For your online assignment, please read the two articles posted on the blog:
TV vs Film, Part I
TV vs Film, Part II
After reading them, write a 1-2- page reaction based on the articles (roughly 250 words).
You should include what you now know about the TV industry as well as your own thoughts.
Does TV tell better stories today than film? Why or why not? What does TV do better than film? What does film do better than TV?
Again, write a well developed reaction based on the two articles. Post your reactions here, as comments.
The assignment must be submitted by Monday, February 23rd, 2015 Midnight (PST).
Thanks.
Jack
After reading part one and part two of TV vs Film, I am still somewhat undecided whether one is better than the other. They are both two very separate and varying experiences. TV is accessible to anyone with a television or laptop. Movies are as well, but visiting a theater is something that I believe our culture will not get bored with easily. Although less people are going to movie theaters in the recent years, there’s something special about buying a large popcorn and soda while sitting in a dark room with the projected film in front of you. It’s something that we have done as habit and something fun to do with friends or family. It’s the ideal way to watch a movie.
ReplyDeleteThere’s something about the excitement of waiting for the next episode of your favorite show to air on television just as there is excitement for the sequel of your favorite movie to come out in theaters. That being said, I do believe TV often can tell a better story than film because there are more opportunities each week to add to the story. However, there are movies that, if done correctly, can affect viewers for the rest of their lives. TV shows may often not be so impactful. I feel that television almost has an unfair advantage on film, if we are to compare the two, because of time constraints. Its almost as if a television show only had one episode and viewers had to decide if they liked it simply from the one episode.
Ultimately, I believe they’re two different medias and it’s very difficult to say whether one is better than the other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile both of these articles reinforced some already established knowledge of the television and movie industries, I was very shocked by some of the statistics and analyses. The first article discussed how movies have really declined in their overall presence in the media world over the past 10-20 years. Its not that movies don’t bring in money anymore—movies like American Sniper continue to set records, bringing in near $100 million opening weekend—they just are not the main source of revenue for the major media industry giants like they used to be. Television programming has reinvented itself over the past decade, with programs like The Big Bang Theory, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones. For example, Walt Disney Co. brings in over $6 billion a year from television alone, while only producing a mere $618 million from movies. This is significant for several reasons. For one, this shows the power of advertisement in television today. Thirty-second slots for commercials during big name shows are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention the billions that go into syndication, show memorabilia, and resale profits. This huge gap in profits enables production companies to have a little more leeway when they produce bombs in the movie realm. Walt Disney was able to fall back on their massive television income when they struggled to scrape by on John Carter and Mars Needs Moms. TV has become such a big success because it keeps viewers constantly updated and longing for more. Each week, followers of a show are graced by a brand new, attention-grabbing episode, thus drawing more views, and creating a desired advertising network. Movies appear in the theaters and after that, maybe get viewed one or two times on DVD a year later. It’s not that television shows tell a story better than movies. It is simply that television provides a more sustained market for viewers. While film excels at producing the best two-hour sequences you can find (far more advanced than any TV show), Television shows excel in creating suspense and bringing in views every week.
ReplyDeleteI found the two part “TV Vs. Film” articles very interesting and slightly changed my perspective about the TV and movie industries. The articles did not surprise me as far as the fact that TV has garnered huge sums of money as of late. Aspects of TV such as syndication and advertisements make up for the money losses of shows that don’t do well. Movies, on the other hand, cannot as easily make up for huge flops since so much money has been put into them. What did surprise me, however, was the viewpoint that people don’t want to go see movies as much today as they once did. Personally, I believe that both television and movies can offer a lot to entertainment in society. The experience of going to a movie theatre and seeing an entire story in a span of about an hour and a half is a tradition people love and I believe are unwilling to throw away. Movies have the ability to make you laugh, cry, and for just a short period of time, rethink your own reality. They also have the ability to rally a lot of talk and controversy. For example, American Sniper recently brought the nation to the theatres and caused a lot of debate about war and humanity. TV shows, in contrast, take longer for this build up to occur. The wonderful thing about television shows is that audiences can learn and grow with the characters. If audience members stick around long enough, they can see a transformation in characters and begin to feel as if they know them personally. TV shows also offer new and exciting plot twists that keep audiences coming back for more. This process is what makes people fall in love with a show, whereas a movie can only last for so long. Both medias have a lot to offer and tell valid and important stories in their own right. I doubt either will be disappearing anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these articles were very informative on the relationship between film and television. I believe that both these forms of entertainment media will have a place in our society for the foreseeable future, although Television has an edge over film for many reasons. TV has become much bigger in the last couple of years and a reason for that I think is accessibility. Anyone with an Internet connection or cable subscription can access hundreds of shows from the comfort of their own homes. TV allows for many topics to be easily presented to the masses. These stories presented on TV are very appealing, and allows for a story line to progress at a fast pace that today’s society enjoys. Most rather sit home and “binge” watch a variety of TV shows than going and sitting in a movie theater. Yes, the nostalgia of going to a movie theater, and seeing a movie is still and will continue to become a draw for millions. An example of this is movies such as American Sniper, which brought in millions of dollars and attracted viewers from many demographics. But the ability for Television shows to be so accessible with suspenseful and fast pace story lines exceeds the feeling one can get from sitting in a theater for a two-hour span. The profits from TV being $22.0 Billion, and the movie industry only being $2.513 Billion shows what society wants from the entertainment world. I do not believe that the film industry will die out anytime soon, both depend on each other to survive, but I believe that the statistics show that a major shift is happening and TV is here to stay.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s age of having everything at one’s convenience the reason is clear as to why movie attendance is falling while TV series retain extremely high viewership. Simply put in today’s society people would rather wait for a movie to come to them rather than go to it. And with a television set in nearly every home in America and a myriad of streaming services syndicated programming is more valuable than ever today. In terms of money it’s a simple matter of quantity over quality in some cases; as long as a show has over 100 episodes it can be played five nights a week from 7-8 pm in the normal stripped format. Movies, however, can only be shown sparingly by the network that buys the rights with the first screening usually drawing the highest ratings. With a television show the network can count on consistent viewership for their non-network programming hour while never playing the same episode more than twice a year. In turn this makes it more consistently appealing to advertisers and therefore more lucrative. But does all this mean television shows have surpassed movies in terms of quality of story? No. What this highlights is the television format’s strongest point: the ability to expand and elongate any story. Film must compress a story. Quality, however, can be found in both types of storytelling but in drastically different ways. A televisions series can expand upon the intricately woven plot of a book series like Game of thrones, devoting an entire season to a single book. In film the prevailing question, however is what must be cut from a book series like Harry Potter. A movie is a swift strike at the essential story. A television series is a long sweeping narrative focused on crafting a universe. The art of the narrative, however, is not lost in either. The dilemma of which should be more acclaimed is an internal one that each person decides: Compact and concise or expansive and thorough. To me, brevity is the still soul of wit and storytelling.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe comparisons of how well television and movies have been doing over past years is very interesting and the way that television has changed over the years are what has put the higher viewership in television’s favor. Television now has changed due to the fact that you can literally watch it anywhere and on multiple devices. Companies like Netflix are gaining viewers constantly for multiple reasons, but one being that you can get both movies and television for a low price. Naturally, it would make sense that with the availability to watch movies from the comfort of your home that no one would want to make the trip to a theater. I don’t think that one is better at doing its job than the other because I feel their stories are different. Movies’ primarily aim to leave an impact in some sort of way on an audience while television is purely for entertainment purposes. Also, television does not deal with as much loss at something that fails than movies do because syndicated television makes up in profits what flop television shows lose.
