Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

shadowangler50 said:Why are TV series dominating movies right now?

The answer is simple: they're just better.

And why are they better? Because they actually bother with a plot. Movies have become nothing more than a bloated mess of CGI and recycled storylines that we've all seen a thousand times before. Honestly, the only people finding that stuff engaging are kids under 15 who haven't seen enough cinema to know any better.
Sure, every once in a while a film comes along that feels like a breath of fresh air compared to today's Hollywood standards, but those are rare exceptions that only prove the rule.

Then you have international films from outside the US that focus on storytelling, but they run into a reality problem. Why do people watch movies and shows in the first place? For entertainment. Most people aren't looking to sit through a heavy drama about domestic violence or environmental crises; they deal with enough of that in real life. They want to unwind and escape reality, not dive deeper into it.

Series have rightfully seized the throne from movies. It’s no wonder everyone calls this the golden age of television.

Is it really anyone's fault you can't pick a decent movie?

Carl Hill53 said:To be more precise—in *good* movies. I mean, bad ones just feel like an absolute chore to sit through, and I honestly get zero enjoyment out of them. Unfortunately, there seem to be way more of those than the good stuff.

It's the exact same story with TV series.

Carl Hill53 said:Quote: shadow dancer

bluenomad2, I am asking you—one more time—to stop addressing the rest of us on this forum like you’re some kind of omniscient deity who’s seen it all and swallowed every ounce of wisdom on the planet. Seriously, just knock it off. If you keep acting like you have all the answers and talking down to everyone else, I might actually have to step in and look into some sanctions regarding your forum identity. Enough already.

Of course the series are being filmed—and will continue to be filmed—parallel to the movie. It’s just how the production works. Also, if I’m being honest, I highly doubt you’ve even seen one percent of what’s actually been shot, yet here you are, acting like some kind of ultimate authority and trying to lecture everyone else with your endless, misplaced expertise.

Let’s face it—we are living in an era where the sheer volume of television is exploding, but honestly? It feels like we’ve reached this weird breaking point where quantity is finally, desperately trying to catch up to quality. I mean, if you look at the trajectory from just a few years ago leading right up to today, there’s this massive shift happening. We’re seeing more shows than ever before, yet that transition from "just another series" to something truly substantive is becoming such a volatile balancing act. I guess you could say we're witnessing a massive influx of content, but whether that actually translates into better storytelling remains to be seen—it's a messy, complicated evolution, for sure.

Look, would you please just stop talking trash? Seriously. P.S.—Twin Peaks is nothing but pretentious garbage.

Quote: shadow dancer

Absolutely.

Masterpiece. 🙏

Look, bluenomad2, I’m sorry, but I just can't get behind that—series from fifty years ago and what we see today? They aren't even in the same league. It’s not even close, whether you're talking about the direction, the acting, or just the sheer level of quality.

You're flat-out lying.

I gave you an example. Look at The Twilight Zone; almost every single episode features masterclass directing. I only shared one specific episode because I consider it one of the absolute best. You should probably look into how The Twilight Zone is studied in academia—directing is discussed there quite frequently.

Acting? Yours is fine.

Quality? Even better.

You can't go around accusing people unless you actually have solid arguments and evidence to back it up. By your logic, were films directed fifty years ago worse than they are today?

I doubt Hitchcock, Bergman, or Fellini would agree with you.

bluenomad2 said:I gave you an example. Look at The Twilight Zone; almost every single episode features masterclass directing. I only shared one specific episode because I consider it one of the absolute best. You should probably look into how The Twilight Zone is studied in academia—directing is discussed there quite frequently.

Acting? Yours is fine.

Quality? Even better.

You can't go around accusing people unless you actually have solid arguments and evidence to back it up. By your logic, were films directed fifty years ago worse than they are today?

I doubt Hitchcock, Bergman, or Fellini would agree with you.

You know what? You're right. To be perfectly honest, this is the first time I'm even hearing about The Twilight Zone in terms of TV series.

Acting? I can barely name a handful of truly great actors from the fifties and sixties using both hands.

The vast majority were just a bunch of Amateurs.

Quality?

bluenomad2. I won't lie to you. No. Absolutely not.

Carl Hill53 said:Look, bluenomad2, I’m sorry, but I just can't get behind that—series from fifty years ago and what we see today? They aren't even in the same league. It’s not even close, whether you're talking about the direction, the acting, or just the sheer level of quality.

You're flat-out lying.

Alright, Carl, look—it's fine. Today there are plenty of shows with genuinely great acting, and that holds up, but I can't just sit here and watch this go by without stepping in...

