Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

James Garcia50 said:Everyone’s out here bragging about hype instead of actual quality.
Everyone keeps bringing up Game of Thrones, yet not a single soul mentions Rectify, which is hands down the best series from the last decade.

Facts. Also Top of the Lake.

I’m dropping in out of nowhere, but I can certainly agree that TV series pull much larger audiences these days than movies do, especially considering how scarce they were from the 60s until recently.
That said, the sheer number of seasons being pumped out today really bothers me. Sure, everyone wants to replicate a hit, but you can't just force it.
The last series I sat down with was Orphan Black, and I thought it was excellent. I was actually quite taken by the second season; honestly, it would have been better if they had simply extended the first season by five episodes and called it a day.
Discussions about films versus series can never truly be reduced to what is objectively superior. However, the truth remains that people used to scramble around their homes back before the era of VCRs just to catch a specific show. As I recall, people weren't nearly as desperate to rush home for movies that, say, finally aired on TV after their theatrical run and couldn't be obtained any other way.
As for the acting, I don't believe actors perform any worse in series. It just strikes me as odd that the heavyweights rarely commit to television. Why? Probably because they find it beneath them. Just imagine Meryl Streep in a series 🙂 whether people liked her or not, there are very few actors capable of portraying such a vast array of characters with the absolute mastery that she possesses.
I must admit, I was also impressed by the lead actress in Orphan Black; she portrayed those clones brilliantly.

Sent fr

That’s just not right. You’ve got Kevin S. and Robin W. in House of Cards, or Glenn Close in season five of Damage (solid show). Or maybe True Detective?

TV is hitting different lately because all the heavy-hitting writers and producers have jumped ship to streaming. Plus, the acting is just top-tier now.

shadowangler50 said:We are discussing why series are more watched or, more accurately, more accepted than movies today. Individually, you can't compare a single series to a single film, but generally speaking, one can conclude which medium provides higher quality content.
You talk about argumentation, yet you haven't provided a single actual argument other than your general opinion that series aren't better than movies right now. Some users have cited specific series, but you haven't cited a single film.
An individual's opinion might be irrelevant, but the consensus of a large group of people forms a perspective that actually carries weight regarding the subject at hand. If a huge number of people share an opinion, that opinion holds significance. Otherwise, I could just call The Godfather a bad movie and justify it by saying I personally hated it. Suddenly, I’d be right and everyone else would be wrong.
The problem with movies is that we haven't seen a true masterpiece shake up cinema in over a decade. There have been good films, sure, but nothing legendary. In contrast, we've seen an unprecedented surge in top-tier series.
If everything is available to us, we choose what to watch, and logically, you pick what is better. It's possible for something to be overrated and not deserve its popularity, but that mostly applies to movies because people watch them regardless of whether they like them since they are short. With series, people keep watching only if they actually enjoy them. If a massive audience watches the same series for five years straight—especially given today's endless supply of options—then that series is undeniably high quality.

No.
The discussion is whether shows *are* more watched than movies, and so far, nobody has provided any actual proof.
Broad generalizations don't work here; you have to look at individual works.

An individual's opinion is the only thing that matters because deciding what to watch is entirely your call. We don't pick movies or shows based on scrolling through forums to see who won an argument; we choose them based on our own aesthetic tastes.

When it comes to art—not politics—consensus holds zero weight or value. You can call a movie bad, godfather, as long as you actually back up your reasoning. No movie or show is going to be good for everyone. Having an argued opinion isn't an insult to the creator or the person you're talking to. When I'm judging a show, your "everyone else" doesn't apply to me; I don't need a consensus for art.