Television has the ability to tell a story in a larger allotted time than movies do and even more freedom to add as many characters as they want. Though both have restrictions to fit into the time that they are given, a television show can just continue what they didn’t get to next week and movies only have that two-hour timeframe. Its clear that people skip out on movies simply because they would rather do something else knowing that they could just wait until they can access it in other ways at their convenience. I undoubtedly believe that the result will not be that only one will remain but that they really will just merge into one place where you can enjoy both of them at your leisure. They both tell equally amazing stories but in two different ways and I feel that because there is a wider selection of how to watch both television and film in the same place that it will always be enjoyed. Ultimately, a company is more goal-oriented towards finding what will make them the most money and if there are movies like American Sniper that bring in large crowds and nearly 100 million in its opening weekend it will no doubt be moved to something like Netflix, where all of the people who missed out on going to the theatre will still be able to watch and enjoy it. The direction technology has gone has allowed us to view things on our own and if everyone does not want to go to the same movies it doesn’t mean that the industry will die out because of a bad story. Movies will still bring the same entertainment they always have but are just behind television in terms of accessibility. The thrill of seeing movies on the big screen is something that will never go away even if television programming makes 22 billion while movies only make 2.513 billion. There is an audience who will never miss out on seeing a blockbuster on the big screen as much as there is an audience who will wait to see it on television, so I don’t foresee an end to either of these mediums in the near future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s very interesting to read both of theses articles and listening to class discussion regarding television versus film. Before entering through the doors on the first day of class I was under the impression that the movie industry was the prominent division in the media industry. Apparently I was wrong because both the articles and discussions highlight television as being more dominant than film.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the part II of the article recently networks have been earning majority of its profit due to television. The difference between the profit made from movies and television are drastically different, this reflects the change in roles of television and film. The first article acknowledges how television is now a huge subject of conversation between many people and not everyone goes to the movies as often.
I personally believe that now television does tell better stories than film. Shows like The Walking Dead, Scandal, Game of Thrones, and more have the attention of hundreds of dedicated viewers. The new television shows are interesting, creative, and relatable. The story is told continuously through seasons full of episodes with new twists and action, while unless the movie is a series the story comes to an end sooner than television.
Besides telling a story better than film, todays television is more intimate with the audience through characters. A common trend today is viewers are becoming emotionally attached with characters in a series. The love for this character along with the addictive plot keeps them tuning in to the new episode each week. While with a movie after the movie is over the character is more forgettable than a television character.
Overall, after reading the articles I do agree with the message being expressed. Popularity of stories being told through television is growing and will continue to do so. Television conveys stories better than movies.
Before taking Introduction to Media Industries and reading the articles TV vs Film Part I and TV vs Film Part II I would have never thought that Television programs rule the media industry based on the money they make compared to movies and the film industry. But now after learning in this class and reading these articles I can’t say I’m surprised. There are more and more duds at the box office such as Mordecai and Jupiter Ascending. This doesn’t mean every film is a complete bomb; American Sniper has set records domestically and should be considered a major success. But, television shows like The Big Bang Theory and 2 and a Half Men were so wildly popular they brought in millions of dollars every year. And once a popular TV show hits syndication the writers for that show are set for life because the money keeps rolling in. TV shows like Friends and Seinfeld make millions and millions of dollars every year without having any expenses. And when this much money is being made, people start to notice. That’s why I believe more writers and directing their talents toward TV shows hoping to write that one big hit and all of a sudden have more money than they know what to do with.
ReplyDeleteAlso I believe actors are starting to direct their talents towards the Television industry as well. Actors would rather have their audiences see them on a specific night on a weekly basis then on the big screen once every few years. And advertisers are willing to par hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 30 second commercial because they know just how many people are watching and what it would do for their product or service. Another reason why the gap is so large between the two industries is in my opinion, the movies over the past five years or so have been subpar at best. This doesn’t mean I hated all the movies I saw, I really enjoyed 12 Years A Slave, The Wolf of Wall Street, Moneyball, and others but I often found myself disappointed as I left the theater. Television shows catch my interest and leave me wanting more after their weekly show is finished, and often times I catch myself in the theater looking at my phone for the time and trying to predict when the movie is going to end. So after reading the articles I agree with the overall message trying to be conveyed, the television industry is king and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
I found the articles about film vs. television very interesting and they made me think about what medium I prefer and what the strengths of each are. When I think about film, I think about a complete story, that often has a moral and a purpose. When I think about a television show I think about an event or mini-story that will be told in that episode. I go to each medium when I want something different. TV allows for often a more complete story to be told because each character has more time to be developed. I watch a TV show when I want more of a story that I will continually follow. A movie moves more swiftly and relies on small details and actions to progress the plot and come to a conclusion in a specific time frame. I watch a movie when I want to watch something that will make me think and tell a complete story. Because movies often leave limited room for extreme change and story progression especially relating to time, I think that more people are starting to watch TV, which would seem to follow the trend of companies generating most of their income from TV. 65% of Disney’s profits are from TV and that is on the low end of the spectrum for many companies. When you add in the fact that most of the money now a days comes from advertising which is on TV it only makes sense the TV would be taking over the industry and in a big way. In conclusion, I think that TV allows viewers to get to known characters better which is why people have become more likely to watch a TV show than pay to go to a theatre.
ReplyDeleteI switched over to TVR from Cinema for several reasons. One, TV is where all the money is. According to the second article, TV made a whopping $22 billion compared to movies that only grossed $2.1513 billion. That’s an incredible gap. Not only does TV make money--they also make room for jobs. There are hundreds upon thousands of television shows that are made every day. All those shows need crews, advertising people and talent. It’s interesting that the booming film market has been taken over by television. Back during the golden age of film, television was thought of as low-brow. Now, though, shows like House of Cards, The Wire, Modern Family and Game of Thrones are at the top of the charts in terms of popularity. I never really thought about the shift until I actually got into the Park school.
ReplyDeleteTV has many strengths that give it a boost over film. Not to say that TV is better at storytelling--but there are certainly advantages. For one, you get to know characters better in a long television series rather than a two hour movie. TV shows allow the characters to be put in many different situations and allow for a lot more character development than a movie might. A show like Parks and Recreation allows the audience to connect with the characters and look forward to seeing them each week. If Parks and Recreation was adapted into a single movie, it’d be a trainwreck.
While TV is good at long term storytelling, film is very good for capturing moments and characters in a succinct two hour block. The act of going to the movies is a very traditional and special act. Unfortunately, less people are going to the movies because of inflated ticket prices and the availability of home streaming. Plus a lot of the movies being made now are unoriginal and rely on a series to continue. For example, Marvel has 20 years of movies planned out for all their various super heroes. It’s very hard to get an original script through and produced on a big scale. That’s why it’s better to write for television. Television tends to be more original and risky than the film industry.
Having only seen 2 movies in theaters since my arrival at Ithaca College (Gone Girl and Into The Woods) compared to the countless number of television episodes I’ve seen, these articles came at no surprise to me. This, I believe, is due partly to accessibility. On a college campus, it’s easy to find someone with a TV who also has cable (aka me). However, it’s more difficult to frequent the movies. You either have to have a car, know someone who has a car, or take the bus to get to the movie theater. When it comes down to money, I’d rather pay the cable fee to watch countless hours of Friends re-runs, mindless TLC shows, or new hit dramas such as How To Get Away With Murder or The Blacklist than pay $12.00 to see only one 2-hour movie (unless it has Neil Patrick Harris or is based off a book I enjoyed). Using that logic, there’s no question as to why and how Television brings in more profit than movies do.
ReplyDeleteDo I think television can tell stories better than film? I think it tells stories differently. Movies tell a story straight in around 2 hours. Television tells a story in multiple 30-minute or one-hour episodes. Movies (if it’s a standalone) end with closure every time. No matter how many times you watch the Titanic the ending will always be the same. However, I believe television is more successful because it makes you wait. Every week we’re left asking, “what’s going to happen?” It makes viewers want to watch the next episode and the one after that and the one after that all because TV episodes, if done well, will leave you wanting more. It leaves you with a longing for more knowledge of the characters and of the plot.
Although I believe that the Television industry, logically, is doing far better than the film industry, I don’t believe that anything can replace the experience of seeing a movie in theaters.
I came away rather surprised after reading these two articles. Personally, I enjoy both television and movies and I had always thought that both forms of entertainment bring in tons of money for their major media companies. I was very surprised when I saw how vast of a difference, in terms of revenue, it was between television and radio. However, after reading these two articles, and having my eyes opened up a bit more to both fields in class, I can see how television has such a big edge in revenue over movies.