Good grief, 🙂 Look, I'll just offer an example using the original Twilight Zone episodes—though I could pull from other series too—but let's take this one, which many consider the greatest show of all time. Let's throw that out there so everyone who disagrees can get worked up (for me, the best are The X-Files and the original Twilight Zone—those two, specifically). I have seen acting in the original Twilight Zone—even from the most minor characters—at such a level of performance that they would put to shame the leads in some of today's most popular and "prestige" shows that everyone seems to be obsessing over... no offense intended.

I mean, take the most minor character in an episode—some guy on a ship's deck who gets maybe three or four minutes of screen time—and I won't even get started on the protagonists.

I think every era has its highs and lows when it comes to television, but glorifying modern shows the way you are doing is just not objective.

And then there's Twin Peaks. See, Twin Peaks is like opera. Why do I say opera? Because you either love it or you hate it; there is no middle ground. I absolutely adore Twin Peaks, yet I despise opera—but I respect it...

Cheers.👍

So, you haven't even heard of the Twilight Zone? Fine. I'll leave it at that.

Your other points were actually solid. Later, 🙂

bluenomad2 said:So, you haven't even heard of the Twilight Zone? Fine. I'll leave it at that.

Your other points were actually solid. Later, 🙂

No, I haven't heard of that series. Should I be embarrassed? Honestly, don't mess with me—give me a break!

TV shows might actually have the edge since they can really dig into the relationships and character dynamics. They’ve got all that extra time to sit with an emotion or let a pivotal moment breathe without rushing into a cliché, which is always such a struggle for movies. Makes making a truly great film a much bigger mountain to climb...

Carl Hill53 said:No, I haven't heard of that series. Should I be embarrassed? Honestly, don't mess with me—give me a break!

It's necessary.

Betty Ross6 said:TV shows might actually have the edge since they can really dig into the relationships and character dynamics. They’ve got all that extra time to sit with an emotion or let a pivotal moment breathe without rushing into a cliché, which is always such a struggle for movies. Makes making a truly great film a much bigger mountain to climb...

Trying to squeeze all that into ninety minutes or two? Only a true pro could pull that off.
And then some geniuses come along, take your movie, and turn it into a total mess of endless sequels. Is that really how it works?😳

James Garcia50 said:It's necessary.

Trying to squeeze all that into ninety minutes or two? Only a true pro could pull that off.
And then some geniuses come along, take your movie, and turn it into a total mess of endless sequels. Is that really how it works?😳

Haha, 🙏

Betty Ross6 said:TV shows might actually have the edge since they can really dig into the relationships and character dynamics. They’ve got all that extra time to sit with an emotion or let a pivotal moment breathe without rushing into a cliché, which is always such a struggle for movies. Makes making a truly great film a much bigger mountain to climb...

Well, you basically answered your own question regarding which medium holds more value. If you manage to pull off everything she mentioned within a single film, but a series has all that extra runtime at its disposal to achieve the same thing, which one comes out ahead? 😁

But I’ll play the parrot and repeat myself one more time: it’s a false equivalence to force a choice between film and television. They are two entirely different universes—let's just let them exist on their own terms.

bluenomad2 said:I have to correct you because that isn't accurate. You still have formulaic shows today, just like you did back then. But just as we have brilliantly directed shows like Boardwalk today, we had them before too. I'll point to the Twilight Zone again; we're talking about the 50s, yet most of the series takes place in the 60s.

If you watch the episode The Eye of the Beholder, you'll see camera angles you won't find in any modern series, not even in Boardwalk. The Eye of the Beholder is a classic, one of the best episodes.

Watch The X-Files, specifically the episodes Jose Chung's enough and triangle. The first is directed in a Rashomon style, while the second is shot like Hitchcockian Rop. Or take the episode Bad Blood; again, that Rashomon style.

Speaking of Hitchcock, he has an excellent series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You'll find top-tier direction in every single episode. And that series is over half a century old.

Do you remember the series homicide: Life on the Street? It's right up there with The Sopranos, featuring excellent direction without any of the usual formulas. So, there were brilliantly directed shows before, but we're mostly talking about the absolute best ones. Just like Boardwalk.

Fair enough, I'll take this post into consideration since I'm not familiar with most of what was mentioned. Maybe I went a bit overboard because I don't know these shows deeply enough—I was kind of generalizing based on the crime dramas I remember from the 90s and early 2000s—but still... I have to give credit to HBO... just like I'm sure millions of people did before me. Both for the content and the overall style.

analogpanther55 said:Look, HBO's shows are in a league of their own when it comes to quality, but let's be honest—they can get pretty tedious, just like most other series out there.
Take The Sopranos, for instance. I absolutely love mob movies and books; if it involves that kind of subject matter, I'm reading it or watching it. So, while The Sopranos is top-tier television for me, there were definitely moments where it felt a bit slow.

