious.

I honestly will never get people who can binge half a season of a show in one sitting, but then they start complaining about a movie being slightly long—like, "Ugh, I can't watch this, it's three hours looooong"—or they react the same way to a limited series with a few sequels. They'll moan, "Oh man, there are ten installments!" yet they have absolutely no problem powering through a 15-season show where every season has 30 episodes 😕

It’s just as weird when you see the exact opposite. You know those people who knock out two movies a day like it's nothing, but for some reason, they struggle to commit to a series. Even though watching six episodes takes the exact same amount of time as two two-hour movies, they still find the series too much to handle 🤔

For me, it isn't just about the mere passage of time—I tend to pace myself by watching one or two movies a week rather than bingeing daily, sometimes managing only a handful in an entire month—but it’s also about how the narrative unfolds. The plot refuses to offer even a hint of rounding out or reaching a resolution until you have slogged through a massive pile of episodes or even entire seasons.

I get that—but honestly, I think it’s more about how the story unfolds rather than just the act of rounding things off. You can pack way more fun, engaging beats into a fifty-episode series than you ever could in a ninety-minute movie. On the flip side, I totally get it if you're short on time and have to watch stuff in tiny little bites. It's easy to lose the thread or forget what even happened when you're forced to wait forever between episodes. Then again, we kind of forget that people used to watch shows one episode a week for years, not this modern thing where we binge-watch everything in a single weekend. 😁 And fourthly, there are those episodic shows where every episode is basically its own little story—especially those anthology series. With those, you don't have to worry about getting lost in the plot, so you can pretty much jump around whenever you want. 😁