ReplyDeleteThe television industry is obviously a very successful industry, and there are a few reasons why I think they have an advantage over the movie industry. One reason being their story telling. A show that I am hooked onto right now is The Walking Dead. I have watched every episode of this television series, and I continue to come back each season because of the way they tell their story. I look at a television series as an extremely long movie. Each episode of the series is essentially a scene in the movie. The difference being, at the end of each episode in a television series you typically have to wait a week before you can see the next one. In terms of The Walking Dead, the episodes they produce are so suspenseful and so intense that their viewers continue to come back. At the end of each episode they always end with a cliff hanger or a huge scene that leads into next week and viewers continue to come back because they always want to see what happens next. I also think movies are at a disadvantage in society today because of accessibility. All i have to do to watch a TV show is go to my room, grab the remote and flip on the TV. To watch a movie, I would have to catch a bus to the theatre and back, and pay for my ticket and my food. Why go through such a hassle when I can wait for the movie to come out on demand or look for it online. I think television has such an advantage in the accessibility sense because you essentially have to do nothing to watch TV.
I think that movies tell just as good of a story as a television series does, just in a different way. Movies aren't granted the luxury of having numerous episodes to tell a story, they have to fit it into a 2-3 hour time period. I think movies do that very well, I think the stories are enthralling and entertaining and I greatly enjoy them just as I do TV. Ultimately I think both the movie and television industries are two great forms of entertainment, and I was rather surprised to see such a difference between the two.
I thought that both of these articles were very insightful and they made me very happy I am (hopefully) going into the television industry. The first article I read entitled “Why Television Is Trouncing Film at Major Media Companies,” gave many statistics as to why the television industry is becoming the most lucrative part of major media companies. The least surprising reason for this was when it was mentioned that movies are becoming more and more expensive to both produce and market. It also did not surprise me when it touched on the idea of theater attendance since movie ticket prices are extremely high these days and it is a hassle to go to the theaters at a specific time of day. The article also talks about why television has become such a profitable market. The increase in the number of cable networks and video streaming services has created many opportunities for the television industry for the creation of hit programs especially, like the article says, through syndication. Although more shows fail than they succeed, when shows do succeed they bring in such an incredibly high profit that the failed shows no longer matter.
ReplyDeleteWhen the second article brought up reasons for film to be in the rough state that it’s in, it said the relationship between cinema and the public has hit a “rough patch” because of the rising ticket prices and the extra charges for movies (such as 3-D). Movies are also now reached to the viewer through on-demand or Internet streaming. The author of the second article feels that movies have become “conservative and cautious, while scripted series, on both broadcast networks and cable, are often more daring, topical and willing to risk giving offense.”
I wholeheartedly agree with what both of these articles saying television has become not only more profitable but also more likable by the public. For the most part I feel that television programs tell better stories. They have no time limit and can really build an emotional connection with an audience over years; therefore, the audience wants to become more invested in a show. And whether a show is on cable, on-demand, or streaming; scripted shows are becoming more risky with their content compared to movies that have to appeal to a broad spectrum. I also agree with the fact the movie theaters over charge, and in a time where everyone is on a schedule it is easier to sit down for a twenty or forty minute program compared to an hour or two of sitting through a film. I do think films are great and they are more visually pleasing and creative; however, in my opinion watching a television program just makes more sense and is why the business is doing so much better than that of the film industry.
It is obvious as the reader that both of these articles state that television is doing significantly better in the media industry compared to movies. After putting some thought as to why the percentages differ by so much, it came down to this, laziness. We as a society are now connected to this little computer that we carry around in our pockets all day. Computers that are portable, come in many different sizes and are used for more activities than we could possibly imagine. Recently, I asked a couple of my friends if they’d like to go to the movies this Friday night. One said, “I don’t want to devote my entire Friday night to see a movie”. The other, “I’ll just wait until it comes out on Demand.” Since we are able to watch a movie with the click of a button on our computer screens, some people want to wait until that’s able to happen and don’t care for the whole movie, popcorn with lots of butter, large soda experience. They also prefer to watch a television show that doesn’t take as much time out of their day. When you see a movie, it must be a well thought out plan with your friends that you would buy tickets for, not knowing if you’d like it or not. When you see a tv show, it plays at a specific time each week or shown online, all free that can be watched on your very own couch. If you don’t like it, a simple click on the remote control or tablet would do the trick. If you do like the show, it’s a character building series that excites the audience each week showing advertised “sneak peeks” for commercials. Each show builds with new episodes and plot twists. Once you see a movie, there’s one plot and once word travels around by mouth on how “Birdman” is not actually about a half man, half bird hybrid, people won’t want to spend their money. It comes down to this, movies are an experience that will either be everything we hoped for, or not. Television is a place people to visit when they have the time in their own homes. In the modern day world, we are more comfortable at home, trusting that the television screen won’t disappoint. That’s the way I see it.
ReplyDeleteInitially, as I read these articles, I was surprised that TV seems to be dominating the industry and overpowering movies. Movies are such a significant aspect of society and have been for decades. Although the film industry has only brought in $2.513 billion, as compared to the crushing $22 billion TV has brought in, I doubt movies will ever die out. People use movies as a form of escape and a way to socialize with each other. We look forward to the tradition of spending a night out at the movies, buying a large popcorn, and getting lost in the big screen. Although it may not be as common as it once was, society simply just loves Hollywood. Movies have the power to connect people from all parts of the world and provide controversy, debate, and conversation. The connection and successes made from the film industry is shown from the Oscars. 87 years of tradition-- 87 years of films that have brought tears, laughs, and empowerment to viewers everywhere. A great example of the controversy brought about by movies would be the new release of “50 Shades of Gray”, which caused much debate due to its risqué themes. Once in awhile, the film industry hits the nail on the head and produces films like “American Sniper”, which brought in millions upon millions of revenue and in turn, set several record-breaking statistics. The impact of films is far too important for it to ever die out. However, I do understand why television seems to overpower film. We are a lazy society and tend to be frugal with our money. Why go out to the movies, spend money for a ticket, popcorn, etc., and risk the potential distraction of other movie-goers, when you could wait to watch the film in the comfort of your own home? Not only will you be saving money, but you’re also saving yourself the frustration of dealing with other inconsiderate viewers. It’s much more convenient to pay a cable subscription fees, which are driving the earnings for TV industry, and have endless choices of entertainment in the power of a remote. In my opinion, you’re getting more for your money. In addition to that, TV is such a dominant force in the industry because people are busy. We don’t “have time” to go out to the movies, but TV is easily accessible to us. By the time we’re done with our busy days, all we want to do is relax in our home and get lost in the series of our favorite shows—a reliable source of entertainment and escape each week, which viewers become connected to. TV gives us what we what in a timely, cheaper, manner-- but I highly doubt either will disappear anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteThe two “TV vs. Film” articles further strengthened my belief that TV is better than film for many reasons. Obviously the television industry is making much more money than the film industry, as shown from the many statistics and charts in article two, but I think that tv is also of a much higher caliber than many movies. As mentioned in article one, most of the successful movies being released nowadays are summer blockbusters, superhero movies, and sequels to more superhero movies. Simply because these are the films that are making the most money. Yes, there are still some creative, original, movies being made, and many of the films nominated at the Oscars fit this category, but these are not the movies that are making money for their studios. Television, on the other hand, makes all of its money from commercials. Or in the case of pay cable networks like HBO, Showtime, and Starz, through subscriptions. Pay cable networks especially, have been releasing some of the most edgy, controversial, and original content that’s ever been seen on TV. This is not to say that I’m anti-movies. I still love seeing movies, and would argue that there is nothing that beats seeing a movie in theaters for the first time. Although, there are very few movies that I have actually seen in theaters this year, in fact, of all the best picture nominees I have only seen one; Boyhood, which I saw in theaters over the summer. On the reverse side I can’t even count how many tv shows I’ve binged watched on Netflix in the past year. Part of this is just what’s most convenient for a college student, and part of it is the much larger selection of creative, original, character driven stories being shown on TV, that are just much harder to come by in film.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to telling stories, it is easier for people to sit down in front of their television sets for a half-hour and be taken into a new world than it is for them to go out to the theater and have to sit through a 90 to 120 minute film to be told a similar tale. While movies are restricted to that one block of time, TV shows are able to drag their story lines over multiple episodes or seasons. Doing this allows for a richer story with deeper character development at a cheaper cost than producing a movie. In order to replicate this effect on film, a production studio would have to produce multiple expensive sequels with huge gaps of time between releases, while TV shows occur at least once a week for two seasons a year.
