Movies Scorsese on Marvel movies: "That's not cinema" "Theme park ride" EDIT: Coppola says Marvel movies "despicable" "same movie over and over again"

[skillzdadirecta]

Apparently Black people are children

[Moa]

Marvel movies are trash, where do I collect my Oscar?

[RedSoxFan9]

You’re not helping the MCU’s case

[Greatoneshere]

Black Panther was a cultural event for black people, not just black children (if nothing else). There's no question or argument there. And the MCU as a whole certainly has had a legendary impact on the industry as a business plan and strategy for serial moviemaking.

 

I agree with @sblfilms that the theatrical experience continues to head towards the oblivion of pure spectacle, and the MCU is helping that along, which I don't like. But I love plenty of MCU films, and some of them have real depth at certain moments/points that they can't be dismissed out of hand. This being the case, Natalie Portman's response recently that "there is room for all types of art" is the exact right one.

 

But am I, personally, burning out on these kinds of movies? Yes, I am. I haven't even seen Endgame a second time because I'm just done with it. I saw Infinity War in theaters and at home added up a lot of times. I dunno, I just don't feel the pull like I used to.

[skillzdadirecta]

Quick film history lesson, Theatrical cinema was FOUNDED on pure spectacle and in response to technology and changing audience tastes, it always pushes that envelope.  Spectacle is the one thing that the theater experience does better than anything else. Lamenting that theater is moving towards spectacle is ignoring the DNA of the moviegoing experience.  

It's not that audiences have gotten more immature in their movie going tastes... it's that audiences consistently need a reason to go to the movies given all of the competing entertainment options out there. A two hour drama is not going to have the same storytelling nuance as a story told over the course of 60 hours on television... name one movie in the last ten years that can compete with Breaking Bad on a narrative level. Kevin Smith just recently talked about this... and movie makers are recognizing this change in the dynamics of storytelling. It is what it is.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

But am I, personally, burning out on these kinds of movies? Yes, I am. I haven't even seen Endgame a second time because I'm just done with it. I saw Infinity War in theaters and at home added up a lot of times. I dunno, I just don't feel the pull like I used to.

I feel you. I still watch these movies, but I don't get excited like I used to. I remember leaving the theater after Endgame ready to see it again when it came to blu-ray. I still haven't watched it a second time. Husband mentioned watching it on our week off together and we never got around to it, mostly because I just didn't have any enthusiasm for it. Far From Home was fine, but I haven't felt a need to see it again. 

 

Maybe a break from these movies is needed. Isn't it going to be a bit before the next one releases?

[Greatoneshere]

14 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Maybe a break from these movies is needed. Isn't it going to be a bit before the next one releases?

 

Yeah, somewhat. Endgame came out in April 2019 and Far From Home came out July 2019. Next one's up are Black Widow for May 2020 and The Eternals in November 2020 (than Shang-Chi in February 2021 and Doctor Strange in May 2021 and so on). So less than a year break? I dunno, they're all different kinds of films (or can be) so we'll see.

 

I'm also entirely skipping in not mentioning the very relevant Disney+ MCU series which start in late 2020 as that'll be a BIG addition to all this with nearly movie-level budgets.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

4 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yeah, somewhat. Endgame came out in April 2019 and Far From Home came out July 2019. Next one's up are Black Widow for May 2020 and The Eternals in November 2020 (than Shang-Chi in February 2021 and Doctor Strange in May 2021 and so on). So less than a year break? I dunno, they're all different kinds of films (or can be) so we'll see.

 

I'm also entirely skipping in not mentioning the very relevant Disney+ MCU series which start in late 2020 as that'll be a BIG addition to all this with nearly movie-level budgets.

Damn, I guess I didn't realize it was that soon. I'm sure we'll see them because my husband is still excited about them and I odn't hate them, so it's not like it's a bad time for me or anything.

 

But yeah, I'm not on the TV show bandwagon yet. Maybe I'll feel a little differently in a year, but so far, I'm not even sure I care enough to get the Disney streaming service. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Damn, I guess I didn't realize it was that soon. I'm sure we'll see them because my husband is still excited about them and I odn't hate them, so it's not like it's a bad time for me or anything.

