Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

Was it just the predictable plot twists, the constant romantic melodrama between characters, the fact that the main cast seems practically immortal, or just the sheer way they drag out the story for seasons on end?
We all know what makes a show feel like a soap opera, but in your opinion, what specific traits make a series feel "soapy" when it wasn't even designed to be one?

I honestly think that with a little bit of effort, 😁 we could probably label pretty much any show we've ever watched as a soap opera, couldn't we?

Bradley Wood43 As follows:
I see the debate over soap operas has officially kicked off around here... so let's actually define what makes a series a "soap opera." And no—I’m not talking about those mindless, endless daytime dramas meant for bored retirees or people looking to zone out while doing chores. We're talking about something with actual substance.

Listen, just because you throw in a few flashes of insight regarding a specific individual doesn't make a series a masterpiece—it certainly doesn't turn it into some high-brow soap opera. I get what you're driving at—you think that by centering an episode around one of the main characters to "showcase" their psyche or add a layer of depth—as if that sudden peek behind the curtain is some revolutionary storytelling move—that you've suddenly elevated the material. It’s a common misconception. Diving deep into a character's motivations isn't a shortcut to quality; it's just basic character development, and when it's done poorly, it feels forced and hollow.

But seriously—if that kind of behavior becomes the standard for an individual... man, just... non, god damn, stop. 😁 It’s happening almost non-stop lately—and I’m not just talking about that one specific character. It eventually bleeds into the rest of the cast, too. They start centering entire episodes around these central premises or debates that, quite frankly, my friends and I wouldn't have even given a second thought to back when we were teenagers.

To be clear—when I used the term "soapmaker," I wasn't actually referring to someone who manufactures legitimate bars of soap. 😁 Look, you already know how this goes... 🙂

Take *Battlestar Galactica*, for example—you had Baltar, and honestly, I lost count of how many episodes were dedicated solely to him. It was all centered around his specific personality traits. Look, I’ll be the first to admit it: the guy is a complete mess, a total wreck, yet somehow he’s a genius. I don't necessarily care for his character—honestly, just move the plot along already—but eventually, the show branched out to the rest of the cast. Still, there were seasons where it felt like nearly every single episode was just an endless loop of character studies—just constant, nonstop deep dives into their psyches and those tedious, soap-opera style conversations happening on the ship.

I honestly think I must have been heatstroked while I was watching Battlestar Galactica—specifically that sequence where they hit the Pegasus, right before some damn hurricane finally tore through their precious little Parlor inside the ship.

There’s this specific trope in television—let's call it the "Soap Opera Element"—where a show decides to just spin its wheels and stay stuck in one place. It becomes incredibly frustrating when the core concept itself is supposed to be about constant evolution or survival—take *The Walking Dead*, for instance. If you’ve followed that series, you know exactly the stretch I’m talking about. Honestly, there was a point where I almost walked away from *The Walking Dead* entirely because I just couldn't stomach it anymore. For an entire fucking season, it felt like the actual zombies had vanished from the face of the earth. Instead of any meaningful progression, we were forced to sit through endless, repetitive filler centered entirely around the characters' "personalities" and their petty little social hierarchies. It was just people posturing and circling each other for an entire season without any real momentum. It’s exhausting. 🤣

And what’s truly infuriating about the whole mess—what really grates on my nerves—is that we aren't even being fooled. We all know exactly why they’re pulling this stunt. It’s nothing more than a transparent attempt to hit a specific episode count for the season or satisfy some arbitrary production quota, but frankly, I’m not buying it. It's lazy, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Look, I’m not suggesting that a series shouldn't have an occasional "monster of the week" episode here or there—I mean, even Star Trek: The Next Generation did that from time to time to keep things moving. But when that formula starts eating up half a season, or worse, becomes the entire skeletal structure of the show—just look at Battlestar Galactica—then we have a serious problem. 🙄Look, at the end of the day—and that’s just my take on things—that kind of stuff isn't for me. I'm not out here looking for a consensus or begging anyone to see things from my perspective. That's just how I feel. 🙂

Hmm, I feel like what you’re saying could apply to pretty much any series out there. Personally, I don't see how deep characterization is a bad thing, and honestly, having that extra layer in Battlestar Galactica—like what you mentioned—wasn't a bad thing at all. Sure, there were a few episodes where they really overdid it 🤦, but it stayed within tolerable limits...