ReplyDeleteGoing to the movies has become an experience more than a regular activity for many Americans. This experience is sold with the idea that movies “are bigger than television, grander than video games, more important than viral Internet videos — even if those things can often be more interesting, more profitable or more fun.” This experience may even break into the third dimension, enthralling the audience with visual effects unparalleled with those on traditional TV screens. However with soaring ticket prices, people find it more economically viable to catch up on TV shows on cable channels they already pay for.
While Disney is more diversified in its income in the sense that along with TV and movies, it also earns profit from its theme parks and extensive merchandising and other consumer goods, TV still accounts for more than half of its 2011 operating income, coming in at 65.1%. On the other hand, movies account for just 6.5% of the income, less than that of its parks and resorts.
Disney is able to get by with these figures because it owns a handful of cable networks such as ABC, ESPN, and the Disney Channel. Through these channels, Disney is able to push out new content more often and at a quicker pace than it can produce a feature film, often at a fraction of the cost. Because of the cost factor, a TV show that does not get renewed does not have as much of a negative effect on the company’s bottom line as a movie that fails such as “John Carter.” This fact makes it easier for production houses and networks to create content for the small screen.
No matter which medium is used to tell a story, the purpose is the same: to entertain and entrance an audience. Each medium has its benefits and drawbacks, whether that means having a large enough budget or only catering to a small niche audience, but in the goal is to turn a profit.
I found both of the TV vs. Film articles very interesting, and they altered my view on the industries a bit. I was already aware that television was becoming much more successful than film, however I was definitely not aware of how much. The second article really drove that point home, with the diagrams of the financial gain in the various businesses. It really made it clear how much more successful the television industry is than the film industry nowadays. Both of the articles also made clear one point: that there is just so much more opportunity for television success than in film. This is something I was aware of, but didn’t realize I was aware of until I read these articles. I’m not saying that films aren’t successful, nor am I saying that all TV shows do well. Most TV shows fail, and many movies make millions and millions of dollars in the box office alone. However movies lack that flexibility that many TV shows have. TV shows can cover more ground story-wise, and they have more outlets to make financial gain. They also demand a much more faithful audience. From my own experience, I will wait two and a half years for another season of Sherlock or Attack on Titan, but I can’t even remember the last movie I waited that long for. TV shows have that audience that won’t suddenly get bored and stop watching, whereas moviegoers will stop going to see new movies in a series after a certain number of sequels. That’s another thing that the articles mentioned, originality. TV shows have much more room financially to take a risk with original programming, because of the successes of other programs. The syndication of those has made so much that studios and networks can afford to take those risks and have them fail. Movies don’t have that luxury, which is why there’s so much less original content and much more sequels and reboots. These reasons, both that the article presented and that I’ve reasoned on my own, are why TV is becoming more and more successful while movies are not.
ReplyDeleteI found both these articles regarding Television and Film very compelling. After learning a lot of information in class about the Television and Film industry, I can understand why people think that TV is better than film. Yet, I can’t help but defend the Film industry and realize that both forms of entertainment have positives and negative that, depending on what the consumer wants, can be two great ways to watch a story unfold. The Television industry completely revolves around syndication and advertisements, allowing newer television shows to fail without the threat of losing too much money for the network. For example, Walt Disney has enough money to allow “John Carter” and “Mars Needs Moms” to fail without losing a large sum of money, due to the fact that they have plenty of revenue from their Television shows to support failed films. I do believe that television networks are more capable of giving society entertainment on a regular, more constant basis, without the audience ever having to leave their couch. But, it would be a complete tragedy if society was forced to watch everything at home or on a computer. Even though sites like Netflix and Amazon Prime are increasingly popular and the television industry is more financially stable, the majority of people could not watch movies or TV shows from their house or computer for the rest of their lives. Films fill the gap when we say “I feel like going to a movie” – it’s the experience, and both forms of entertainment are crucial for consumers.
ReplyDeleteTV has come a long way over the years and has now surpassed movies as the main source of entertainment in mass media in the United States. I’m not surprised that this is the case. TV Vs. Film Parts I and II provided solid evidence of how TV is the networks’ main source of revenue. Despite movies not making as much profit as TV, there are still movies that are highly successful, such as American Sniper. Movies in general are becoming more careful and aren’t taking risks like scripted series are doing now. Shows on broadcast networks and cable are bolder. They’re telling better stories than movies. The people creating these storylines aren’t afraid of offending others. They aren’t allowing their creativity to be stifled by what some viewers might not enjoy. The first article says that TV shows enrapture their audiences more than movies do now. I do and do not agree with that claim. The first article references LOST as one of these shows that hooks viewers from the beginning with its complex storylines, causing its audience to think while watching it; and having seen it, I agree with how addicting it is. On the other hand, I also believe that audiences get equally invested in movies. Not all movies affect viewers, leaving them wanting more; but I think certain ones can have this type of impact. Specifically franchises like Harry Potter and movies that turn into classics capture audiences’ attention. It’s challenging to be able to create a movie that has long lasting effects on someone. Movies still manage to do so even with the limitation of only having roughly two hours to get the story across. I think TV and movies are both successful and can’t be fairly compared because they’re two different forms of media.
ReplyDeleteTelevision has long surpassed the boundaries of storytelling in a way even the best movies could never pull off. The biggest thing that separates these two from each other the tools they have to work with to tell a story. Movies are so much more limited than TV shows mostly due to their length – individual movies are only a couple hours of a standalone plot whereas TV shows have an unlimited timeframe to work with, as they can just keep making more episodes. Despite this, movies and television also come down to personal preference as they just tell stories in a different way. Movies provide a brief insight into the lives of characters, developing an interesting and engaging plot, but TV can build an entire universe and immerse its viewers in it, focusing on slower moving plots with much greater character development, allowing for everything to slowly unfold as the viewer discovers it. Another aspect that separates movies and television is the ease of watching it – movies are more about the experience of going to the theater and watching a 2-3 hour spectacle on the big screen, whereas TV shows are shorter and can be comfortably watched at home. Not to say movies never air on television or episodes of TV shows are never screened in theaters, but the way most people think about these two separate experiences are the way that the creators expected the respective methods to be viewed. Though some people may still prefer going to the theater, I believe that television, with its ease of access, shorter episodes, and longer overall time, definitely outshines movies in terms of storytelling.