 

But yeah, I'm not on the TV show bandwagon yet. Maybe I'll feel a little differently in a year, but so far, I'm not even sure I care enough to get the Disney streaming service. 

 

I'm definitely in a similar boat. 

[Moa]

39 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Quick film history lesson, Theatrical cinema was FOUNDED on pure spectacle

 

and Citizen Cane is one of the most celebrated movies of all time because it represents the shift away from spectacle and novelty to serious art.

 

39 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

A two hour drama is not going to have the same storytelling nuance as a story told over the course of 60 hours on television... name one movie in the last ten years that can compete with Breaking Bad on a narrative level. Kevin Smith just recently talked about this... and movie makers are recognizing this change in the dynamics of storytelling. It is what it is.

 

I love TV, I think Breaking Bad is great, and I'm excited by the direction that TV shows seem to be going, but I don't think that Breaking Bad or any long running TV show can really compete with the best of film in terms of nuance and storytelling. When a show is spread over so many hours it is way too easy to see the seams of the narrative, the transitions between discrete conflicts, the inconsistencies, the repetition, etc. There is just too much going on over the time it takes to produce a show like Breaking Bad for it to match the minute to minute quality of something like Whiplash. Also, there are a lot of stories you just can't tell on TV. You can't make a TV show like Inside Llewyn Davis, about being the guy who wasn't Bob Dylan. The narrative is worth exploring (certainly because there is so little honest to god media about true failure), but unlike a hero's quest, it can't be stretched indefinitely. I can't even imagine a TV show that is as universal and all encompassing as something like Synecdoche, New York, although I would love to see it.

 

Of course it's all a matter of taste, but even if Breaking Bad can rival the best movies of the last 10 years, there aren't that many Breaking Bads out there.

[skillzdadirecta]

17 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'm also entirely skipping in not mentioning the very relevant Disney+ MCU series which start in late 2020 as that'll be a BIG addition to all this with nearly movie-level budgets.

This is another thing theatrical releases are going to have to contend with... movie level budgets and production values in TV shows. Shows like Game of Thrones and The Expanse have already rivaled movies with their budgets and productions. 

[Guest]

@Moa I think another thing for me is that a movie that doesn’t quite work never feels like a waste of time, but a TV series that I pump 10-20 hours into and never really comes together often does feel that way.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

@Moa I think another thing for me is that a movie that doesn’t quite work never feels like a waste of time, but a TV series that I pump 10-20 hours into and never really comes together often does feel that way.

 

The Newsroom.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The Newsroom.

The funeral garage jam scene was perfect!

[skillzdadirecta]

Im at work now and typing on my phone so I'll respond to this more in depth later.

[skillzdadirecta]

Jon Favreau responds

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jon-favreau-responds-scorsese-coppola-marvel-criticism-1249252

[RedSoxFan9]

[Emblazon]

The film industry has only the film industry to blame—if each following year isn’t more financially successful than the previous year, then it’s considered a failure. Ticket prices rise, concession prices rise, and the masses don’t want to spend a bunch of money on an Art house film, or something that isn’t spectacle, because there’s nothing that screams that kind of movie has to be seen on the big screen. 
 

If anything, these filmmakers should be praising the MCU for single-handedly saving cinema. 

[legend]

20 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Quick film history lesson, Theatrical cinema was FOUNDED on pure spectacle and in response to technology and changing audience tastes, it always pushes that envelope.  Spectacle is the one thing that the theater experience does better than anything else. Lamenting that theater is moving towards spectacle is ignoring the DNA of the moviegoing experience.  

It's not that audiences have gotten more immature in their movie going tastes... it's that audiences consistently need a reason to go to the movies given all of the competing entertainment options out there. A two hour drama is not going to have the same storytelling nuance as a story told over the course of 60 hours on television... name one movie in the last ten years that can compete with Breaking Bad on a narrative level. Kevin Smith just recently talked about this... and movie makers are recognizing this change in the dynamics of storytelling. It is what it is.

