Movies vs. Television
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- Website: www.deepfocuslens.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/deepfocuslens...
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ครูอึ้ง กรรมการอึ้ง ฮ่าๆ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qeBTuMJs4t0/mqdefault.jpg)
I find that first topic about tv vs film rather interesting, ofc one cannot deny that a tv series simply has more time to develop characters, tell more complex stories specifically in regards to their plot (GoT was a good example), with that being said i think the beauty of film is that it has to be concise, every moment and scene is searching for the most powerful version of itself and there typically is no time to be wasted on repetition. Whereas even in some of the greats of tv, i think they fall very easily into a sort of soap style, with repetition and moments one could even call filler. Structurally a tv series needs some sort of arc for every episode, a story within a story, and while that can be said about great scenes as well to a degree, there still is a difference in how it feels, at least i think so.
Ofc this is mostly in regards to works which might not fall into current hollywood mainstream, but i really think the nature of film and the limitations it has timewise isn't just a weakness, it's a great strength when everything comes together.
Agreed. It really depends on the type of story you' re telling. To me, Saying that films have less merit than tv series is like saying that short stories and novellas are somehow inferior to novels. Not evertthing has to be a long running story arc with multi-layered character development (which i'd argue, it also tends to fall on the same repetitive formulas that hollywood does), those just happen to be more profitable because they force you to keep coming back to see how everything turns out, instead of giving it all on one sitting. Anyone who says that movies like Bergman's Persona, Taxi Driver, 2001 a Space Odyssey or Bonello's Nocturama would be better of as tv series is crazy.
The audio on your videos is a lot better now that you're using a microphone.
I can say I'm a far more avid film viewer than I am a TV viewer. It mostly comes down to a time factor for me, personally. This is why whenever I do watch a show I wait for it to end and then spend days, weeks, or months binge-watching as opposed to spending years of my life watching as it's on air.
But, structurally speaking, yes, you're going to get more depth and development in TV by sheer virtue of the fact that's it's longer and had more time. But this is why I appreciate good filmmaking. When it can hit the notes it needs to, it's a more impressive feat to me because of the conciseness of film structure. Yes, Hollywood sucks these days; that should go without saying. But this is by no means a global norm. There's great filmmaking and storytelling happening in films all over the world.
Great video, Maggie. I love your work. Keep it up.
TV series are basically the by the word Victorian novel of the age. They follow commercial, not narrative logic. In other words, as long as they make money they go on. When they stop making money, they get "resolved" abruptly.
There is just one point that is the golden age of tv has 15-17 gr8 shows like breaking bad , better call Saul,the wire, Sopranos,Deadwood ,mad men and some other but we also do have 17 gr8 movies to the least made every yr ..if u want to compare the tvs good writings to entire Hollywood slate then it's unfair comparison
Consistently consice and interesting! Always look forward to your uploads!
I really liked that first question/hot take... I LOVE a great 1.40 movie with a good start-middle-and-finish with a great story to engage in, you watch it and you're hopefully WOW'ed and you move on. But a series or miniseries indeed has its strengths with more time to get to know the characters and live inside the plot a bit more. It's a huge general comparison but I love the thoughts you evoked with that question
Won’t commit six to 13 hours to a tv show just to be let down by a shit finale. Will easily commit to 2 hours for a film with a lackluster finale
1:55 On serializations of long books, it seems very obvious at first that the book would lend itself to serialization because the author very obviously did not write it to be read in one three-hour sitting. However the reminders the author writes in to reset the readers context for the subsequent section are probably very hard to film as part of a serialization because they require something that doesn't have any associated imagery to affect that context switch.
South Park Bigger, Longer and Uncut is one of my favorite musical movies of all time.
So funny movie from start to end.
Great video Maggie and take care and stay safe 👍.
If I made films, TV shows, and miniseries.
Films would run between 2 and 4 hours. Films running around the 3 hour mark and over will have an intermission.