ReplyDeleteBoth these articles really changed my view on both the television and movie industry. Although TV is taking over, movies will never go out of style. Even if someone is not interested in a movie, they will still go see it if everyone else is. A lot of movies come from over seas and also independent filmmakers, which TV does not have. We’ll also always have the movie “classics” with movies like, “The Godfather”, “Gone With The Wind”, “It’s a Wonderful Life” and so many more. There are very popular TV shows but I don’t think they’ll be remembered and credited as much as these movies are to this day. Like the TV vs. Film article said, people will always want to go to the movies. It stated “there is still something special about the experience of buying a ticket and a tub of popcorn and sitting, alone or with friends, watching pictures projected through the darkness.” There is something about movies that you can’t get out of just watching a television show and that will never go out of style. One advantage TV has over movies is its flexibility; they don’t have to many constraints. TV has the power to surprise. They can change a script after every episode if they wanted to. TV has a continuing story, it can stop at any time or it could keep going for a very long time. With TV you can watch characters develop over years and see how they change and what relationships they form. Whether you’re watching TV or going to see a movie, you are going to be entertained. We need both of these mediums in the entertainment world and they are both unique in their own ways.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these two articles my views on television and movies have not changed from what I thought about them before. I am a movie lover and will always love movies. I understand where the articles points of view are coming from by saying that television is taking over and will always be more popular then movies. The fact is that I keep thinking that there are thousands of movies that play on television all the time and people tune in to watch those. When we are watching Tv and we see that "It's Wonderful Life " is playing at eight o'clock tonight, we make sure that we stay and watch it because its a classic. I know every time "50 First Dates" comes on Tv I make sure that Im watching it even though I have seen the movies a hundred times. I realize that television has many advantages over movies such as the plot line and setting. In the second article the television show, "Glee" was mentioned. I do understand that a teen musical Tv show set in Ohio would not be that interesting to see as a movie and I wouldn't want to pay extra money to go see that in a movie theatre. It is much more entertaining as a Tv show and very modern to todays day in age with their technology and song selection. Although, there are times where a movie would not make it as a television show due mainly to its story and or setting. I feel that while movies can tell a cohesive story it is much harder to achieve character development in a two hour movie then it is to create it over the course of a few years. Take, "Friends" for example. Over the years that Friends played we feel in and out of love with different characters and found out more and more about them as time went on. We watched them fall in love, and break up. We watched them have children and start their families. There isn't any way that the story of Friends could be compiled into one movie because it would not have the same affect on the audience as it did as a long running television series. No one would have time to connect to their stories or their characters. The story lines would have to be changed if it were to be a move. So yes, I see how movies and television differ and how television can be seen as the better media source. But I still see movies as a very large industry and will continue to enjoy them just as much as I enjoy television.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both of these articles, my views on movies have changed slightly. It is easy to understand that television has captivated audiences much more so than movies have in recent years. The articles stated the common but not much remembered fact that movies are almost always targeted to a specific audience. While television does the same, its spontaneity from week to week allows new viewers to tune in for different episodes, at different times, on different weeks. Both of these platforms are to tell a story and entice viewers, but speaking from my own personal experience, I have not felt captivated by a movie in recent years as compared to television shows. Sitting in my dorm room, I notice myself streaming television shows about ten times more than streaming movies. Grey’s Anatomy, Scandal, Friends, Breaking Bad, the list goes on and on, with not one movie in sight. That being said, I was not that shocked that Television makes up more than half of most big corporations, and that movies are barely a third. There isn’t an experience equal to going to a movie, buying a ticket, candy and popcorn, and sitting with your friends to watch a movie. I don’t think anything can match that, and I believe that is the only strength movies have over television. Television is spontaneous, and as the article pointed out, it is not as shocking when a television show is a bit risky. Additionally, the originality of television shows now-a-days is what keeps bringing viewers back. Ultimately, the television industry is on the rise and doesn’t seem like its slowing down anytime soon. Move over movies!
ReplyDeleteI think that in recent years, the television industry has done a better job than the film industry, not entirely because they do a better job of telling the story, but because the television industry tells stories that can connect to a wider variety of people. The movies that have come out recently almost all are directed at one small segment of the population, so when those people chose not to see the film, and no one else saw the storyline’s appeal to begin with, the movie fail at the box office big time. I think TV has done a better job in the last 10 or so years of creating shows that can appeal to a wider audience on some level and then hooking them in once they start watching.
ReplyDeleteTV has also done better because as it has become more assessable and convenient to the masses, going to the movie theater has become more expensive. Parents are more likely to sit down and watch a TV show like iCarly with their kids at no additional cost to their current cable bill, and it is almost impossible to watch TV in the United States without cable, than they are to spend $40 to see a movie that their kids may not end up liking.
Reading the two “TV vs. Film” articles did make me think about the upsides and downside of both television and film. While I don’t think that the idea of American enjoying the idea of going to the movie theater will go away anytime soon, I can also see some major short comings in the industry over the last few year, allowing the TV industry to surpass it.
After reading the articles TV vs. Film part 1 and TV vs. Film part 2, it’s easy to see that films are being viewed as the “ugly step-child” in comparison to television. By now it should come as no surprise that Television is the dominating force in the media industry. With that in mind, both of the articles go further in depth to help the reader better understand the reasons as to why Television is viewed as superior.
ReplyDeleteWith the combination of my own personal knowledge and the two articles assigned, I have molded together many thoughts and opinions as to why the television industry is viewed in a better light then the film industry. First and foremost, television is a much more profitable industry. With both the prices of advertising and subscription fees, the television industry not only trumps the earnings of the film industry, but also generates it’s billion dollar revenue. Secondly, the television networks have a primitive templet that they follow in order to create an effective system. The components that form the system are the proaction studios, the networks, the affiliates, the syndications, and the advertisers. All of the five components depend on each other and balance one another. For instance, the networks could not survive without the affiliates and vise versa. Also, the networks wouldn’t reach such great heights with their profits without the advertisers paying to display their products throughout the shows. Due to the knowledge I have regarding the Television Industry, my opinion as to whether TV or films tell better stories is a bit biased. I personally think television tells a better story than film because television is in theory one giant, dragged out story. Since the story is so dragged out, there’s lots of room to fit in more details and twists. It also allows for the audience to get more emotionally invested due to the large amount of time that the audience has been viewing the show. Lastly, I believe that television doesn’t require such an effort. When someone goes to the movies, they have to devote at least an hour and a half of their time and pay a minimum of eight dollars for a ticket. Even if an individual is just watching a film in their own house, they still have to dedicate a hefty amount of time and in most cases still pay a fee to access the movie.
All in all, the television industry and film industry are two very different games played in two very different ways. Although they both have a major significance to most consumers lives, it’s starting to become very clear that television is the favored of the two options. With that being said, I don’t necessarily think that film is the “ugly step-child” of the two, but film definitely has some acne they need to clear up. Perhaps over time the kinks and wrinkles will be fixed and the film industry will work themselves out, but until then its safe to say that the television industry is the more attractive of the two.
Amongst the most powerful media conglomerates it is evident that the majority of their money from television rather than film. At Viacom a massive 91.9% of their operating income comes from TV rather than movies (8.1%). The story is similar at Disney (65.1% vs 6.5%), Time Warner (70.8% vs 10.2%), and News Corp (60.4% vs 15.5%). The availability of syndication, advertisements, and online streaming make TV a reliable source of income. TV episodes are structured around advertising; cliffhangers are written before commercial breaks to keep the audience engaged and have them sit through 3 minutes of advertisements again and again week after week. And now with ondemand and online streaming there are even more opportunities for advertisers to take hold. Although many shows fail in their first or second season the ones that make it, make it big. According to Bill Carroll, vice president and director at Katz Television Group, “More shows fail than succeed, but when shows succeed the upside is so dramatic that it’s sort of the tradeoff.”
ReplyDeleteMovies on the other hand are failing for a number of reasons. First and foremost movies have become more about the experience of “going to the movies.” This both helps and hurts them. On one hand people are likely to bring their families and make a night out of it, getting popcorn, and a box of junior mints and it’s unlikely that this will ever stop. However, I wonder if this desire for an experience makes audiences less likely to get a movie ondemand or on DVD. I can’t say for sure if that is the case but I can say with certainty that theaters today are completely saturated with remakes, sequels, and franchises. To quote Bo Burnham, “We’ll stop beating this dead horse when it stops spitting out money.” Production companies want franchises because they make an ungodly amount of money, and they are a fairly reliable source of future income. They want people to keep coming back and develop a sense of loyalty, not unlike the connections they develop with TV shows.
When it comes to storytelling I personally believe TV has the upper hand. The characters on TV shows grow and change through the years as we do—we experience life along side them. We develop para-social relationships with these characters and feel like they are own friends. I don’t think film can have this same effect given the time constraints of the medium. However even this aspect of TV is changing as more people decide to binge watch their TV shows so instead of it being a part of our life routine once a week we treat shows like books, where we devour chapter after chapter. I don’t think this is necessarily bad thing but it definitely marks a transition in the way we consume TV.
Human beings are drawn to the rise and fall of climax. We indulge ourselves and bloat ourselves with every thriller, drama, comedy that is released into the media. We live for the emotions that are thrown upon us by the likes of Breaking Bad and Titanic. The longer these emotions and feelings are strung out, the more crazed we seem to be. That is why TV shows have been more dominant in our generation. Most people would rather watch a 60-hour TV drama than spend 11 dollars at the movie theatre to watch just an hour and a half of drama (or comedy, thriller, etc.).
ReplyDeleteWE are pretty simple creatures. It is easy to please the average human. On the contrary, the exceptional TV shows are rather intricate compared to the mediocre shows. But give us Netflix and a bed to sit on and we will be happy. Watching a TV show is barely a task anymore. Anyone can go onto the internet and use Hulu or Netflix to watch their show of choice; with movies, it is not so simple. The more accessible something is to us, the more popular it will be in our society. People do not like having to work and people do not have to work in order to watch a TV show.
On the other hand, watching a movie has never been so easy; but TV shows still have the slight edge because of their strung out build of climax.
