BS: Movies vs Television

Subject: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Songwronger
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 12:01 AM

Most of the readers I know still read novels, and especially novels with recurring protagonists. Over the past few years I've shifted to short stories. I enjoy watching writers wrestle with creating believable worlds in the fewest number of pages possible.

Movies remind me of short stories, and television series remind me of novels. With a movie, you have to fade in, create a world, and fade out after a couple of hours. With a TV show you have SEASONS to do that. Each episode has to be self contained, but you don't really have the pressure to wind things up at the end.

Not that one form of film work is superior to the other, but it seems that movies are more disciplined. I like them better.

But then there's Gilligan's Island. An allegorical masterpiece. Everyman Gilligan set upon each week by the forces of money, science, authority and sex as he has to work through some new moral dilemma. The greatest show to ever appear on the tube, though I've seen clips of one called The Gong Show...

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 12:30 AM

Movies are indeed limited in scope by the time element. I forget who it was who made the point some years ago, that television *ongoing* drama -- soaps, even some sitcoms -- has created a new sort of fictional/dramatic form in which a simulacrum of life can be achieved: eg, a young woman can announce her pregnancy, be seen going thru its stages, and give birth nine months later. Previously a set of compressed expository conventions had been necessary to carry the narrative. A new set of dramatic conventions had to be invented to meet the demands of this new, non-compressed, form of dramatic relation.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: michaelr
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 03:34 AM

GfS, I expected better of you. You ought to know that the soap opera / cliffhanger formats are designed to keep you coming back to watch the commercials.

A great movie creates a story arc in 100 or so minutes, which is the perfect amount of time for a normal person's attention span and bladder capacity.

And you'd have to be a very peculiar sort of lunatic to consider Gilligan's Island a masterpiece in any category. Have you seen The Riches, Weeds, or Breaking Bad? None of them are genius, but a little more challenging.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 05:29 AM

Another factor when considering films is that one can go to a cinema and experience them among many others, all of whom are reacting to the scenes before them. This adds to the tension and excitement, or the humour etc. Alone in front of the TV with a nice cup of tea and the cats doesn't give quite the same stimulus. But I find cinemas ghastly these days; too loud, restless viewers lacking concentration and the screen far too huge. I feel bombarded visually and aurally. Also, the seats don't do my back much good. If we're talking about DVDs, then that's the best option, as one can stop the film from time to time, for reflection, discussion and a quick visit to the loo! But being of the old generation, I think books are best.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Elmore
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 05:44 AM

I refuse to answer on the grounds that this thread was initiated by the King of the Trolls,

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 09:04 AM

I have hearing problems, so I can't deal with movies in a theater - I have to wait until it's out in video so I can see it at home with subtitles. However, some theaters are providing subtitle machines now, so that may change. I have the opposite feeling about movies v. TV programs: movies are the novels, intended to be complete in themselves, while TV shows are more like magazine serials (rare these days).

@Elmore: even broken watches are correct twice a day.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 03:29 PM

That suggests, Elmore, that the person to whom you are alluding would be much better off just posting here as an anonymous Guest, since that would allow him or her to bypass the usual knee-jerk reactions, personal feuds, and bitter prejudices between various individuals that have built up here over a period of years...personal reactions which cause people to judge a statement simply on the basis of WHO is making it, rather than on the actual content of the statement itself.

That's a real problem on this forum, and it does not contribute usefully to having conversations.

It's a problem often in politics too....as people will immediately discount any statement from the party they don't like, the news outlet they don't like, the nation they don't like or the politician they don't like regardless of the content of the statement and regardless of the worth of the statement.

In short, it's prejudice. Unthinking prejudice. Or...as some might call it: bigotry.

Note: I am not Songwronger. I am somebody else. But since you don't necessarily know who I am...you can't necessarily leap to any pre-established position of prejudice you're carrying, and you have probably bothered to read this far already...which makes posting as an anoymous Guest here more agreeable than posting as a member.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM

There's a big distinction between a TV serial, where a narrative is given the room it needs to allow the characters and the events to unfold, and a series which is more a series of short stories with the same characters.

The former is indeed like a novel, and the best examples tend to be based on novels, which are far better served by this treatment than being shoehorned into a movie. Examples that aren't based on novels for example are some of Dennis Potter's work.

The series sort can be pretty good, but they are more like linked short stories.

It's a generalisation, but I think the best movies a more like that really, short stories, but with a bit more elbow room than TV tends to give, even in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Elmore
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 04:19 PM

Thanks Bearded Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Elmore
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 04:21 PM

A troll by any other name is still a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 05:18 PM

The identity, and even the intentions of the person who initiates a thread is completely irrelevant. All threads are common property.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 07:44 PM

Songwronger, this is your best thread yet. I love your analysis. I'm showing it to my boyfriend because we discuss these things. Mthe GM and Eliza ditto.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

Sorry. Common property as we have all witnessed with "thread drift." :-))) and Songwronger, if it's like most of the threads on here, you won't want the credit by the end. If it ever ends that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 07:57 PM

You missed, Elmore. I am not Bearded Bruce either. But then, how can you be sure?