TV shows would have at least 3 seasons. Seasons would be around 10 to 13 episodes, and episodes would run around 60 to 80 minutes. A finale would usually last 2 hours or more.
Miniseries would run between 300 and 900 minutes (if not more).
Remember the 70's when great films like Duel , Bad Ronald & The Night Stalker were made for 📺 ?
Both mediums have their strengths and weaknesses, but overall, I still think film is better. The storytelling in cinema tends to be far more coherent. Most movies, to one degree or another, follow the three act structure. They have a beginning, middle, and end. TV shows, however, are usually designed to go on for as long as possible. They are stuck in the second act, making the storytelling a lot sloppier. This is one of the reasons why most series finales are disappointing. Granted, there’s deeper characterization in television. You tend to care more about the characters, but the storytelling is almost always less concise.
Unless you're talking about mini-series, where you can get the best of both worlds: deep characterization and concise storytelling. But like you said, I think there's something special about getting to experience a whole story in just two hours and one sitting.
@@tomasmaniago5832 In a theater no less.
Regarding the short length of feature films, that was why "film serials" were made. Before television existed, people already realized the need for long-form storytelling on film. Film serials have been made since the 1910s. I recent watched Fantômas, the 1913-14 French serial that spans 5 episodes in 6 hours, and it still holds up pretty well.
So many cable network TV shows that have great premises tend to get stretched out to too many seasons and it’s infuriating. I think The Good Place would’ve been amazing as a miniseries but it gets bogged down in too many character arcs over each season
Walking dead in a nutshell
These days I find tv shows grip me more. Generally speaking though, not all stories need 10+ hours to be told. There does seem to be more creative freedom with tv than film at least in the mainstream.
TV is awesome ... some of my favorites are Northern Exposure, Twillight Zone, SNL, The Carol Burnett Show, and Looney Tunes . This is a great discussion topic ! ... almost forgot .... Seinfeld.
Eggers>Aster, although I'm pretty damn thrilled they're both out there making movies...
I prefer television when it comes to writing characters and their character development. I prefer tv shows in general. But movies do have it better when it comes to how they are shot
All the televison shows I like always get cancelled, so I gave up on regular TV altogether. I just watch old shows if I crave televison that much.
Orson Welles had issues with the score of the Third Man.
musical repetition in cinema is tricky line to toe. Nomadland had a nice minimalist soundscape that seemed to add instrumentation and complexity as it progressed until it insisted on returning to that one single theme. It made the ending feel cloying when it could have been devastatingly empty left without. Bullet in the Head's sounds like it was performed in one take on a cheap synthesizer preset often heard in Cannon Group films, but the way it subverts the context of the original sentimental theme by the end is deserved and almost operatic.
I'm writing a screenplay and a tv series trust me I know. I have no kids and no boyfriend but I find myself living my characters life more than my own life. TV writing I have no time for family time.
Would love to know some of your favorite American rom-coms from the 30's & 40's....for me The Philadelphia Story, His Girl Friday & Bringing Up Baby are perfect examples of rom-coms done just right. Obviously it helps to have great actors like Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart & Rosalind Russell, but the dialogue was just so wonderfully written too.
You have excellent taste. All of those are wonderful. Especially His Girl Friday.
@@deepfocuslens Couldn't agree more re: His Girl Friday. My 16 year old daughter just watched it & she loved Rosalind Russell...she goes: "Hildy's a badass" :)
@@jeremyp.6883 Your daughter is lucky to be watching the classics so young!
@@deepfocuslens We watched Philadelphia Story tonight, & she loved the Hepburn/Grant/Stewart interplay, but was furious about the Seth Lord character blaming Tracey for his philandering because she "wasn't supportive enough of a daughter" or some b.s. And then she ends up apologizing to him at the end!! Just infuriating. Anyway, she gave it a B grade & His Girl Friday an A. :)
I've always wanted Warner Bros to lose the copyright to the Harry Potter books, then the BBC or whoever in England could make a series of miniseries on TV to adapt the books and do them justice, which the movie series clearly did not do. I also think of the difference between movies and TV in the old cops and robbers genre. In TV series, the good guy catches the bad guy, in a movie the good guy kills the bad guy, every time.