After reading the articles, it’s clear that the TV business has become more profitable than the film business. But is this because television is generally telling better stories than movies? Or is there another reason entirely? In the article Are Films Bad, or Is TV Just Better, A.O. Scott puts forth the idea that a lot of very smart TV has reached a popular audience. He cites shows like the Sopranos and the Wire as examples. These shows are not just for a select few who enjoy smart, artsy TV. Instead, they are widely enjoyed by a large audience while at the same time achieving the status of “high art”. In contrast, A.O. Scott talks about how movies have struggled to do the same thing. While many critics enjoy going to see “smart” films, these artistic movies do not wind up having the same wide audience appeal among the general public as television. He asks, “Will any of the movies surfacing this fall provoke the kind of conversation that television series routinely do, breaking beyond niches into something larger?”. It may be that television has figured out how to reach an audience in a new way and movies are now lagging behind.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have only seen two of the movies up for Best Picture at the Oscars this year. Last year, I did not wind up seeing a lot of the movies until after their nomination was announced. From my own perspective it seems true that these kinds of movies are reaching a large audience in the same way that television is. While I don’t believe it’s because either has figured out a way to tell stories that are better than the other, I do believe that, generally, TV has figured out ways to get their shows across to a wider audience while films have not been nearly as successful at doing this.
My views on the television and film industries have not changed since reading these articles. It is my understanding that the two industries have a beneficial relationship. Movies are the short stories that we can watch in long increments, and television shows are the long stories we can watch in short increments. Television makes so much money because it can send people into a new world in the comfort of their own home. The money comes from advertising. Advertisers literally pay tons of money based on how many people sit down on a couch and press a few buttons. In order to go to the movies, you have to put on pants, go outside, and use gas in your car. It makes it surprising that people still go to movies at all. But this is forgetting that some advertising comes from movies themselves. The networks who produce television and movies can advertise their own movies on their largely viewed television channels. They can hype up a movie the same way they hype up a television show. This makes the film business one that is not failing, but staying afloat thanks to television. Not to mention the vast number of jobs created by the huge amounts of films produced each year. Television is more profitable but I feel as though film is a form of media we will not see disappear anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteI believe that TV is able to tell a better story than film. This is due to the fact that TV has much more time to develop the story. Movies only have a few hours to convey a story, while a TV show can focus more on small details and let the plot progress through a few different episodes in the season by leaving cliff hangers at the end of each episode. This is a win win for TV shows because not only does it allow the show to elaborate on plot details, but it also makes the viewers want to tune in to the next show, so that they can figure out what finally happens. Movies also can use cliffhangers, but given the fact that movies can take years to create, it doesn't have the same effect on the audience that it might have on them waiting a week. Another thing that TV has over movies is syndication. Though movies make more money than normal TV shows on an opening weekend, if a television show is in syndication (has at least 100 episodes), then the show can start playing re-runs. Re-runs mean that everyone involved in the making of the show get paid each time its on the air, meaning shows like Seinfeld, and Law and Order SVU, which are shown on TV almost every day, end up making quite a bit of money.
ReplyDeleteThe only benefit I can see the movie industry having over the television industry is that it benefits multiple parties. If you want to see a movie, you have to go to an actual theater. This means more jobs for people who work there, as well as nice advertising opportunities that other movies picked up on DVD or on Netflix won't have.
Lenny Dieujuste
ReplyDeleteIt came as no surprise to me that the television world is much bigger than the movie world. And if you have experience or an education that deals with some aspect of television, you’re chances are much higher of getting employed. The Wrap reported a chart that showed the giant bridge in profit between TV and Movies. TV profits blow Movie profits out of the water. For example, Viacom made 341 million dollars in movie revenue in 2011. But that paled in comparison to the colossal 3.85 Billion that it made with TV in that same year. Now a days TV is worth up to half a company's revenue and up to 80 percent of its operating income.
I’ve always known that the TV is vast in media corporations. But a pie chart like the one I saw in the reading really gives me a realistic visual of just how dominating Broadcast television is in the entertainment industry. I think that in many ways, it is certainly more likely that TV tells better stories than movies. But that doesn't have to necessarily be true for every realm. A reason why television many be able to tell a story more flexibly is because TV may contain a show series a lot of times in which the is much more time to tell a broader, more complex story. But then again, there are Sagas and trilogies when it comes to movies. Although a well written two hour movie can also tell a full story with a plot, conflict and resolution. It’s all a matter of how the story is constructed. Film is better at getting to the resolution must faster than TV. It gets straight to it. But with TV, a lot of times, you have to wait till the very end of the series and there are often many sub conflicts that have to be overcome before resolving the overall conflict that was set in the very beginning.
After reading both articles I realize the major differences in both media sources. Both movies and television tell stories very well, if they didn't no one would watch them. I do not think one tells a story better than the other, but the way they convey the information is different. With movies the viewer gets more showing than telling. Also with movies, in one two hour sitting you understand the entire story that was trying to be conveyed from beginning to end. However, television on the other hand, has a reputation of doing more telling than showing to present a story. With television you never get a full story in a one hour sitting, television always leaves you with an incomplete story to make sure the viewer tunes in for the next episode. Therefore to receive and understand the full story you have to be committed to a story for seasons which usually last four or five years. Television and Movies may tell stories a little differently, but undeniably they both do a very good job of communicating the story.
ReplyDeleteIn recent years we have seen a shift of where the money is made in media. Most money has been made through television instead of movies. Television mainly makes its money through advertisements on every show as companies pay money to advertise their product during the show. However a movie's money is made through the box office. Those are the two major in differences in how the the different medias make money. I think the reason that television is doing so well is because almost everyone has television and advertisements are always sold for every television program. One advantage television has in the finances is the fact that it is cheaper to produce compared to movies. While in order for movies to make money people have to travel to see them and the price of one ticket is way less than the price of one advertisement. Therefore the way television is set up it will always be the bigger money make I think. However, that does not necessarily mean one is better than the other.
The articles TV vs Film part I and part II shared views about entertainment media that surprised me. Although I was aware of the popularity of TV shows and the easy access to them I really thought that movies played a larger role in earning revenue for media conglomerates. After thinking about the connections between advertising and television though I realize there is a much larger audience that can be reached with TV. It’s not that movies don’t reach millions of viewers but more that people are not exposed to them as often. TV also benefits from repeatedly reaching target demographics for years when a movie only really does so for a few weeks. Syndication is another huge money maker for TV since it is just repackaged and there are no production cost. Additionally, both mediums are accessible but TV is everywhere there is internet or cable which makes it even more pervasive.
ReplyDeleteI think that story telling is different for each medium and that depending on the type of story TV can be better than film. Longer more detailed adaptations of books and stories with cliffhangers work better for television. This provides incentive to come back and watch each week. Character growth is also very interesting because with TV people change season to season both in real life and on the show. However I think that film is better at letting us build a connection quickly to characters. Going to the movies is also a much more social way to experience media. Being with friends, eating popcorn and snacks, and watching on a huge screen has a great way of creating an immersive atmosphere for viewing movies. When a movie is all said and done we can let go of it easier but at the same time can be moved by the performance. However, when a TV show ends it feels really bittersweet because after watching for so long it’s finally coming to an end. This adds another layer to the emotional appeal of TV because of how immersed we are in a shows world. I think that TV and the movies both hold important places in our culture and that regardless of the differences in earning power they are both here to stay.
The television and movie industry has always been two very different things to me. I don’t think that the reason for the difference in television income and movie income is because of the story lines. Both do decent jobs for the most part when it comes to that. I don’t think that it’s the movies’ faults at all. I think it might have a lot more to do with today’s multi-tasking culture. You can’t text in the movie theatre, you can hardly discuss anything about the movie in the movie theatre without being hushed. I feel that being able to text, tweet, and talk during shows (that you’re probably recording, or are going to be able to see again next week) makes viewers more actively engaged in what their watching. It makes them feel like they’re apart of the lives of the people on the screen, instead of an outsider looking in.
ReplyDeleteApart from that, I also think that the time span is a very big thing. Watching television, we don’t get the full story in one sitting, and it makes us wonder. It makes us want more, so we can become active in these fictional characters lives. After you sit through a movie and it’s over, whether it was a good movie or not, it’s over, that’s it. You’re not going to get more unless there’s a sequel or someone remakes it in the future. Because of this and because you’re forcing people to sit in a dark theatre for 2 plus hours, you need a really good story to even get people to want to go.