shadowangler50 said:We are discussing why series are more watched or, more accurately, more accepted than movies today. Individually, you can't compare a single series to a single film, but generally speaking, one can conclude which medium provides higher quality content.
You talk about argumentation, yet you haven't provided a single actual argument other than your general opinion that series aren't better than movies right now. Some users have cited specific series, but you haven't cited a single film.
An individual's opinion might be irrelevant, but the consensus of a large group of people forms a perspective that actually carries weight regarding the subject at hand. If a huge number of people share an opinion, that opinion holds significance. Otherwise, I could just call The Godfather a bad movie and justify it by saying I personally hated it. Suddenly, I’d be right and everyone else would be wrong.
The problem with movies is that we haven't seen a true masterpiece shake up cinema in over a decade. There have been good films, sure, but nothing legendary. In contrast, we've seen an unprecedented surge in top-tier series.
If everything is available to us, we choose what to watch, and logically, you pick what is better. It's possible for something to be overrated and not deserve its popularity, but that mostly applies to movies because people watch them regardless of whether they like them since they are short. With series, people keep watching only if they actually enjoy them. If a massive audience watches the same series for five years straight—especially given today's endless supply of options—then that series is undeniably high quality.

There's no such thing as a masterpiece movie or a masterpiece series, and they don't need to "move the needle." Some people like one thing, others like something else; there's no universal metric for quality in film or TV.

If a ton of people follow the same show for years, it probably just means it's a soap opera.

TV shows are pulling ahead because this constant hypertrophy of everything—especially the sheer amount of nonsense—just fits the modern consumerist landscape perfectly. A movie might occasionally let down the crowd looking for mindless thrills, but how could something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Magic, or CSI ever disappoint them? I can just sit here, wolfing down a hot dog, waiting for Buffy to take out a vampire or for a CSI lead to nab a terrorist.

Sure, there are exceptions to the rule on both sides...

TV shows are just too much work. You actually have to pay attention and remember who did what in the last episode or season, right? Plus, half the time they totally blow the second season after nailing the first. A 90-minute movie is the sweet spot—if one sucks, you just move on to the next one. 👍

James Garcia50, you can honestly stop watching a series after the first episode—or whenever you feel like it—but if it's a movie, you *really* ought to sit through the whole thing before you even think about judging it.

We’ve got two different topics running here, and honestly, it wouldn't be a bad idea to just merge them into one...

Carl Hill53 said:James Garcia50, you can honestly stop watching a series after the first episode—or whenever you feel like it—but if it's a movie, you *really* ought to sit through the whole thing before you even think about judging it.

Sure you can, but why would you? Almost every series nails the pilot just to see if they can actually stick the landing or if they're headed for a crash. A movie is just what it is—no second chances, no post-mortem.

James Garcia50 said:Sure you can, but why would you? Almost every series nails the pilot just to see if they can actually stick the landing or if they're headed for a crash. A movie is just what it is—no second chances, no post-mortem.

If you say so, I guess I'll take your word for it. What kind of woman are you even...

while

incredibly irritating.

Carl Hill53 said:If you say so, I guess I'll take your word for it. What kind of woman are you even...

while

incredibly irritating.

When you've got nothing left to say about the actual topic, you just start picking apart how someone else talks.

James Garcia50 said:When you've got nothing left to say about the actual topic, you just start picking apart how someone else talks.

I mean, seriously—what exactly am I supposed to say to your little claim that you "just can't stop watching" after a single episode? What do you want from me? Should I just nod along to such utter nonsense? If that’s your standard, then fine—just admit you're only judging the quality of the show based on your own limited perspective.

Noah Harris50 said:Facts. Also Top of the Lake.

I honestly don't get the hype surrounding that show. People won't shut up about it, but I still can't wrap my head around why everyone thinks it's such a masterpiece. 🤷
It was fine, I guess, but it definitely didn't blow my mind or anything.
I actually thought Rectify was great, though.
I watch a ton of TV—pretty much everything out there. If I had to pick some favorites from the newer stuff, I'd go with Breaking Bad, Southland, Mad Men, and Justified. Then you've got the all-time classics like the Sopranos and The Wire, and honestly, the most underrated show ever is The Shield.

Carl Hill53 said:I mean, seriously—what exactly am I supposed to say to your little claim that you "just can't stop watching" after a single episode? What do you want from me? Should I just nod along to such utter nonsense? If that’s your standard, then fine—just admit you're only judging the quality of the show based on your own limited perspective.