Regarding The Walking Dead 😬, I'm with you on that... they absolutely suffocated us in the second season. They leaned way too hard into the interpersonal drama—who likes whom, who's changed, who's siding with who and why... it got tedious, but hey, if the show was just about "let's go kill zombies, every single episode, en masse," we would have burned out on it immediately...

Regarding what was said about Baltar, he was actually one of my favorite characters 😁 and I didn't find his episodes boring at all—quite the opposite, really. I loved watching his evolution; there's something compelling about a character who makes you constantly flip-flop between loving him and hating him 😁. One minute you're ready to see him gone, and the next, you just want to grab a drink and argue with him, haha.

Bradley Wood43 said:I see we’ve started a debate about soap operas... so let's actually define what makes a show a "soap." I'm obviously not talking about those endless Mexican or Turkish daytime dramas designed for bored retirees...

Honestly, a soap opera is anything that drags on through endless seasons—just stretching a single premise until it loses all meaning, for God's sake. But that's just the reality of the average TV viewer... they get hooked on something, and even if the show turns into total Shit after two seasons (maybe that's the "tourist phase"?), why would they bother looking for something else? It takes effort, you know? It’s like reading books—someone might finish a whole series by Jo Nesbo and then immediately go hunting for "something similar"... but man, it really comes down to intellectual laziness.

This is just a blatant lie—honestly, I’m starting to think everyone just prefers binge-watching series these days. 🙂

Bradley Wood43 said:Was it just the predictable plot twists, the constant romantic melodrama between characters, the fact that the main cast seems practically immortal, or just the sheer way they drag out the story for seasons on end?
We all know what makes a show feel like a soap opera, but in your opinion, what specific traits make a series feel "soapy" when it wasn't even designed to be one?

I honestly think that with a little bit of effort, 😁 we could probably label pretty much any show we've ever watched as a soap opera, couldn't we?

Absolutely nothing happens.
With soaps, you can skip from episode 50 straight to episode 350 and you still won't have missed anything of actual importance.
An episode feels like a total waste of a Sunday afternoon.

Larry Moore83 said:This is just a blatant lie—honestly, I’m starting to think everyone just prefers binge-watching series these days. 🙂

Exactly! 👏

And let's not forget—it's outright slander! 🧐
(Or perhaps just a blatant insult... goodness me...🤔)

Bradley Wood43 said:I see we’ve started a debate about soap operas... so let's actually define what makes a show a "soap." I'm obviously not talking about those endless Mexican or Turkish daytime dramas designed for bored retirees...

Glad you kicked this discussion off.

One of the biggest arguments for why a series beats a movie is just having more breathing room to flesh out the characters.
And honestly, most of the time, that's spot on. That’s really the whole point here.

But once they start—pardon my French—making up Shit just for the sake of making up Shit, when shows drag on for way too many seasons (looking at you, Cottage), it totally backfires.

Take Rome, for example. That series about Rome has just the right amount of episodes, killer dialogue, great plots, and it's better than any historical movie about Julius Caesar and his crew. Literally every single one.

But doing something stupid like what the Hobbit did (I watch it as a series because stretching a thin book into three three-hour movies is just dumb), where you just drag, drag, and drag the plot along? That's nonsense. A lot of shows that started out amazing eventually hit that wall.

Luckily, Rome didn't. There's almost no historical movie out there that could be called better than it.

Larry Moore83 said:This is just a blatant lie—honestly, I’m starting to think everyone just prefers binge-watching series these days. 🙂

True, though I'm more of a series guy myself. Still, I bet way more people gravitate toward movies—especially folks who don't have the attention span for long shows.

wiredraven82 said:

Bradley Wood43 As follows:
I see the debate over soap operas has officially kicked off around here... so let's actually define what makes a series a "soap opera." And no—I’m not talking about those mindless, endless daytime dramas meant for bored retirees or people looking to zone out while doing chores. We're talking about something with actual substance.

Listen, just because you throw in a few flashes of insight regarding a specific individual doesn't make a series a masterpiece—it certainly doesn't turn it into some high-brow soap opera. I get what you're driving at—you think that by centering an episode around one of the main characters to "showcase" their psyche or add a layer of depth—as if that sudden peek behind the curtain is some revolutionary storytelling move—that you've suddenly elevated the material. It’s a common misconception. Diving deep into a character's motivations isn't a shortcut to quality; it's just basic character development, and when it's done poorly, it feels forced and hollow.