Sent from my ST27i with Tapatalk 2

True, The Sopranos definitely had its ups and downs... there were moments where the show felt like it was dragging... but overall, it's a massive plus.

Carl Hill53 said:Haha, 🙏

Look, Carl, I’m not going to say you should be ashamed—mostly because I assumed you were just messing with me when you claimed you'd never even seen or heard of the Twilight Zone.

If you actually meant that, then man... you really should be. 🙂

William Hall93 said:I’m making a bit of a generalization here, but most of my friends in their 20s and 30s seem to live exclusively for series, rarely ever touching a movie.

When they actually do sit down for a movie, it’s always some recent blockbuster, strictly in English, a Hollywood production, and it absolutely has to have over 100,000 votes on IMDb. Heaven forbid they watch some French or Korean film that only has a few thousand votes...

It’s the exact same story with series—it’s either Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and the top 50 shows sorted by popularity, or nothing at all.

What’s the deal here: is it just pure trend-following, a total lack of will to actually dig deeper, or just mindlessly swallowing whatever content is the most popular?

Well, look at what you've got here... nothing but English shows in the replies. Go ask any of the old-school regulars why there isn't a single Korean or French show mentioned...😍

The whole thing boils down to the English language and its massive, overwhelming popularity.

☕

Someone mentioned that Breaking Bad is popular, and honestly, there’s a reason for that. It’s clearly a masterpiece when you consider how many people have become completely obsessed with it.

I’m relatively new to this way of binge-watching series, and I have to say, I’m hooked. I started with Hannibal, moved on to Breaking Bad, and now I’ve found myself deep into Dexter. The character development in these shows is just superior; they really get under your skin in a way most things can't... it's simple as that.

I enjoy good cinema, but let's be real—maybe one out of ten movies actually hits the mark. When you stumble upon a series like this that truly resonates, you suddenly have enough material to sink your teeth into for two months or more.

wiredraven82 said:Well, you basically answered your own question regarding which medium holds more value. If you manage to pull off everything she mentioned within a single film, but a series has all that extra runtime at its disposal to achieve the same thing, which one comes out ahead? 😁

But I’ll play the parrot and repeat myself one more time: it’s a false equivalence to force a choice between film and television. They are two entirely different universes—let's just let them exist on their own terms.

I'm totally with you. I wasn't saying movies are worse, just that because they have such a tight window, they can end up feeling hollow. Nowadays, though, most movies don't even care—they just cram in action and CGI to make a quick buck without a real story, which drives me crazy. With series, if the first few episodes miss the mark, people just move on...

Dexter's okay for a few seasons, but after that, it just turns into some cheesy soap opera...

bluenomad2 said:Quote: shadow dancer

This is exactly what I was talking about on the last thread. That bolded part tells me you don't have the slightest clue how TV eras actually work.

Those golden eras started back in the '50s with the Twilight Zone, moved through the '90s with Twin Peaks, and hit a peak when The Sopranos arrived late in the decade. Each period produced shows that completely revolutionized television.

People are getting it completely wrong. They think we’re living in some unique golden age of television, but that’s a misconception. Golden ages have been popping up every few decades for over half a century now.

The internet works wonders.

They call it the golden age because we've never seen this many high-quality shows packed into a single era. Sure, there were great shows before, but never this many critically acclaimed hits hitting at once.
Second, it's a golden age because, for the first time, these series are actually outperforming the movies being released alongside them. This is their peak, where they've finally seized dominance from film.

Look, I spend my time scouring the internet for something to watch—new or old—and I've reached the conclusion that modern series are generally superior to the older ones. You can judge based on taste, but I'm judging based on facts.

James Garcia50 said:Is it really anyone's fault you can't pick a decent movie?

It's the exact same story with TV series.

Masterpiece. 🙏

Then who's to blame for your bottom-of-the-barrel standards?

Twin Peaks is such a drag—honestly, it’s only iconic because of that killer intro music.

Look, TV shows are just way easier to market, end of story. When you're making a movie, the director doesn't really have room to play around with all those wild tangents or subplots. You’ve gotta explain what happened, how it went down, and why—all within two hours—otherwise, you’re gonna lose the audience fast. Movies have a hard deadline. I guess series are more popular just because the hype builds better; you can feed the fire every single week, whereas with a hit movie, you basically wait until it's finished before you even start promoting it.

The Twilight Zone is probably seventy times better than the stuff people binge nowadays. Or maybe not? Whatever, I’m not watching it. Devil's Printer or The Obsolete Man are plenty good enough "short films" for me, and I'll stick to that illusion. I don't really have the stomach to watch some guy cooking meth in a garage just to take the cash and then deal with the feds breathing down his neck—it's a great premise, sure, but I'm just not ready for it.