|
| Thread: TV versus Cinema |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted February 08, 2010 10:38 AM |
|
|
|
okay my prior post about all of them being about good against bad was exaggerated. A good bit of them do though.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 08, 2010 11:06 AM |
|
|
Well the short attention span used to be mostly an American phenomenon. Came from being able to get what you wanted quickly. Hundreds of television stations..and if something bores you for even a second you can change the channel. Throw in DVR's which let you record shows and skip commercials...and fast forward through the 'boring' parts. Same with Internet..if something bores you on the internet, it takes a few seconds to find something else at most.
Fast food, hundreds of channels, the internet..has drastically reduced the average attention span. Hollywood recognizes that. Which is why movies have better visual effects, or more explosions, etc. To keep the audiences ooohing and ahhing. As the internet grows, adds things like Hulu.com and TV.Com..it will not be just a mostly American Phenomenon however. People will get use to having everything at their fingertips. Which will reduce attentionspan. Now mind you a short attention spand does not mean reduced intelligence, or such..I am not saying 'dumber'.
Now on the otherhand there is television. Which has a LOT more competiton. So along with the visual effects, the explosions, etc..it needs gripping character lines to make it stand out from the faceless crowd. One of the most successful things on television is the WWE. It is the longest running episodic (spelling) show ever. It is fake 100 ways to sunday, has pretty much the SAME theme (people trying to beat each other up) but it is the Characters (the wrestlers) that keep people interested.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2010 11:34 AM |
|
|
Since I don't watch TV, it's hard for me to judge whether TV series got better than actual movies. But, I agree that it is pretty hard to see a movie with interesting characters nowadays. "Avatar" was just great special effects with pathetic plot. I miss cinema-stories like "Hunt for Red October" or "Last of the Mohicans" or such with instantly amiable characters.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted February 08, 2010 12:24 PM |
|
|
i have like 50 movies none of them have some kind of story line replaced with nothing but sheer special effects..
Could someone give some examples plz of these movies with no interesting story?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2010 01:03 PM |
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, it's the MTV or music video clip phenomenon (the so-called "short attention span", I mean). How you watch something has to do with what you become used to, and music video clips have a plethora of cuts, so most kids become used to that frantic style of filming early in their life.
Personally, I think that today MOST movies are jusst plain BORING: stories are predictable to unbelievable (I mean, it's okay, if someone is narrowly avoiding an MP salvo of one opponent or guard ONCE; but avoiding the salvos of squads and whole armies regularly is just plain stupid); characters are vaguely sketched to not sketched at all, you know, archetypes "on a mission" and so on. It's just, well, BORING.
If you want action and suspense (I'm a fan of watching things connected and when *I* want and not the TV), try "24", 3rd season (until now I've watched only the first 3, and I think that the first is better than the second, but the third better than the first). Easily beats every action movie.
If you like a cop show leaving you speechless try the British "Touching Evil", for example.
I mean, even things like Spiderman or Batman - or LORD of the Rings even: they come across more like a TV series, right? Trilogies.
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted February 08, 2010 07:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you want action and suspense
Oh. I didn't realize we were only talking about action movies. Once again those don't really have believable plots in any era. I was going to ask about movies like The Visitor or Vicki Cristina Barcelona which are entirely character studies and don't really have action. So you're saying that action tv shows are more interesting than action movies? And it is because of MTV?
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2010 07:54 PM |
|
|
No, I just wanted to say that even in terms of thrill (I wouldn't consider 24 an action show - tney don't blow up enough stuff) and suspense TV shows set standards that are difficult to top for movies. So we are NOT talking solely about action stuff.
About MTV, yes, it changed viewing habits, and massively. MTV and commercials. That's because you have not much time to get through to viewers, so you have to capture interest imediately. Lots of cuts are charecteristic for Music videos (from the beginning) and today's commercials.
@ Celfious
We are talking about characters, not necessarily story, although story isn't that much of a plus in movies nowadays. Of course there are exceptions. "Last Samurai" is an example for a top movie with top actors and top budget that has an interesting story and interesting characters.
Examples for movies of the no-development part are basically all movies with a number behind the name (of course there will be some exceptions, but not many).  Plus all sheer action movies (of course). Let's say Fast & Furious.
Even Spiderman is cheating - character change in part 3 is the result of alien influence (I'd rate the Spiderman trilogy still positive, though, but that's probably because I'm not objective when Spidey is concerned.
Example for an exception (but a bad thing as well: Alien. The original Alien is a fortuitous mix of everything making a movie interesting - that includes CHARACTERS. Ripley develops; the android is an extremely interesting "character"; characters and their interaction play a big role.
Which isn't true in Alien 2. Oh, sure, there is the child, with Ripley developing maternal feelings - but actually, if you think about it, it's just a variation of the "cat" theme in the original alien. There is nothing new there in that department.
Alien 4 is setting things straight again, coming up with a character variation in Ripley, the android, and, not that unimportant, even with the Alien (queen).
|
| |
|
|