I think that when it comes to story continuity, though, movies do it much better than TV shows. And, in contrast, I think TV shows do a better job with promos than movies. Which makes sense with why people would be more inclined to watch TV shows instead of movies.
I first thought that movies are better at telling a story than TV because you have more time to develop the story and usually a bigger budget, however my opinion has changed after reading these two articles. Movies develop a story within a few hours and you see everything at once, whereas in television you get to see the story develop over the whole season. Television does better then movies because they stretch the story out and build up anticipation for the next episode. With movies, you can’t build up as much anticipation because you have a time frame before the release. I think another reason why television is so dominant is because of all the advertising revenue they earn off of each episode. Since the season is split up into many different episodes, they can charge advertisers for each episode. With movies, you have advertisements in the beginning, however it is much easier to skip passed those. That’s not to say movies don’t do anything better than TV, because they do. I think the most valuable thing movies have is time. Having two or three hours for a movie is a lot easier to develop an effective story and can really impact the audience. It’s really hard to say if television or movies are better in my opinion because they are very different. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Although it may not seem like it at first, I think television can tell a better story then movies.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I am not really surprised at all that the television industry has surpassed the film industry when it comes to being networks main source of income and entertainment. If someone asked me right now, “do you watch more television or movies?” I would 100% say television. These articles explain and prove to me that the majority of the United States today would agree with me. Times have changed and television now sits in the top spot over the film industry.
ReplyDeleteBoth television and movies do tell a story. Now which tells the better story is the dispute. After reading these articles, I would have to say television definitely tells the better story. Not just because of how much more profit television brings in, but because of the risks taken and spontaneity in TV. Movies are usually careful and take a safer approach. I believe television is more flexible. With TV, people can watch what they want, when they want. They can change the channel if they don’t feel like watching a show or can record a show on DVR when they don’t have time to watch or they can watch on Demand. Every week TV shows have the capability to capture the attention of new and returning viewers. This capability gives the networks a chance to take risks and push the limits. They can tell a story over a longer time span and leave the audience wanting more every week. This power is something that movie directors will never have. There is no new episode next week in movies. They must tell there story within 2 hours and hope the audience likes it. Movies have one chance if they take a risk and fail, there is no next week. Movies have to be careful because of this.
Although a majority of my free time is spent either watching TV live or catching up online, DVR, Netflix or On Demand, I do believe that there is one thing that the movie industry has over television, and that is the experience of going to a movie. Like the articles stated, there is no comparison to going to a movie theater, buying a huge tub of popcorn and sitting in the dark large room and watching a movie with your friends. Just because the film industry isn’t in the top spot today, that doesn’t mean that the movies produced are horrible and no one goes to see them. In conclusion, the television industry is on the rise and movies are going to need to step it up if they want to compete and stay in business!
I think television can tell a story better than film if the people making the shows on television know what they are doing. If the people making the film are very good at what they do and the TV people are not as good, the film might be able to do a better job, but on the whole, I think TV can tell a story better. Successful television shows run for years and have upwards of five seasons, and each of those seasons, usually 12 episodes or so long, have more time in them than movies. A 12 episode season of 22 minute cable broadcasting is over 4 hours long, unless the movie is by an Indie director who wants to make a name for themselves, the film will not be that long. The television series has roughly twice as long to develop characters and narratives that can carry on for just the one season, or throughout the entire show.
ReplyDeleteMovies on the other hand I think do a better job with set design, prop work, and other aesthetic things because they have the time to set everything up. The movie takes months to make, and they don’t usually have to worry about making a sequel or another episode soon after the first is done. The set and production designers have months to think up, create, and perfect their sets, but the TV designers don’t have as much time because they need to make sure they have the ability to make more props and sets for another season within a few months after the original season. Movies can focus on making itself look as good as possible, whereas TV shows have to make sure the sets are reusable for at least a couple of episodes.
Television and Film are two of the biggest industries in the United States and worldwide. When word of a great new flick hits the US population, people go out in droves to see them. Take, for the most recent example, 50 Shades of Grey. The movie set opening weekend records in eleven countries. However, it takes time and effort to get in the car, buy some snacks, and invest yourself in a two-hour movie. That time and effort is exponentially reduced by hitting a button on your remote and watching whatever is on television. This is why television brings in the most dough for the networks. People who live in the first-world consume media. People in the first world also want instant gratification. It’s so much easier to watch TV or go to Netflix or HuluPlus (why would anyone use Hulu over Netflix???).
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why Television brings in more dough is because it’s easier to develop a storyline and give your viewers more of what they want to see. If Breaking Bad was a movie, the producers would want to keep it at 180 minutes, at the absolute most. The storyline would be greatly condensed and we wouldn’t get to see as much of the fabulous Brian Cranston and Aaron Paul. It worked as a TV show, though, because viewers who watch BrBa get to see roughly sixty hours. Episodes can end in cliffhangers and be resolved the next week. If you watch a movie and there’s a cliffhanger, you either need to wait two years for it to be resolved in the sequel, or you’re left guessing.
Prior to reading these articles I didn't really notice how significantly different the television and movie industry is. I am currently a film, photography, and visual arts major but I am in the process of switching to TVR for obvious reasons. One of them being that film is just too intellectual and artsy for me and the other one being that the television industry seems to be taking over the entire entertainment industry these days. These articles showed using graphs the dramatic difference between revenues between the industries showing that the TV industry is clearly more profitable than the movie industry. I think a contributing factor to this may because there are so many different TV shows on air for people to choose from so there are various audiences that are watching television. As for movies, they usually have a target audience, which would obviously draw in a specific crowd. Do I think one medium tells a better story than the other? I would say they each tell stories in a different way however I do believe that television has the ability to tell a better story only because of time. For example, if an episode of a TV show is 42 minutes long and there are roughly 23 episodes just in one season, they have about 966 minutes to tell a story and that’s just in the first season. With movies they usually run around 130 minutes so they are limited with the amount of time that they have to tell the story to the audience. Because movies have less time than TV series I think it creates a more intense, suspenseful, and dramatic experience for the viewers when scenes are forced to change so quickly. With television there are specific episodes that have that excitement but it usually isn’t every episode due to the fact that the producers have other episodes and seasons to continue on with their story. Also, I think that the timing of TV plays a huge role when a TV show is telling its story because viewers have more time to connect with the cast. Because some shows have 6 and 7 seasons, viewers find themselves becoming attached and feeling as if they really know the cast members because they have been with them for 140 episodes. In movies the audience is forced to relate with the cast in under 200 minutes.
ReplyDeleteThe television industry is definitely surpassing the movie industry and whether it is because TV is easier to access than movies may be or if recent movie ideas have not been up to par with previous ones, TV is clearly becoming more prevalent and profitable. Overall I would agree with the ideas these articles present when they say that television is taking over in the entertainment industry because the numbers are very clear. However, I am also a movie lover so I hope to see some big changes from the movie industry and hopefully for the better.
Both of these articles proposed the phenomenon that television shows are bringing in more revenue for media companies than films. The first chart in the second article sums up the evidence by displaying how the sum of TV profits for Viacom, Disney, TimeWarner, NewsCorp and NBCU soar at 22 billion, while that of film trails way behind at a mere 2.513 billion. For one, television shows are produced for a medium that reaches every household that pays for cable. In this case, many people already have access to watch shows right in their house, and don’t have to go out of their way to watch them like a movie. Television shows are also produced in a series of 30-60 minute episodes, shorter than movies, including commercials by advertisers, which generates additional revenue. Additionally, Television shows often appeal to a wider demographic. The first article makes the claim that “Movies are for everybody. But of course not everyone goes to the same movies.” This is completely accurate as films often target a certain demographic. Conversely, TV shows, due to the fact that they have a new episode every week, can put their characters, or bring in new ones, into a completely different setting, thus having the ability to appeal to a broader audience. Thus, shows like AMC’s The Walking Dead, and FOX’s Glee have generated a reliable fan base that returns week after week to watch whatever the network has to throw at them. Movies on the other hand only present one story, and unless one becomes a hit, any one person does probably not view it more than 5 times. Overall, due to the ability to generate and maintain a mass audience, and thus appeal to advertisers, Television currently exists as the main source of income for media companies.