IMO: film length doesn't impede story-telling at all.The problem is imposed story-beat plot structures which have gained prominence since books like Save the Cat. This has led to repetitive structuring and ordering which crowds out organic character development. One example I'll give is the opening to Scott's Hannibal, where Clarice risks her own life to save a child. This is literally the first scene and sequence and only exists as a literal 'save the cat' moment, rather than create suspense over whether Clarice might die it exists to evoke character audience identification. But its clumsiness fails at that and so diminishes her fall from grace later on. It's not a good film regardless, but this is just one example of many. When you compare this to older films, say Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, you see how badly these forced beat-sheet contort the two hour format into stale and contrived story-telling.
Also there are some seriously long movies 🍻
The last great musical in my opinion is Chicago. La la land was great but even though it has a few numbers I don’t really see it as a musical for some reason
Tenacious D In The Pick Of Destiny 🙂
Movies are better because they are more epic and a movie takes a least a year to make, but with a tv show you have no time for a personal life. If you got kids or a husband you want have time for them you will find yourself locked in a room writing, writing and writing those characters life and it can last until you die. William J Bell created Young & the restless he died in 2005 I think and the show is still going.
10:41 okay that i do agree with you the mom from the original is unbelievable she is the one superior performance imo but I still prefer the remake 😅
Well, tv series and mini series have been around for decades, it’s not a concept invented by streaming platforms. And yes, in a way they have the advantage of being able to develop the characters more and to add more details to a story. A lot of Stephen Kings are perfectly comprised in mini series in the past: Salem’s Lot (directed by Tobe Hooper, in 1969), The Storm of The Century (1999). But cinema and cinematic experience cannot be replaced, no matter how big your TV is. Some people are insisting on “the death of theaters” because of this pandemic. It’s not gonna happen. Eventually moviegoers will return to the theaters and TV lovers will watch the movies at home as it has always being. Moviegoers like me will always prefer theaters for the same reason the Diablo players got pissed off when the game developers changed the game from PC to mobile, because “everybody loves smartphones, right?”.
I saw your videos you posted mostly regarding movies review than why you named your channel name 'deepfocuslens' bcoz this indicates like motivational videos channel.
it's a reference to a cinematic technique pioneered by Greg Tolland where the camera keeps all elements in sharp focus.
@@funoolesbian4225 Or to Orson Welles in Citizen Kane.
@@stanleyrogouski to-may-to, to-mah-to
@@funoolesbian4225 I like your point of view🙏🙏
Sopranos review?
🔥🤧
TV is more of a "mosaic" projected onto you. Film is more "art" that you observe. TV makes us more involved. Film does not.
lmao you should totally review call me by your name just for shits and giggles
I tend to prefer television because it has greater story potential and it’s more consistent. I can also watch 20 minutes of the story or 2 hours depending on how I feel. With movies, the range of quality varies way more and you’re stuck watching them for like 2 hours. But I tend to like my favorite movies more than my favorite shows. I just feel like finding gems in movies is harder for some reason.
I can help you out if you want 🍻
@@mabusestestament if you got suggestions then I’ll take em. Just for reference, a few of my all time favorite movies are Sling Blade, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Cool Hand Luke, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Life of Pi, Shawshank Redemption, and The Pianist.
Hi there. I would like to comment on movies vs television and your comments on romcoms.
As you say, television has been superior overall for the last 20 years or so due to the quality of the writing and acting talent working in the medium. But comparing the two media is impossible because, as you say, both have their strengths. With movies, any criticism of their weaknesses compared with television is unfair because of their differences. With movies, running time demands that you develop some storylines or characters more than others and part of the art is being able to do that in a coherent, satisfying manner over 90-120 minutes. In fact, from the '90s onwards, films have become unnecessarily long due to the fact (perhaps influenced by television) that they try to say or cover too much and they frequently outstay their welcome. Saving Private Ryan and Inception come to mind as movies that should have been 2 hours long rather than 3 hours and 2 and a half hours respectively.