 

I mostly agree with you: I think long-form TV is a better medium than film for story-telling on average. I also love Breaking Bad.

 

But just to play the game of movies in the last 10 years with equal narrative nuance for fun: 

Blade Runner 2049

Mad Max

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

 

At least off the top of my head I would list those.

 

 

 

EDIT And just because I feel like adding some more, this scene from BR2049 is probably the most thought provoking scene in a movie or TV for me in quite some time. And no, not because the beautiful Ana de Armas is naked in it  

 

[Keyser_Soze]

While a fun argument it's a bit misleading to bring up Breaking Bad as your argument. Breaking Bad is pretty much a once in a lifetime show with very good writing that they were able to sustain for 5 seasons. Also, keep in mind that the seasons are very short which could allow for a more focused narrative.

There are plenty of shows out there that start out good, and burn out of ideas. Look at Prison Break. It was an interesting show (I wouldn't say a compelling narrative) that would have made for a good one and done season. But then the writers were like, hey this is popular we can't end it and then every season thereafter was not great.

Even a show like 24 which was a good concept had a steady decline in quality. Even the first season had crappy episodes (see any episode regarding Teri Bauer's amnesia storyline)

And now they are even making shows of movies which pale in comparison to a movie. (Minority Report, The Purge, etc)

A lot of TV episodes can carry the story but it more feels like "this is what so and so character did on this day" for every episode, which is fine, but it's not a clean concise experience, which is what movies are.

 

But I also feel like this is the fault of a lot of western TV shows. The only shows I've been watching this year have been Korean shows, and even though @thewhyteboar says they suck, I find them pretty compelling, smartly written and most of them are only one season. Sure you might want to see 16 more episodes of your Noona but sometimes you just have to be happy and move on.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

18 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Im at work now and typing on my phone so I'll respond to this more in depth later.

Just reminding you

[Emblazon]

On a side note, at what point does this “good writing” start to appear for Breaking Bad? I believe I’m half way through the first season, and it has yet to show itself. The show feels almost sitcom-y... like a meth version of Weeds. 

[Joe]

20 minutes ago, Emblazon said:

On a side note, at what point does this “good writing” start to appear for Breaking Bad? I believe I’m half way through the first season, and it has yet to show itself. The show feels almost sitcom-y... like a meth version of Weeds. 

 

I'd say it's a steady progression. Season 1 is by far the most light-hearted.

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, Emblazon said:

On a side note, at what point does this “good writing” start to appear for Breaking Bad? I believe I’m half way through the first season, and it has yet to show itself. The show feels almost sitcom-y... like a meth version of Weeds. 

 

1 hour ago, Jose said:

 

I'd say it's a steady progression. Season 1 is by far the most light-hearted.

 

BITCH!

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

21 hours ago, Moa said:

 

and Citizen Cane is one of the most celebrated movies of all time because it represents the shift away from spectacle and novelty to serious art.

 

Citizen Kane was a spectacular film for its time, because it  pushed the technological envelope what was possible on film. It's revered because it innovated techniques that have become commonplace today that weren't being done at the time.... in other words, it played to the strengths of theatrical cinema for its time.  Orson Welles did a lot of things in that movie that just weren't done at the time.

 

Quote

I love TV, I think Breaking Bad is great, and I'm excited by the direction that TV shows seem to be going, but I don't think that Breaking Bad or any long running TV show can really compete with the best of film in terms of nuance and storytelling. When a show is spread over so many hours it is way too easy to see the seams of the narrative, the transitions between discrete conflicts, the inconsistencies, the repetition, etc. There is just too much going on over the time it takes to produce a show like Breaking Bad for it to match the minute to minute quality of something like Whiplash. Also, there are a lot of stories you just can't tell on TV. You can't make a TV show like Inside Llewyn Davis, about being the guy who wasn't Bob Dylan. The narrative is worth exploring (certainly because there is so little honest to god media about true failure), but unlike a hero's quest, it can't be stretched indefinitely. I can't even imagine a TV show that is as universal and all encompassing as something like Synecdoche, New York, although I would love to see it.