But seriously—if that kind of behavior becomes the standard for an individual... man, just... non, god damn, stop. 😁 It’s happening almost non-stop lately—and I’m not just talking about that one specific character. It eventually bleeds into the rest of the cast, too. They start centering entire episodes around these central premises or debates that, quite frankly, my friends and I wouldn't have even given a second thought to back when we were teenagers.

To be clear—when I used the term "soapmaker," I wasn't actually referring to someone who manufactures legitimate bars of soap. 😁 Look, you already know how this goes... 🙂

Take *Battlestar Galactica*, for example—you had Baltar, and honestly, I lost count of how many episodes were dedicated solely to him. It was all centered around his specific personality traits. Look, I’ll be the first to admit it: the guy is a complete mess, a total wreck, yet somehow he’s a genius. I don't necessarily care for his character—honestly, just move the plot along already—but eventually, the show branched out to the rest of the cast. Still, there were seasons where it felt like nearly every single episode was just an endless loop of character studies—just constant, nonstop deep dives into their psyches and those tedious, soap-opera style conversations happening on the ship.

I honestly think I must have been heatstroked while I was watching Battlestar Galactica—specifically that sequence where they hit the Pegasus, right before some damn hurricane finally tore through their precious little Parlor inside the ship.

There’s this specific trope in television—let's call it the "Soap Opera Element"—where a show decides to just spin its wheels and stay stuck in one place. It becomes incredibly frustrating when the core concept itself is supposed to be about constant evolution or survival—take *The Walking Dead*, for instance. If you’ve followed that series, you know exactly the stretch I’m talking about. Honestly, there was a point where I almost walked away from *The Walking Dead* entirely because I just couldn't stomach it anymore. For an entire fucking season, it felt like the actual zombies had vanished from the face of the earth. Instead of any meaningful progression, we were forced to sit through endless, repetitive filler centered entirely around the characters' "personalities" and their petty little social hierarchies. It was just people posturing and circling each other for an entire season without any real momentum. It’s exhausting. 🤣

And what’s truly infuriating about the whole mess—what really grates on my nerves—is that we aren't even being fooled. We all know exactly why they’re pulling this stunt. It’s nothing more than a transparent attempt to hit a specific episode count for the season or satisfy some arbitrary production quota, but frankly, I’m not buying it. It's lazy, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Look, I’m not suggesting that a series shouldn't have an occasional "monster of the week" episode here or there—I mean, even Star Trek: The Next Generation did that from time to time to keep things moving. But when that formula starts eating up half a season, or worse, becomes the entire skeletal structure of the show—just look at Battlestar Galactica—then we have a serious problem. 🙄Look, at the end of the day—and that’s just my take on things—that kind of stuff isn't for me. I'm not out here looking for a consensus or begging anyone to see things from my perspective. That's just how I feel. 🙂

It’s the same deal with The Walking Dead. Battlestar Galactica has seasons, sure, but it sucks how they spent all that budget on killer production and effects just to mask what was basically just a soap opera drama.

Caprica was even worse, ten steps behind. They could have shown the Colony in its true light, but instead, we got this heavy melodrama set in a period that felt way too modern. It died after three episodes—thank God they canceled it.

As for Game of Thrones, I've got mixed feelings.
The characters like Tyrion Lannister, and especially his father, are top-tier. Some parts are genuinely great.

Everything else? Total garbage.

The fight scenes are actually pretty bad, specifically that SPOILER attack by the Wildmen on the Black Castle, where three villains manage to kill over 50 people combined. SPOILER

People rave about Lena Hedley, but to me, her character is just Cersei Lannister—total Shit. Her whole purpose in the plot is just whining every two episodes about how much she loves her kids and how far she'll go for them.

The rest of them are even worse and totally one-dimensional.

They want the younger guy to be some mastermind, but they constantly show him in brothels with cheap hookers. It's like the writers think a character isn't interesting unless there are naked girls on screen, even though he's supposed to be more like Frank Underwood.🙂

Richard Wilson4 said:True, though I'm more of a series guy myself. Still, I bet way more people gravitate toward movies—especially folks who don't have the attention span for long shows.

I get that. But then again, I've always been more about the main course—just diving straight into the meat of things—rather than sitting through an appetizer, then a starter, then a three-course dessert sequence, and all that extra fluff...😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Then I’ll probably spend the next five episodes wondering why I even bother watching this garbage.