On romcoms, I am surprised that you say all the great romantic comedies were in the 1930s and 1940s (presumably you are referring to Capra, Ernst Lubitsch, Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn comedies, Preston Sturges). Maybe it was a momentary oversight but, surely Roman Holiday, Some Like It Hot and The Apartment would rank as great romantic comedies? And also, the classic Hays Code era meant that romantic comedies relied more on witty dialogue and repartee which was great but the genre itself would go through changes after the classic era ended when pure romanticism has become less fashionable and audiences demanded more innovation. For what its worth, I would cite Same Time Next Year (1978), The Heartbreak Kid (1972) and When Harry Met Sally (1989) as great examples of more modern romantic comedies in the classic vein. There have been many great indie romantic comedies (Something Wild - 1986 / Trust - 1990 / Singles 1993 / Simple Men 1992) and more recently Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - 2004 / Sideways 2004 / Up In the Air 2009. Although mainstream romantic comedies have become unbearably formulaic over the last 4 0years or so, there have been some notable ones, though not very many - Annie Hall 1977 / Hannah and Her Sisters 1986 / Purple Rose of Cairo 1985 / Four Weddings And A Funeral 1994 / Shakespeare in Love 1998 / Groundhog Day 1993). In the last ten years, I can only think of Bridesmaids 2011 as being anywhere close to a great romantic comedy.
We might even go so far as to say that romantic comedies is a pretty tired genre in this cynical age we live in. The term romcoms itself suggests a revert-to-formula approach. We have to admit, though, that the comedies of the classic era were of a particular style suited to that era and would not fit into the modern era of changing sexual politics where marriage is not seen as a relevant or satisfying conclusion and other conventions of the classic romantic comedy have to be combined with other styles to remain fresh. I would say that the tradition of romantic comedies that started with the indie comedies of the late 80s and early 90s (Trust, Singles, Pump Up The Volume) has endured as a relevant cinematic form parallel to the romantic comedy style developed in the classic era.
The 10 best romantic comedies of all time for me (as opposed to my favourites) would be
1 GROUNDHOG DAY 1993
2 SOME LIKE IT HOT 1959
3 MR DEEDS GOES TO TOWN 1936
4 ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND 2004
5 THE GRADUATE 1967
6 CHUNGKING EXPRESS 1994
7 BEING JOHN MALKOVICH 1999
8 SIDEWAYS 2004
9 SOMETHING WILD 1986
10 BRINGING UP BABY 1938
11 HANNAH AND HER SISTERS 1986
12 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT 1934
13 TOOTSIE 1983
14 SINGLES 1993
15 HIS GIRL FRIDAY 1940
16 GREGORY'S GIRL 1981
17 WHEN HARRY MET SALLY 1989
18 ANNIE HALL 1977
19 TRUST 1990
20 FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL 1994
I forgot to mention from the last decade Silver Linings Playbook 2012. Special mention should also go to Lost in Translation 2003 and earlier, from 1971, Carnal Knowledge
Maggie I suspect that we have left the 21st Century Golden Age of television. Most of the best shows were from the early aughts to the mid-teens. Then you have the unevenness of shows like Game Of Thrones etc. And what is particularly disheartening are the new rules about mandatory diversity casting and ideological plot lines, which is really dragging down the newer series. For every Chernobyl, a true masterwork, you'll get 20 or 30 shows with actors aged 18 to 35 who have to hit certain points by some sort of backdoor cinema cabal of woke plottage.
Yeah haha as soon as I said it in the video, in my head I was like "2009 called, they need their phrase back"
@@deepfocuslens Very good. They need it. Speaking of which it might be interesting to hear your thoughts on the Golden Age of TV, unless I've missed that.