 

I disagree... A tv show with a definite ending in mind can tell a tight, nuanced story over with more character and plot development than a two hour film can. Now are some stories suited to a feature film format? Sure.... but I can promise you that the writers, directors and editors are always sacrificing something in order to fit a film into a theatrical runtime. That's just the nature of the beast and more often than not, the film suffers. How many times have you seen a deleted scene and lamented "why wasn't this in the movie?" It was more than likely cut for time, not because of narrative necessity. The writer wrote it for a reason and it was SHOT for a reason... yes there are redundant but for the most part, scenes that are shot are cut for time more than anything else. You don't really have that problem when you have 60 hours to tell your story. Episodic television shows that tell a story of the course of multiple episodes and seasons are the cinematic equivalent of novels and the experience is a lot more rewarding than watching a film where you KNOW things have been left on the cutting room floor.

 

But another practical issue is that of the films you listed, Whiplash, Synedoche New York (two films that I've seen and love) and Inside Llewyn Davis, there is NOTHING about any of these films that screams "I NEED TO SEE THIS ON THE BIG SCREEN!" These films can be watched at home the experience is not diminished. THIS is the new reality... with bigger home screens and a public that is getting more and more accustomed to watching films on the screens the size of the palm of their hands, combined with the fact that you can get just as good if not better stories from television and streaming, studios have to give people a reason to go to the theater and this dillema will only be exacerbated as budgets for TV shows increase and production value on TV series start to rival theatrical releases.

 

Quote

Of course it's all a matter of taste, but even if Breaking Bad can rival the best movies of the last 10 years, there aren't that many Breaking Bads out there.

 

There are plenty of shows that employ the same or similar style of storytelling... Breaking Bad, The Wire, Better Call Saul, The Expanse, Game of Thrones and many many others of varying genres and quality all do the same thing. They tell an overarching story that just couldn't be told in a movie without making severe cuts that would again, hurt the narrative.

2 hours ago, legend said:

 

I mostly agree with you: I think long-form TV is a better medium than film for story-telling on average. I also love Breaking Bad.

 

But just to play the game of movies in the last 10 years with equal narrative nuance for fun: 

Blade Runner 2049

Mad Max

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

 

At least off the top of my head I would list those.

 

 

 

EDIT And just because I feel like adding some more, this scene from BR2049 is probably the most thought provoking scene in a movie or TV for me in quite some time. And no, not because the beautiful Ana de Armas is naked in it  

 

You kind of proved my point for me... both Blade Runner and Mad Max are POSTER CHILDREN for films that scream "SEE ME ON THE BIG SCREEN!" Can they be enjoyed at home? Sure. But these are visually stunning films that are designed to be seen in the theater.

 

Once Upon a time in Hollywood? Great movie. Is it the most cinematic film I've seen all year? Nope. In fact Tarantino is one of the filmmakers that I think would benefit from doing a series. His scripts are basically novels in screenplay form and he ALWAYS has to cut for time, compromising his vision. Give him 10 to 12 hours to tell a story and let's see what he can do. Anywhoo that's my thoughts on the subject. I love movies and I love TV shows, but the line between the two is becoming blurred and in order for theatrical film to survive, it has to play to its strengths and continue to produce content that audiences feel like they HAVE to see in a theater on a big screen rather than wait for a hime release.

[legend]

19 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

You kind of proved my point for me... both Blade Runner and Mad Max are POSTER CHILDREN for films that scream "SEE ME ON THE BIG SCREEN!" Can they be enjoyed at home? Sure. But these are visually stunning films that are designed to be seen in the theater.

 

Once Upon a time in Hollywood? Great movie. Is it the most cinematic film I've seen all year? Nope. In fact Tarantino is one of the filmmakers that I think would benefit from doing a series. His scripts are basically novels in screenplay form and he ALWAYS has to cut for time, compromising his vision. Give him 10 to 12 hours to tell a story and let's see what he can do. Anywhoo that's my thoughts on the subject. I love movies and I love TV shows, but the line between the two is becoming blurred and in order for theatrical film to survive, it has to play to its strengths and continue to produce content that audiences feel like they HAVE to see in a theater on a big screen rather than wait for a hime release.

