I feel like movies are just too restrictive in terms of time, whereas TV shows give a story far more room to properly be told. Movies are like the visual equivalent of turning a 1000 page book into a 100 page novella and insisting nothing important has been left out.
Of course, some stories can be told well in 1.5 to 3 hours but for the most part, I think movies are a poor format for storytelling.
I think I can think of at least a thousand films which are worth watching and have very good quality, whereas when it comes to shows I don’t think there are more than a hundred. TV shows found its way into the media market because capitalism needs to needlessly expand the content in order to profit more without caring about actual storytelling needs.
I feel like TV shows offer a greater amount of room for a story to be fleshed out. Movies jam pack content into 1.3 to 3 hours.
In fact, I think your comment perfectly demonstrates my point:
1000 films at an average length of 130 minutes is about 2200 hours worth of viewing time.
100 TV shows at an average length of 42 minutes per episode, 20 episode per season, and 5 seasons per show, works out to be about 7000 hours worth of viewing time.
I think it says something that when it comes to the top 1000 movies and top 100 TV shows, audiences are willing to invest far more time into well written TV shows than well written movies, because more detail and content can be expanded on in a TV series format.
I’m not saying movies are an inherently bad format, I’m just saying they’re a more limited format in terms of how detailed a story can be told. And as such, I believe movies are a more limited medium for storytelling. A book format limited to 100 to 150 pages is inevitably going to have its limitations versus a book format that is limited to 1000+ pages. There’s a reason why books are typically regarded as higher than their movie equivalents by fans who have experienced both mediums.
Also if we’re talking about capitalism… films have and continue to be considerably more profitable in the short and long run than TV shows. If you don’t believe me, I encourage you to look into this. One reason for this is that films tend to better among international audiences compared to TV shows. TV shows tend to be a little more culturally niche in terms of how they’re produced/written, whereas movies typically are about broader themes that require less of a heavy reliance on regional pop culture the way TV shows do.
Translation-wise, it’s far less of a headache to have a single 130 minute movie translated for 15 languages than it is translating 14 hours (average TV season length) of an English TV show to 15 other languages, especially if that translation involves things like pop culture/political references. Censorship is another huge factor that is harder for companies to deal with in TV shows than movies because there’s a lot less moving pieces. There’s a good reason why Marvel focuses so much more on movies than TV shows-- the ROI is considerably higher and the risks are far lower.
I feel like movies are just too restrictive in terms of time, whereas TV shows give a story far more room to properly be told. Movies are like the visual equivalent of turning a 1000 page book into a 100 page novella and insisting nothing important has been left out.
Of course, some stories can be told well in 1.5 to 3 hours but for the most part, I think movies are a poor format for storytelling.
I think I can think of at least a thousand films which are worth watching and have very good quality, whereas when it comes to shows I don’t think there are more than a hundred. TV shows found its way into the media market because capitalism needs to needlessly expand the content in order to profit more without caring about actual storytelling needs.
I feel like TV shows offer a greater amount of room for a story to be fleshed out. Movies jam pack content into 1.3 to 3 hours.
In fact, I think your comment perfectly demonstrates my point:
1000 films at an average length of 130 minutes is about 2200 hours worth of viewing time.
100 TV shows at an average length of 42 minutes per episode, 20 episode per season, and 5 seasons per show, works out to be about 7000 hours worth of viewing time.
I think it says something that when it comes to the top 1000 movies and top 100 TV shows, audiences are willing to invest far more time into well written TV shows than well written movies, because more detail and content can be expanded on in a TV series format.
I’m not saying movies are an inherently bad format, I’m just saying they’re a more limited format in terms of how detailed a story can be told. And as such, I believe movies are a more limited medium for storytelling. A book format limited to 100 to 150 pages is inevitably going to have its limitations versus a book format that is limited to 1000+ pages. There’s a reason why books are typically regarded as higher than their movie equivalents by fans who have experienced both mediums.
Also if we’re talking about capitalism… films have and continue to be considerably more profitable in the short and long run than TV shows. If you don’t believe me, I encourage you to look into this. One reason for this is that films tend to better among international audiences compared to TV shows. TV shows tend to be a little more culturally niche in terms of how they’re produced/written, whereas movies typically are about broader themes that require less of a heavy reliance on regional pop culture the way TV shows do.
Translation-wise, it’s far less of a headache to have a single 130 minute movie translated for 15 languages than it is translating 14 hours (average TV season length) of an English TV show to 15 other languages, especially if that translation involves things like pop culture/political references. Censorship is another huge factor that is harder for companies to deal with in TV shows than movies because there’s a lot less moving pieces. There’s a good reason why Marvel focuses so much more on movies than TV shows-- the ROI is considerably higher and the risks are far lower.