However, it doesn't matter who I am. What I said made a valid point. The point is, this place has become like a small town, full of cliques and feuds, unpleasant gossip, festering grudges, and old enemies.

When one lives in a place like that for long enough, the thought of simply moving somewhere else can eventually become rather attractive.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 12:06 AM

Costa Rica!

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Elmore
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 01:14 AM

Young Harris!

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 03:28 AM

"GfS, I expected better of you. You ought to know that the soap opera / cliffhanger formats are designed to keep you coming back to watch the commercials."

Not necessarily so. In the UK, the most popular soap, 'Eastenders', has run for twenty-eight years on the BBC, which does not broadcast commercials.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:27 AM

Had to look that one up Elmore. Good school, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Elmore
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 09:42 AM

Town's okay. Don't know much about the school. Moved here recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:42 AM

"has run for twenty-eight years on the BBC, which does not broadcast commercials"

Even on the commercial channels lots of people don't watch live anyway. We record most things on hard disk which of course has the facility to jump forward in 2 minute spaces. On ITV the normal commercial break is 4 minutes so two quick presses of your thumb and the programme is back on.

I find movies annoying sometimes in that they stop for the adverts without respect for what is happening on the screen. And for some reason American dramas on the Freeview channels are given less consideration too. At least on ITV made programmes the adverts come on at suitable points! Then we can head off and put the kettle on or skip to the loo my darling.

We don't watch soaps but I do like things like Broadchurch which TV gave scope to. Things built up slowly. A 2 hour format isn't long enough for that. Likewise with TV progs when Taggart when from its 2 hour lenght episodes to just 1 hour it lost its way. ended up more like The Bill which was designed for short sharp episodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Claire M
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:46 AM

Hiya,

Never been a big film-watcher. Think this is cos I grew up w/ animated stuff, which I still love to this day. TV series are slightly better but I still struggle to keep interested unless it's got something in it to appeal – I love cop shows, I loved The Tudors (oh, I want some of those dresses!) & I love bbc4's music stuff. I prefer books anyway (is it just me or does there seem to be a lot more fantasy novels than films??) I can think of nothing worse than sitting watching film after film.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:48 AM

Made for TV movies... The price is right and you don't have to drive...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 12:07 AM

Sorry Little Joe Cartwright because the most magnificent werewolf of all is this guy:

http://classicmoviemonsters.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-oliver-reed-werewolf.html?m

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 12:41 AM

It's the Elvis werewolf!

Thank you, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:09 AM

TV has a fixed period time to fill with it's story--a 22 or 41 minute segment (for American commercial television) and 10 to 26 episodes for the season. And while that's a lot of screen time to tell the story, shooting and editing have to be done very quickly, often only five days.

Movies can take as much or as little time to tell the story as is needed, anything from 80 minutes to 240 minutes, and shooting and editing can take anything from 6 weeks to 5 years.

It's sort of like the difference between making a quick lunch and preparing an elaborate dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 01:03 PM

a young woman can announce her pregnancy, be seen going thru its stages, and give birth nine months later.

An acquaintance who was addicted to one of the TV soaps was sent on an extended business trip, and left orders that his wife must tape all the episodes for him so he could watch them when he got back.

It was remarked when he was getting ready to leave that one of the characters had been pregnant for about three months.

He was gone for eighteen months, and she was just going to the hospital to have the baby in the second episode after he returned.

...

John

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 01:58 PM

Then, John, it was obviously an ill-planned and executed series, with defective script editing. But I don't see that this invalidates my point.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 11:45 PM

When I first saw this thread I thought it might be a discussion of the distinction Marshall McLuhan made between hot media (movies) and cool media (such as television).   It has to do with the amount of effort the audience has to make in order to make it make sense....and with tv, because of it's 'low definition' (in the old days), we have to put in a lot of effort just to put that connection of dots into a picture.

Movies are purely visual.

So TV may be more like novels just because we, the viewer/reader end up having more of an involvement.

But with high definition tv, I wonder if there is any validity to that distinction anymore.

I guess, in terms of content, that a good tv serial does make us work to put together what happened before with what's happening now.

A movie...not so much. But the image probably 'grabs' us more. And maybe it has a more immediate emotional impact.