 

BR and MM do indeed benefit from spectacle, but my reason for highlighting them is that their narrative is still just as nuanced as a TV show like BB. My love of that scene in BR isn't because it's beautifully shot (but it is that too).

 

As I said though, I largely agree with you. The way I would frame it though is that TV gives writers more tools, but not all nuanced stories need those tools and so some movies still compete just as well.

[RedSoxFan9]

lmao

[sexy_shapiro]

It's silly to frame this as a grumpy old directors attacking a younger crop of up and coming directors. They aren't - they are attacking the corporate arms that controls these directors, and that's an important directors. We know that these movies are producer driven more than anything else. The directors are there to deliver the vision of the studio to the public. These works should be seen as belonging more to Marvel than the director themself (Guardians is an exception here). It's not like Scorsese is attacking a young director like Ari Aster for directing Midsommar, because that movie is an actual product from and by that artist.

 

And it's disrespectful to frame these talented directors as out of touch simply because they aren't fans of the current corporate structure of the studio system. The opulence of our current studio system in a way reflects the late period of Hollywood's golden age. And the collapse of that system is what benefited Scorsese and Coppola. Why would they be okay with today's blockbuster system considering this is something they actively opposed in their early years.

 

And it doesn't make sense to dismiss Scorsese as jealous that superhero movies are relevant and he isn't. One of the most talked about superhero movies in years is a direct homage of early Scorsese movies. Superhero movies had to ape Scorsese to finally get a movie that may be taken seriously by the Oscars. Of course he's still relevant as hell.

[skillzdadirecta]

13 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

It's silly to frame this as a grumpy old directors attacking a younger crop of up and coming directors. They aren't - they are attacking the corporate arms that controls these directors, and that's an important directors. We know that these movies are producer driven more than anything else. The directors are there to deliver the vision of the studio to the public. These works should be seen as belonging more to Marvel than the director themself (Guardians is an exception here). It's not like Scorsese is attacking a young director like Ari Aster for directing Midsommar, because that movie is an actual product from and by that artist.

 

And it's disrespectful to frame these talented directors as out of touch simply because they aren't fans of the current corporate structure of the studio system. The opulence of our current studio system in a way reflects the late period of Hollywood's golden age. And the collapse of that system is what benefited Scorsese and Coppola. Why would they be okay with today's blockbuster system considering this is something they actively opposed in their early years.

 

And it doesn't make sense to dismiss Scorsese as jealous that superhero movies are relevant and he isn't. One of the most talked about superhero movies in years is a direct homage of early Scorsese movies. Superhero movies had to ape Scorsese to finally get a movie that may be taken seriously by the Oscars. Of course he's still relevant as hell.

Pretty much what Jon Favreau said.

[TwinIon]

4 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Once Upon a time in Hollywood? Great movie. Is it the most cinematic film I've seen all year? Nope. In fact Tarantino is one of the filmmakers that I think would benefit from doing a series. His scripts are basically novels in screenplay form and he ALWAYS has to cut for time, compromising his vision. Give him 10 to 12 hours to tell a story and let's see what he can do. Anywhoo that's my thoughts on the subject. I love movies and I love TV shows, but the line between the two is becoming blurred and in order for theatrical film to survive, it has to play to its strengths and continue to produce content that audiences feel like they HAVE to see in a theater on a big screen rather than wait for a him release.

While not inherent in the format, I think there's a very real distinction between the budget that television and film currently allow and the resulting quality that we often see. Nothing about The Social Network screams that it must be watched in a theater, but there's a care put into every element of it's production that television can't afford to put in. That opening scene basically tells the entire story of the character and it's so crucial to get it right, and that's why Fincher took 99 takes. Do you bother to CG Armie Hammer into twins if it's for TV? Do you have the time to do every single shot as meticulously as Fincher does in TV? Do you get such an incredible score from moment to moment if it's on TV? Certainly none of these things are inherent to film, but when you're constrained to a shorter time and the business model is so different, you're given the affordances that allow that kind of care to be put in.