I don't want anything from you.
I'm not taking your advice.
Everything I said stands.

rowdytinker3 said:I honestly don't get the hype surrounding that show. People won't shut up about it, but I still can't wrap my head around why everyone thinks it's such a masterpiece. 🤷
It was fine, I guess, but it definitely didn't blow my mind or anything.
I actually thought Rectify was great, though.
I watch a ton of TV—pretty much everything out there. If I had to pick some favorites from the newer stuff, I'd go with Breaking Bad, Southland, Mad Men, and Justified. Then you've got the all-time classics like the Sopranos and The Wire, and honestly, the most underrated show ever is The Shield.

It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s an interesting watch. It's short, though it drags a bit in places and gets pretty dull toward the end.

James Garcia50 said:Sure you can, but why would you? Almost every series nails the pilot just to see if they can actually stick the landing or if they're headed for a crash. A movie is just what it is—no second chances, no post-mortem.

Why even bother wasting your precious time on pilots? TV series, in my humble opinion, are generally just a massive time sink. It doesn't matter if it's some soap opera, those mindless trashy police procedurals like CSI, or even a "masterpiece" like... well, you know. The plot just drags on and on and on... until it eventually goes nowhere fast.
That's also why I'm not particularly fond of movie franchises—those endless sequels. Sure, there are a few exceptions,
But honestly? I'd much rather curl up with a good book, catch a standalone film, or just grab a beer than waste my life following a TV show—whether it's on HBO, Apple TV+, or FOX.

I’d much rather get lost in a book than binge a show, but I’ll admit there were maybe 6 or 7 series over the last decade or so that actually hit the mark for me.
Think along the lines of HBO classics like

Karen Smith9 said:Why even bother wasting your precious time on pilots? TV series, in my humble opinion, are generally just a massive time sink. It doesn't matter if it's some soap opera, those mindless trashy police procedurals like CSI, or even a "masterpiece" like... well, you know. The plot just drags on and on and on... until it eventually goes nowhere fast.
That's also why I'm not particularly fond of movie franchises—those endless sequels. Sure, there are a few exceptions,
But honestly? I'd much rather curl up with a good book, catch a standalone film, or just grab a beer than waste my life following a TV show—whether it's on HBO, Apple TV+, or FOX.

So you don't actually get film or TV as an art form? You're just looking for a plot that could've been told in an hour?

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

This thread was dead on arrival. How can anyone take the title seriously when there’s zero definition for "everyone" and the OP didn't even bother to back up their own claim?

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

The sample size is way too small to draw any real conclusions from this. You really think that works?
Based on a few random forums and sites, you really think you can conclude that most people are "mostly satisfied" with TV shows while hating on movies?
TV shows and movies just don't get the respect they deserve anymore. Is anyone even watching for the art anymore, or just to kill time? All at once? Just how they like it.Look, every piece of work stands on its own. Why overcomplicate things?

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

Your voice and those random assumptions of yours? They're just a drop in the ocean.
I’m sticking to my guns, and you’re sticking to yours—the only difference is you call it "we."

So you think because you've seen some random people on a couple of forums acting like they speak for everyone, that somehow proves a global shift? You really think those few voices represent the whole world deciding they prefer TV shows over movies now?
Basically, what you're putting out there isn't exactly "the facts."

A lot of people—maybe even you—tend to treat "Hollywood" and "cinema" as if they're the exact same thing. But does that garbage actually mean anything? Movies? Please. Most of them are just recycled garbage anyway. Why even bother? On a global scale.
Hollywood might be washed up (there’s a whole thread on that), but international cinema—from France and Denmark to Japan and South Korea—is hitting harder than ever.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

Nobody is disputing that.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

Critics and audiences don't always see eye to eye; when it comes to the truly great stuff, their opinions are often worlds apart.

Massive ratings don't mean anything.
Look at some old sitcom like *All in the Family*. It had huge numbers, sure, but critics tore it apart while the public treated it like gospel. Where's the "weight" in that?

Noah Harris50 said:So you don't actually get film or TV as an art form? You're just looking for a plot that could've been told in an hour?

😵 What on earth does one have to do with the other? And "dark art" in TV series? Please—there are very few exceptions to that rule. It's just season after season after season because people watch them, which brings in the ratings and the money—it isn't about art... No, no, I don't watch shows just for the plot or some specific setting... and I don't watch movies based on the plot either (good grief)—I watch to see if they're actually good or not... Taylor, you've got the wrong person here.