Let's be real here. When we talk about actual masterpieces, we're talking about The Sopranos, Oz, or Boardwalk Empire. Not The Walking Dead, which is just a total scam and a cheap little drama, and definitely not Game of Thrones, which is nothing more than shallow, soft porn.

Game of Thrones is shallow? Softcore porn? 🤦

Jeremy Cruz98 said:Game of Thrones is shallow? Softcore porn? 🤦

Shallow trash—pure garbage 😁 is what I mean, if that's any clearer.

wiredraven82 said:

Bradley Wood43 As follows:
I see the debate over soap operas has officially kicked off around here... so let's actually define what makes a series a "soap opera." And no—I’m not talking about those mindless, endless daytime dramas meant for bored retirees or people looking to zone out while doing chores. We're talking about something with actual substance.

Listen, just because you throw in a few flashes of insight regarding a specific individual doesn't make a series a masterpiece—it certainly doesn't turn it into some high-brow soap opera. I get what you're driving at—you think that by centering an episode around one of the main characters to "showcase" their psyche or add a layer of depth—as if that sudden peek behind the curtain is some revolutionary storytelling move—that you've suddenly elevated the material. It’s a common misconception. Diving deep into a character's motivations isn't a shortcut to quality; it's just basic character development, and when it's done poorly, it feels forced and hollow.

But seriously—if that kind of behavior becomes the standard for an individual... man, just... non, god damn, stop. 😁 It’s happening almost non-stop lately—and I’m not just talking about that one specific character. It eventually bleeds into the rest of the cast, too. They start centering entire episodes around these central premises or debates that, quite frankly, my friends and I wouldn't have even given a second thought to back when we were teenagers.

To be clear—when I used the term "soapmaker," I wasn't actually referring to someone who manufactures legitimate bars of soap. 😁 Look, you already know how this goes... 🙂

Take *Battlestar Galactica*, for example—you had Baltar, and honestly, I lost count of how many episodes were dedicated solely to him. It was all centered around his specific personality traits. Look, I’ll be the first to admit it: the guy is a complete mess, a total wreck, yet somehow he’s a genius. I don't necessarily care for his character—honestly, just move the plot along already—but eventually, the show branched out to the rest of the cast. Still, there were seasons where it felt like nearly every single episode was just an endless loop of character studies—just constant, nonstop deep dives into their psyches and those tedious, soap-opera style conversations happening on the ship.

I honestly think I must have been heatstroked while I was watching Battlestar Galactica—specifically that sequence where they hit the Pegasus, right before some damn hurricane finally tore through their precious little Parlor inside the ship.

There’s this specific trope in television—let's call it the "Soap Opera Element"—where a show decides to just spin its wheels and stay stuck in one place. It becomes incredibly frustrating when the core concept itself is supposed to be about constant evolution or survival—take *The Walking Dead*, for instance. If you’ve followed that series, you know exactly the stretch I’m talking about. Honestly, there was a point where I almost walked away from *The Walking Dead* entirely because I just couldn't stomach it anymore. For an entire fucking season, it felt like the actual zombies had vanished from the face of the earth. Instead of any meaningful progression, we were forced to sit through endless, repetitive filler centered entirely around the characters' "personalities" and their petty little social hierarchies. It was just people posturing and circling each other for an entire season without any real momentum. It’s exhausting. 🤣

And what’s truly infuriating about the whole mess—what really grates on my nerves—is that we aren't even being fooled. We all know exactly why they’re pulling this stunt. It’s nothing more than a transparent attempt to hit a specific episode count for the season or satisfy some arbitrary production quota, but frankly, I’m not buying it. It's lazy, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Look, I’m not suggesting that a series shouldn't have an occasional "monster of the week" episode here or there—I mean, even Star Trek: The Next Generation did that from time to time to keep things moving. But when that formula starts eating up half a season, or worse, becomes the entire skeletal structure of the show—just look at Battlestar Galactica—then we have a serious problem. 🙄Look, at the end of the day—and that’s just my take on things—that kind of stuff isn't for me. I'm not out here looking for a consensus or begging anyone to see things from my perspective. That's just how I feel. 🙂

Bradley Wood43 said:Hmm, I feel like what you’re saying could apply to pretty much any series out there. Personally, I don't see how deep characterization is a bad thing, and honestly, having that extra layer in Battlestar Galactica—like what you mentioned—wasn't a bad thing at all. Sure, there were a few episodes where they really overdid it 🤦, but it stayed within tolerable limits...