I've found myself very moved by certain films, as well as by some great novels.   I haven't found that with television. Whether that's because of the content or the medium itself, I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:36 AM

Partly, Larry, at least the nature of the medium. Seeing a film in the cinema involves the effort of an actual expedition to get there, timing it correctly, maybe arranging baby sitters etc. Tv is a far more passive medium: it is there on tap at home; you just switch on; you can change channels; with modern 'boxes' you can pause it & go off to the loo or make a cup of tea, &c ~~ all of which explains why even seeing a made-for-cinema movie on the box is not quite the same involving experience as seeing the same one in the cinema. Nowadays, having slowed down considerably, if there is a film I particularly want to see, I will generally wait for the DVD & watch it in tv at home anyhow.

All this bound to produce different expectations, different aesthetic & critical responses, &c, to the experience of the media.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 02:55 AM

For the reasons that I gave above, film and television programming, even when viewed on the same 50" HD screen, are very different experiences.

Anyway, you're missing McLuhan's point, which has to do with the level of engagement--simply stated, "hot" media require that you pay a lot more attention than "cool" media. A symphonic composition is "hot"--you have to pay complete attention from beginning to end in order to fully appreciate it. Mantovani and His Orchestra, on the other hand, are "cool". You don't have to listen very hard to get it--

McLuhan is widely misunderstood--in no small part because he chose labels for his ideas that were catchy, but not very clear. "The medium is the massage" is usually misquoted as "The medium is the message" because "The medium is the massage" has no apparent meaning.

What he intended, though, was that you take massage in the sense of kneading or forming. Translated into language that you and I understand, it would be more like, "The medium shapes the message" which actually seems pretty obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM

Movies are purely visual wrote Larry

But I thought they had introduced some radical innovation of having sound a few years back.

Aside from the possubility of having a greatly extended time span, allowing for a more complicated narrative, and much greater depth of character - but of course "allowed for" doesn't mean it gets done too often - the big difference between the two media is the degree of involvement.

With a film you're in the dark with the screen, and pulled ino it for however long it takes. With TV you are still in your ordinary environment, with all kinds of other things going on reminding you of that.   Seing the same movie on TV or on the big screen is a radically different experience. You find that out when you have occasion to watch a film in the cinema that you've seen many times on TV, and you realise you are seeing it for the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 10:33 AM

It's difficult, when at the theater, to hit the pause button and go get another glass of brandy.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 11:16 AM

What you say, McGrath, seems intuitively true. However, people seem to be able to enjoy those "big screen" movies on their iPads and Androids enough that they are willing to pay for it. And there are many, many movies that have failed at the box office only to succeed on VHS/DVD/Pay-Per-View/cable. So much so that some films have forgone a theatrical release and gone straight to video. it's a puzzlement.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

Stim,

My understanding is that 'cool' media require more engagement in order to get anything out of it, and 'hot' media tends to 'grab' you.

I'll have to explore that again to see if I might be mistaken.

But one thing I do know is that McLuhan did originally coin the phrase of "The Medium is The Message", and in 1967 wrote a book by that name. When it came back from the printers, there was a spelling mistake, and it read "The Medium is The Massage". McLuhan, being the creative soul he was, decided that this was actually a better title; it wasn't just a play on 'message', but it also illustrated the mass age, and "massaged" the senses.

Listen to his amazing album of 1968, produced by JOhn Simon. Here's a link. It makes his ideas so much more accessible.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0443FDB9D46F2A73

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:37 PM

Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:23 PM

From the Canadian Archives.
It's understandable that there is so much confusion about this, as his 'hot media' vs 'cool media' concept wasn't very well developed. Cool media (tv, seminars, cartoons) requires little involvement----so we have to work harder in order to perceive it.


McLuhan
Hot and Cool

When McLuhan discussed visual space, he usually associated it with "hot media." Hot media are high in definition, and thus demand little participation on the part of the user. Generally speaking, they are associated with the eye, rather than the ear. Some hot media (such as print), are like visual space in that they are sequential, linear and logical.

Acoustic space, on the other hand, is usually associated with "cool media," and generally with the ear. Cool media are low in definition, and demand high participation from the user. In contrast to hot media, which favour analytical precision, quantitative analysis and sequential ordering, cool media demand perception of abstract patterning and simultaneous comprehension of all parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 01:16 PM

Of course people enjoy films on TVs or iPads or even on phones, but it's not the same experience. As with music, but maybe even more so.

But in practice in both cases the shrunken version is likely to be the only available option.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:53 PM

Just one more thing...

Did you ever notice that Lt. Columbo says "Thank you very much" as much as Elvis Presley?

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 08:56 PM

Doesn't just about everybody say "Thank you very much" often enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Elmore
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 11:42 PM

Elvis and Columbo (aka Peter Falk), don't say much of anything anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: Eldergirl
Date: 22 Sep 13 - 11:52 PM

You've been a wonderful Aintree Iron, thank you very much...

Subject: RE: BS: Movies vs Television
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 13 - 10:22 PM