 

 

I also think that time is a double edged sword. Even if you had the time and budget for 10 or 20 hours of movie, how often are you able to get the quality to match up to what the film might be? How many shows can actually maintain a filmic level of quality throughout? Chernobyl comes to mind. Essentially nothing else does. As good as Breaking Bad is, it's run is still uneven at times. And if I just think of all the shows that are too long, with entire episodes desperately working to fill the unneeded hours, I'd basically be listing the history of television. I'm in the middle of revisiting Mad Men right now, and there are times that show is magnificent, but if you told Matthew Weiner to edit it down without regard for how long or short it should be, I bet you lose dozens of hours. 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

While not inherent in the format, I think there's a very real distinction between the budget that television and film currently allow and the resulting quality that we often see. Nothing about The Social Network screams that it must be watched in a theater, but there's a care put into every element of it's production that television can't afford to put in. That opening scene basically tells the entire story of the character and it's so crucial to get it right, and that's why Fincher took 99 takes. Do you bother to CG Armie Hammer into twins if it's for TV? Do you have the time to do every single shot as meticulously as Fincher does in TV? Do you get such an incredible score from moment to moment if it's on TV? Certainly none of these things are inherent to film, but when you're constrained to a shorter time and the business model is so different, you're given the affordances that allow that kind of care to be put in.

 

 

I also think that time is a double edged sword. Even if you had the time and budget for 10 or 20 hours of movie, how often are you able to get the quality to match up to what the film might be? How many shows can actually maintain a filmic level of quality throughout? Chernobyl comes to mind. Essentially nothing else does. As good as Breaking Bad is, it's run is still uneven at times. And if I just think of all the shows that are too long, with entire episodes desperately working to fill the unneeded hours, I'd basically be listing the history of television. I'm in the middle of revisiting Mad Men right now, and there are times that show is magnificent, but if you told Matthew Weiner to edit it down without regard for how long or short it should be, I bet you lose dozens of hours. 

Like I said in my post,  the distinction in budgets between film and tv is shrinking and as the budgets increase, so will the time allotments to shoot episodes. It's a shift in the industry that's occurring that television is increasingly becoming more cinema like. That's not even open for debate. 

[Massdriver]

4 hours ago, legend said:

 

BR and MM do indeed benefit from spectacle, but my reason for highlighting them is that their narrative is still just as nuanced as a TV show like BB. My love of that scene in BR isn't because it's beautifully shot (but it is that too).

 

As I said though, I largely agree with you. The way I would frame it though is that TV gives writers more tools, but not all nuanced stories need those tools and so some movies still compete just as well.

I agree that there is still a place for nuanced movies that need the spectacle to complete the art. I went to the theater to experience BR for a reason, and it was awesome. But overall I go to the movies to see effects on a huge screen, so most of the time it is MCU movies, Star Wars (or used to be), or maybe a horror movie.

7 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

While a fun argument it's a bit misleading to bring up Breaking Bad as your argument. Breaking Bad is pretty much a once in a lifetime show with very good writing that they were able to sustain for 5 seasons. Also, keep in mind that the seasons are very short which could allow for a more focused narrative.

There are plenty of shows out there that start out good, and burn out of ideas. Look at Prison Break. It was an interesting show (I wouldn't say a compelling narrative) that would have made for a good one and done season. But then the writers were like, hey this is popular we can't end it and then every season thereafter was not great.

Even a show like 24 which was a good concept had a steady decline in quality. Even the first season had crappy episodes (see any episode regarding Teri Bauer's amnesia storyline)

And now they are even making shows of movies which pale in comparison to a movie. (Minority Report, The Purge, etc)

A lot of TV episodes can carry the story but it more feels like "this is what so and so character did on this day" for every episode, which is fine, but it's not a clean concise experience, which is what movies are.

 

But I also feel like this is the fault of a lot of western TV shows. The only shows I've been watching this year have been Korean shows, and even though @thewhyteboar says they suck, I find them pretty compelling, smartly written and most of them are only one season. Sure you might want to see 16 more episodes of your Noona but sometimes you just have to be happy and move on.