Regarding The Walking Dead 😬, I'm with you on that... they absolutely suffocated us in the second season. They leaned way too hard into the interpersonal drama—who likes whom, who's changed, who's siding with who and why... it got tedious, but hey, if the show was just about "let's go kill zombies, every single episode, en masse," we would have burned out on it immediately...

It just doesn’t work that way—take The Twilight Zone (the original, obviously) for example. Look, we all know how The Twilight Zone operates; every single episode stands entirely on its own. But that is exactly why your logic fails here. 😁

The same goes for The Sopranos. Like I mentioned before, the show just... flowed. It didn't latch onto one specific character and incessantly ramble about them; instead, it unfolded "on the fly," so to speak. You gradually grasp who people are and what they represent. Of course, they centered everything around Tony Soprano since he's the lead, but there was never any of that "brainwashing" nonsense.

The moment Richie Aprile got out of prison, I understood his entire deal within two minutes. 🤣
Just an example.

You can't apply this to The X-Files either. In The X-Files, it was only at the end of the seasons that the actual skeletal framework of the story would emerge—which, by the way, was excellent and definitely wasn't some soap opera drivel. That skeleton was basically the Cigarette Smoking Man and his crew against Mulder and Scully; in the meantime, Mulder and Scully were busy resolving individual paranormal cases.

Sure, okay, there were a few episodes that felt a bit like a soap opera, but truly, very rarely... maybe one per season if you're being generous.

Do you remember when they did that one episode specifically focusing on the Cigarette Smoking Man in The X-Files? The way they revealed just a sliver of who he actually was—that was masterful.

And so on... there are plenty of other series, of course, that don't fall into this "soap opera" trap that drags on for an entire season (or two), and sometimes it serves as the backbone for the whole series—like Battlestar Galactica. 🙄

I have no desire to define anything. Nothing is linear; everything varies from one film to the next. Whether someone decides to seek legal protection or not is entirely their own business.
Of course we are talking about art, but it happens that an artist sues another artist, much like the case involving Akira Kurosawa.

You wrote a definition of plagiarism that implies Sergio Leone isn't an artist, but just a thief.
Now, suddenly, you don't remember what you said?

I don't have a tactic, I'm not dodging anything, and nobody is catching me out. I write about movies and series based on how I experienced them; I don't rely on what the "majority" thinks.

Maybe you don't have a tactic because you simply don't know what you're writing about. That is certainly possible.

Definitions don't exist for me, and your "whether they've seen it or not" argument can only be made by someone who isn't actually a cinephile.
Your "world-renowned" criteria mean nothing to me; I don't think in those terms. Quality is the only metric, not "fame." I am not a judge, nor do I care if someone decides to sue someone else, but when I see someone using someone else's content, my opinion of them changes.

The point is, you talk way too much, and you don't need to reply to my posts (you don't even have to read them; there's an ignore option).

You fail to distinguish between art and the law, so talking to you is a waste of breath.

You have the ignore option for my posts, too.

shadowangler50 said:

I have no desire to define anything. Nothing is linear; everything varies from one film to the next. Whether someone decides to seek legal protection or not is entirely their own business.
Of course we are talking about art, but it happens that an artist sues another artist, much like the case involving Akira Kurosawa.

You wrote a definition of plagiarism that implies Sergio Leone isn't an artist, but just a thief.
Now, suddenly, you don't remember what you said?

I don't have a tactic, I'm not dodging anything, and nobody is catching me out. I write about movies and series based on how I experienced them; I don't rely on what the "majority" thinks.

Maybe you don't have a tactic because you simply don't know what you're writing about. That is certainly possible.

Definitions don't exist for me, and your "whether they've seen it or not" argument can only be made by someone who isn't actually a cinephile.
Your "world-renowned" criteria mean nothing to me; I don't think in those terms. Quality is the only metric, not "fame." I am not a judge, nor do I care if someone decides to sue someone else, but when I see someone using someone else's content, my opinion of them changes.

The point is, you talk way too much, and you don't need to reply to my posts (you don't even have to read them; there's an ignore option).

You fail to distinguish between art and the law, so talking to you is a waste of breath.

You have the ignore option for my posts, too.

I never claimed to have some grand definition, nor would I ever try to define what makes a movie or a show "work." Every single project plays by its own rules, doesn't it?

shadowangler50 said:

I have no desire to define anything. Nothing is linear; everything varies from one film to the next. Whether someone decides to seek legal protection or not is entirely their own business.
Of course we are talking about art, but it happens that an artist sues another artist, much like the case involving Akira Kurosawa.

