There is a one question quiz at the end of this blog…
I used to have a running list of all the movies I couldn’t wait to see. Right now it’s only 1. It doesn’t matter what movie that is (It’s LINCOLN), it only matters that 1 movie doesn’t make a list. What happened?… TV happened.
TV used to be shows that were mostly shot in a 3 camera set up on a sound stage. Shot on tape and every episode had a story line that started at the top. Then 30 to 60 minutes later you had your episodic ending.
Movies were entirely different worlds that took you on an exciting ride through a story that was “much too big” to be on TV.
Then THE SOPRANOS happened. At least that’s when I noticed it. Other shows were starting this too, but THE SOPRANOS took it to a new level. They started shooting on film or HD like movies, they switched to a one camera style and edited like the movies we were used to seeing at the cinema. And the story didn’t always finish with a pretty bow at the end of the episode. Sometimes it took whole seasons for a story line to fully run its course. Then all of a sudden they started making seasons shorter. Even taking long breaks from production. They were basically making mini movies for every episode. For an hour show, that’s only 30 minutes less than a short movie!
The other day I was watching SHERLOCK. A season with only 3 episodes, and the running times? 88 Minutes. 88 Minutes. and 89 Minutes. THOSE ARE MOVIES! I asked myself, “Is this any different than watching Robert Downey Jr?” The answer is yes. #1 – I’m watching it at home. #2 – there are not HUGE special effects and explosions.
Then my mind started racing. Everyone I know is freaking out about TV! Even the huge comic book flicks were less spectacular this year. People want to watch Breaking Bad, and Sons of Anarchy, and Game of Thrones, and Sherlock, and Doctor Who, and Mad Men, and (Do I need to keep going?)
How did this happen?
I think TV had a long term, carefully executed, plan of action to take the audience away from the films. In a changing world with everything streaming directly to your home and played on a screen / sound system that rivals small theaters, there was nothing to stop them. They shortened their seasons, and used the savings to add movie-like production value. They gave us the scope of the cinema and held onto the one thing for which TV has always had the advantage: The ability to build a character over the course of many episodes and seasons, as opposed to the entire character’s growth happening in the span of 2 hours. Now looking at Sherlock again, if a season is 3 episodes long, and an episode is 90 minutes long, how is that not a movie with 2 sequels? Plus, if you’re anything like me you want to buy the whole season at once and BINGE on 5 to 10 episodes at a time! It is so exciting to be sitting on a Breaking Bad cliff hanger and fumble with the remote through your excitement to get the next episode playing!
So what are films doing? Are they really using band-aid gimmicks like 3D to win the audience back? Isn’t this fad of prequels and sequels basically another “episode” in a TV show that you can’t watch at home? The movies that draw crowds are the huge, tent-pole, comic book/disaster movies that are still a bit too epic for television. But how long will that be true? How long will it take for investors in film to look at Robert Downey Jr’s Sherlock and Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock and decide they’d rather invest less money, for a better product, that lasts longer?
Ready for that 1 question quiz? Put your answers in the comments. In all honesty I want to hear your thoughts.
QUIZ
1) What can movies do to stay alive?
- Joe McClean
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Maybe it’s because I have a thirst for constant novelty but I can’t follow the same characters for weeks on end. I do follow a couple of shows but there’s so much I can take. I like the simplicity of a film. I love the (rare) feeling when I don’t want the film to end, when I want it to last forever much because I know I can’t have it. All good things must end. If they drag on, I get bored. Might be a small case of short attention span going on here.
I also love watching a film in a cinema, on the big screen, so I can lose myself in it for a couple of hours. No phone, no doorbell, no people talking. Then I move on to the next where I discover a new world, new characters, new stories, a new experience.
If I had to choose, I would prfeer independent films to blockbusters. Mainly for the same reasons that you already indicated. Indie films concentrate on the story and acting more because they don’t have the money for special effects. But all a good movie needs is a good story, good acting, and good direction.Nowadays, it’s actually harder to make a good big budget film because of all the distractions caused by the special effects and all the money to play with. Just look at Transformers not that Michael Bay was ever a brilliant director, but he was caught with a whole lot of money in the budget and sort of forgot there was a story to tell in 2 1/2 hours. But then give the big budget to someone like Peter Jackson and he’ll make gold.That’s the main reason why the Oscar’s Best Picture nominees have been dominated by independent films. Not because the critics and the public prfeer different films. It’s because special effects is usually a distraction for big budget films and it makes it twice as hard for a filmmaker to really focus on the story and not the explosions. Was this answer helpful?
Film, especially going to the cinema, has always been about the event of it. I see very few films in cinema for a few reasons, one: the price. I’ve paid up to $18 for a ticket. That’s outrageous. Movies may be grossing more, but they’re charging more too, and that’s not cool. I read a letter to the industry the other day that said that even though the money brought in is greater, the actual number of viewers is lower. (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/hollywood-studios-this-is-your-wake-up-call.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=rejectnation)
I think TV has a part to play in it, I mean, since 6 Feet Under I knew there was something different about television. But video games are also getting better, more involved story lines. Truth is the films that are doing well are the ones based on subject matter that already has a dependable audience – Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games, Comic Book based storylines…
The only other draw, though even that is becoming less dependable, are Hollywood faces. Avengers did well not just because it was a comic book film, but also because it had Joss Whedon, the veritable God Father of the nerd community, and a host of A-list actors, and millions of dollars in special effects. But Avengers also had several other films to build off of – Thor, the Iron Man series, and the Hulk movies, making it a part of a series, therefore longer, with the characters we know and love, and closer to a TV series.
As an actor, I would love to be on a TV series and get the chance to explore a character and develop them for that amount of time with that sort of intensity. I think it sounds absolutely thrilling. But the downside with TV is that you run the risk of jumping the shark… No one wants that. :-/
VERY well said
Well not all Hollywood films are crap. Not all of them are big pictures, out to make a dloalr, that’s a gross exaggeration. Any film that has good acting, craft, and artistry, is fine by me.I’ll tell you a secret too .a lot (a llllot) of indie films, are total crap. Was this answer helpful?