You cannot do CMBYN like that * sob *
Really disagree with you on Call Me By Your Name, but sometimes there's just certain things that don't do it for you. Personally for me I don't think the film is perfect, I think Timothee and Armie had plenty of chemistry but their relationship never felt "special" as implied by the end, otherwise I think it's excellent. I love Guadagnino's style and I don't think it's pretentious in the slightest, neither do I think it's boring at all. It's not a movie that I get intensely emotional about like others but it's good comfort movie with plenty of personality in it's craft.
Yeah, art is subjective. This was one of the few films that touched my soul and one of the few to make me cry in a long time. I did think Hammer fell a little short in his performance, but not fatally. If you've seen Maurice (1987), also written by James Ivory, or any films by Merchant-Ivory, you will discover that his films are more about the setting, mood, pacing, and small moments. CMBYT is not heavy on story, character arc, plot twists, cliffhangers, multiple storylines, etc; it reminds me of films like "Summer of 42", "Tender Mercies" or "Man in the Moon" (the 1991 version, not Jim Carey). It's merely a snapshot of a moment in time. Films like this either move you or they don't. I don't think you can talk somebody into feeling something that just doesn't resonate with them. The best art is divisive.
@@whineycracker1976 What’s your thought’s on Guadagnino’s other projects?
Yeah it's weird, I had a very similar arguably inappropriate age gap same sex romance and although it didn't take place in anything near the dripping opulent wealth on display in CMBYN I found it extremely relatable and wistful. I also loved I Am Love and Suspiria though so my tastes might be suspect...
@@euchrideucr0w I looove Guadagnino's other films, suspiria rules!
Ooh can we get a video on americanized remakes of films strictly remade to be americanized like Ring vs Ringu, Death at a Funeral, etc. I remember watching the original Death at a Funeral after the U.S remake, and thinking it was far more hilarious than the Chris Rock movie
Could you just title these “Reading Comments” instead of making it seem like you are doing a topic video
I'll watch a flick at night then I'm done. T.v. shows are shorter but you can easily find yourself binging.
Sweeney Todd is Oldboy for the Twilight fandom
Filmmaking is so much more than storytelling which is why that whole "dated" argument is extremely triggering. You can't look at something like Long Days Journey Into the Night and say film is somehow dated, though I'm relieved the comment was written just in order to generate discussion.
Why does this have 12 views?
These always go out to Patrons first.
@@deepfocuslens ahhh
Movies are better than TV because I don't feel the need to see 4 hours of Luke Skywalker working on farm equipment before he meets Obi Won. Asking audiences to watch your show for like 100 hours before finishing is just asking way too much. Even War and freaking Peace is only 1400 pages and can be read in a not totally insane amount of time; Oh ya, I can skim the bullshit out of any novel I read as well. The fact that people are actually willing to watch dozens of hours of TV just to get through one damn show says a lot about the binge watching culture that we accept as normal.
Movies.
Yes! The Sopranos is the best tv series ever made.
you want see a great movie rumble fish matt dillon
I disagree. Traditional film format requires talent to convey max information in a shorter amount of time.. unless designed for tv.
Television doesn't give u a cinematic tradition in regards to how scenes are cut the way Edgar Wright might cut... or how Tarantino does a well timed fade to black.
Television has no style or signature the way auteurs showcase in film. Scenes just cut to scenes, great writing or not.
There have been many great films but there has never been a great TV series. This should tell you something.
I likey her
Movies >>>> TV Shows
I definitely agree with the commenter on Funny Games U.S. being the superior version and Robert Eggers is way better than Ari Aster in my opinion
it,s not due to poor writing. feature films don,t have enough time to explore back stories
Why does your video sound and loom like they are from 1990s?
She's using a microphone now.
“I don’t care.”
Music to my fucking ears.
Damn your beautiful
unfollowed for talking SMACK about call me by your name 😡