You wrote a definition of plagiarism that implies Sergio Leone isn't an artist, but just a thief.
Now, suddenly, you don't remember what you said?

I don't have a tactic, I'm not dodging anything, and nobody is catching me out. I write about movies and series based on how I experienced them; I don't rely on what the "majority" thinks.

Maybe you don't have a tactic because you simply don't know what you're writing about. That is certainly possible.

Definitions don't exist for me, and your "whether they've seen it or not" argument can only be made by someone who isn't actually a cinephile.
Your "world-renowned" criteria mean nothing to me; I don't think in those terms. Quality is the only metric, not "fame." I am not a judge, nor do I care if someone decides to sue someone else, but when I see someone using someone else's content, my opinion of them changes.

The point is, you talk way too much, and you don't need to reply to my posts (you don't even have to read them; there's an ignore option).

You fail to distinguish between art and the law, so talking to you is a waste of breath.

You have the ignore option for my posts, too.

Maybe you don't even know what you're talking about, and honestly? That's fine. Who actually cares?

shadowangler50 said:

I have no desire to define anything. Nothing is linear; everything varies from one film to the next. Whether someone decides to seek legal protection or not is entirely their own business.
Of course we are talking about art, but it happens that an artist sues another artist, much like the case involving Akira Kurosawa.

You wrote a definition of plagiarism that implies Sergio Leone isn't an artist, but just a thief.
Now, suddenly, you don't remember what you said?

I don't have a tactic, I'm not dodging anything, and nobody is catching me out. I write about movies and series based on how I experienced them; I don't rely on what the "majority" thinks.

Maybe you don't have a tactic because you simply don't know what you're writing about. That is certainly possible.

Definitions don't exist for me, and your "whether they've seen it or not" argument can only be made by someone who isn't actually a cinephile.
Your "world-renowned" criteria mean nothing to me; I don't think in those terms. Quality is the only metric, not "fame." I am not a judge, nor do I care if someone decides to sue someone else, but when I see someone using someone else's content, my opinion of them changes.

The point is, you talk way too much, and you don't need to reply to my posts (you don't even have to read them; there's an ignore option).

You fail to distinguish between art and the law, so talking to you is a waste of breath.

You have the ignore option for my posts, too.

So you think quality is just a popularity contest? Like if a show isn't a global phenomenon, it's automatically trash?
It’s not always the case—half the time, a hyped-up project just turns out to be total shit. Why does everyone fall for the hype?

I don't bother with ignore lists. Why would I? I like to read everything and watch just about everything.

I never provided a definition, nor would I ever attempt to define a film or series. Every single production has its own set of rules.

Theft is theft. For a remake, the rights were legally purchased and the contract was signed in stone.
Did you actually write this, or is it some clone of yours?
Then you turn around and claim not every theft counts as stealing.

Maybe you don't even know what you're responding to, which is entirely possible. But who cares...

We clearly agree to disagree.

To you, quality is defined by "fame"—if a series is a global hit, it must be good.
That isn't always true; plenty of highly developed works end up being total garbage.

I haven't ignored anyone. I enjoy reading everything and watching almost everything.

Here is a textbook example of how you twist my words.
If I say True Detective is a world-famous series and will face a lawsuit if it turns out to be stolen, you claim I said it was "good." I am discussing the legal component, yet you frame it as an artistic one. You fail to grasp the nuances.

And you persist in insisting that I’m talking about viewership quality, when for the hundredth time, I am stating that these series were rated as high quality by both audiences and critics, and are thus recognized as such.
I am talking about one thing, you are talking about another. Do I need to draw you a diagram?

You really should have included a poll.
Personally, I find myself far more drawn to films than to television series.
In my entire life, I’ve managed to sit through maybe five or six series, and even then, I doubt I’ve ever finished every single episode.
Back when I was a kid, I could still stomach watching The Godfather or The X-Files. More recently, I attempted The Walking Dead because the graphic novel was actually quite decent, though I only managed to endure until the third season. Some people enjoy nothing more than settling in to watch one specific thing from start to finish. To properly articulate why I prefer movies over series, I would essentially need to write an entire essay, but to put it briefly: they aren't for everyone, and in my estimation, series are arguably inferior to almost any other form of literary expression.