I think there are plenty of examples of shows as good or better than Breaking Bad that calls your once in a lifetime thing into question.  We are in the golden age of television, so just off the top of my head, I would argue that The Wire, Halt and Catch Fire, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, The Americans, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, and stuff I'm not thinking of right now deserve some credit. Granted that not all of these have finished their runs, but some have, and I'm willing to bet most of them are going to end strong. 

 

When you get to a longer running show like 24, it can have high production values but also have filler. You get that with a lot of network TV, but if you look for a tighter show with 8-13 40-60 minutes episodes a season, there is a ton of potential to tell a tight story with tons of complexity that would be impossible to do justice in a film.

[Keyser_Soze]

5 hours ago, Massdriver said:

 The Wire, Halt and Catch Fire, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, The Americans, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, and stuff I'm not thinking of right now deserve some credit. Granted that not all of these have finished their runs, but some have, and I'm willing to bet most of them are going to end strong.

 

I see The Wire come up a lot. Yes it was a very good show but it simply wouldn't work as a movie. It was shot to tell a story and that's about it. People are forgetting that movies are meticulously made, care put into the cinematography, sound, production design. The Wire doesn't really have any of this.

Movies generally are a well written contained package and TV shows always are there to string you along with some cliffhanger at the end to keep you watching next week.

It's almost like a movie is a book and a TV show is a magazine. You're satisfied when a book ends but when you get to the end of a magazine you could either take it or leave it.

[Nokt]

10 hours ago, Massdriver said:

I agree that there is still a place for nuanced movies that need the spectacle to complete the art. I went to the theater to experience BR for a reason, and it was awesome. But overall I go to the movies to see effects on a huge screen, so most of the time it is MCU movies, Star Wars (or used to be), or maybe a horror movie.

I think there are plenty of examples of shows as good or better than Breaking Bad that calls your once in a lifetime thing into question.  We are in the golden age of television, so just off the top of my head, I would argue that The Wire, Halt and Catch Fire, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, The Expanse, The Americans, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, and stuff I'm not thinking of right now deserve some credit. Granted that not all of these have finished their runs, but some have, and I'm willing to bet most of them are going to end strong. 

 

When you get to a longer running show like 24, it can have high production values but also have filler. You get that with a lot of network TV, but if you look for a tighter show with 8-13 40-60 minutes episodes a season, there is a ton of potential to tell a tight story with tons of complexity that would be impossible to do justice in a film.

I wouldn't really rank Stranger Things or Better Call Saul as good or better than Breaking Bad. 

Stranger Things is great, but that second season was rough, really rough. Better Call Saul just failed to hook me as a watcher the same way BB did.

 

I've only dabbled a little bit in Mad Men and haven't seen the rest so I can't comment on those.

[Mercury33]

22 hours ago, Emblazon said:

The film industry has only the film industry to blame—if each following year isn’t more financially successful than the previous year, then it’s considered a failure. Ticket prices rise, concession prices rise, and the masses don’t want to spend a bunch of money on an Art house film, or something that isn’t spectacle, because there’s nothing that screams that kind of movie has to be seen on the big screen. 
 

If anything, these filmmakers should be praising the MCU for single-handedly saving cinema. 

That’s every business on planet earth. 
 

And saying the MCU saved cinema is about as big of a stretch as you can get haha. 
 

It’s not the film industries fault people aren’t interested in seeing certain types of movies in theaters anymore. You really think there was a collective effort to slash their business on everything but high budget extravaganza movies? That makes no sense. The advancement of technology is to blame. People aren’t watching movies on 20 inch SD tvs with crappy sound at home anymore. So many people have mini home theaters as their basic living room set up that why spend $10 to see some comedy on a mega screen when you can wait a little while and watch it at home with an arguably better experience for free?  Why do you think theaters across the country are ripping out 50% of their seating capacity and installing giant recliners? It’s less about the novelty of seeing a film and theaters now and more about competing with the home experience.