ReplyDeleteFilms allow people to connect with a story and it’s characters for a built-in period of time and while television also has it’s time constraints; it fosters the creation of a long lasting bonding and development that’s harder to obtain in films.
ReplyDeleteIt has almost always been my opinion that TV tells better stories than film, mostly because an audience gets more time to understand and connect with characters and storylines when they are introduced in a television format rather than a film format. A.O. Scott’s statements about “the moral complexity and sociological density of “The Sopranos”” and other shows that brought issues to the forefront in way many films cannot solidified my faith in the world of television. This doesn’t mean the television industry doesn’t have it’s fault because every industry does, but in my opinion TV works to create bonds that film cannot do so easily.
Brent Lang’s analysis of the statistical important of the television industry provides another validation for the television industry. Lang goes so far as to refers to films as “the ugly stepchild for major media companies”, which is understandable based on the statistics provided by the several charts and diagrams, but films still play a large role in the lives of average consumers. The prestige that comes along with being an award winning film actress or film director still resonates within the global community. So, while television may be on the rise, making more money, and attaining more viewers, the film industry still holds most of the honor. The fact still remains that many studios. media companies, and ad agencies would be able to survive without television programming.
For someone trying to get a production job in the media industry, I don’t watch many movies or TV shows. I will almost never watch a movie that isn’t a documentary. I go to the movies at most once a year. My friends know how hard it is to drag me to the movies to be ripped off on tickets and food, and then sit in silence with them for 2 hours, during which I lose the plot because I am thinking way too much about how everything is shot. I don’t watch movies because there are very few that I’ve seen that I really enjoyed from start to finish.
ReplyDeleteDuring this course, we discussed the greater amount of risk there is in the movie industry than in the TV industry. I find that there is also greater risk for the consumer when it comes to movies, especially when going to the theater. Even in the Netflix world, when you pick a movie to watch, you are spending 2 or more hours without knowing if your time will be worth the cinematic experience. Too many times I’ve ended up turning off a movie due to lack of interest, which is why I will never spend money to go to the movies under my own free will. Too many times for me, it isn’t worth it.
I’ve always been a below average TV-watcher also, but I have come to pick out a number of shows that I love, and will actually binge watch, spending as much time as I would a movie in a sitting. What I love about TV is the length of episodes. 30 (or even 15) minutes is such a much better length of time for a fiction creation. The plot for a 30 minute TV episode generally must move more quickly than a 2 hour movie, but a TV show has at least a dozen episodes in a season for the viewer to establish a relationship with the characters over time (Years for multi-season shows). How am I supposed to form an emotional relationship with characters during a 2 hour movie? That doesn’t happen in real life. There are deeper connections to be made in TV shows.
For the longest time and as far as I remember, there has always been a debate about which is better: TV or film? The two articles, in my opinion, do provide a rather broad perspective on the current situation of the two and why TV is faring better at the moment. As the article points out, a major advantage TV has over film is the ability to take risks. I certainly think that the way television works allows for more of a story and character development than film does. TV shows can and do attract audiences in a way very different from films. The ability to create cliffhangers, provide rich character backstories, and have a scheduled weekly time slot are characteristics almost unique to television. Additionally, as is becoming more and more apparent nowadays, the attention span of our generation, as sad as this may sound, is not very long. A half hour show would gain precedence over a two-hour mediocre movie anytime. Does this mean that going to the movies is a dead activity? Absolutely not, no one is going to take their date to go watch an episode of Friends. Movies will always remain a popular medium, just not the one that earns the big bucks.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that TV is a massive industry is one that seems to be hard to swallow for many people. The growth of TV, once considered cinema’s little brother, into a multi-billion, mega-industry has been factored by a multitude of reasons. Television provide instant entertainment, information, news, and everything anyone can ask for. But more importantly, it does not require people to do much, except clicking on the remote control. However, the fact remains that even though TV has taken away some of the magic of the silver screen, neither medium can survive without the other.
While films and television are both valid and profitable mediums for entertaining the masses, people are much more likely to watch television than they are to go to the movie theater these days. I believe that as a whole television is able to tell stories better than films because they have much more time to develop plots and characters. Once a television show captivates an audience, people will become devoted viewers who are invested in a show and its characters. Movies, on the other hand, are unable to do this, as they only have a few hours to tell their story. This is a large reason why the most anticipated movies over the last few years have mainly been part of a franchise. Since audiences have already connected with the characters in previous films, they are much more likely to want to see them again, rather than start over by watching new movies, with unfamiliar characters and plot.
ReplyDeleteTelevision is becoming more popular because while it is obviously more convenient than going to a movie theater, it is also becoming known for quality that is just as good, if not better than most movies being produced these days. Because of the increasingly good quality of television shows and the freedom of cable, bigger movie stars are now more interested in doing television than ever before. Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright on House of Cards and Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson on True Detective are just a few of the major movie stars that are happily flocking to television. This is not to say that there are no more quality films being made, but that they are simply becoming more and more sparse. With every Whiplash comes a dozen more Mortdecai’s. It is even more difficult to find a film like American Sniper that has both critical acclaim and mass appeal. This film in particular has broken box office records domestically and was even nominated for 6 Academy Awards. Although the popularity of television seems to be overpowering that of film, there is no replacement for the classic movie going experience that has and will remain in our culture for many more years to come.
I would've guessed that TV shows net more than movies but seeing the actual numbers puts it into real perspective. It makes sense that TV is more profitable, as shows get publicity over a much longer period of time than movies. In addition to this, there seems to be more selectivity as to what goes on TV than in film. Shows that people don’t watch get cancelled, so it’s safe to assume that while not all shows are equal in viewership, they made it and are lasting on the air because people enjoy them. Movies are different in that there can be a much wider range of success and viewer appreciation. It’s hard to think of a show that is exceptionally bad, but it is much easier to do so with movies. This doesn’t necessarily mean that TV shows tell better stories than movies, but they tell good stories over a much longer period of time that allows for subplots and various arcs all the while increasing audience potential.
ReplyDeleteSince TV shows run several seasons, the viewer really gets to know the characters better. The length of the shows allows for character development to great detail, revealing various facts and minutiae that help us relate to the characters on a much more personal level. Since film is a much more condensed medium than TV, the plots are much more concise and therefore more exciting emotionally. However, TV is becoming just as good of a source as film for excitement, just look at shows like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead. These shows take very cinematic situations and expand them episodically, which has been somewhat groundbreaking in the past years. People are more and more looking to TV for the excitement they get from movies, but in a more convenient medium, which has allowed for shows like these to become so prevalent.
Both of the articles on TV vs. Film took the same stance in identifying TV as the industry leader in entertainment, and rightly so. The entertainment industry, which used to be dominated by movies, is shifting more and more towards television every year. I personally think that a large cause of this is the access people have to TV and movies. While Internet streaming sites like Netflix offer access to both, most people have easier access to TV in the traditional sense than they do to movies. You can watch TV in your own home, lying on your own couch, and enjoy a mindless sitcom anytime you want. However, going to the movie theater requires you to block out a least a few hours, and is going to cost more. Why bother driving to the theater and paying up to $12 for a ticket (plus more for food) when you can watch TV for as long as you want without having to go anywhere? Because people have such easier access to TV, it attracts a larger audience. And with a larger audience comes larger advertisers, since their goal is to have their product exposed to as many people as possible. TV drives much higher profits from advertising than movies do, and almost always cost less to make and show. The only real edge movies have over television is their artistic value. Much more effort goes into making a movie than making a TV show, and while this does mean much higher production costs, it remains a valid reason for people to go to theaters to watch movies. However, with almost all the signs pointing towards television, it’s no surprise that movies continue to fall behind in this television-dominated entertainment industry.
ReplyDeleteThe articles contribute a lot of Hollywood’s new success to TV shows instead of past successes that stemmed mostly from movies. This is a turning point for this industry because now there is more money to be made in TV than in movies. Movies are more expensive to make and can rarely go out of the conservative confines of the studio they are working for. TV series, in my opinion, are better than film. Usually movies consist of one movie for that specific idea, and then it is done whereas TV shows can continue on in a way movies can’t. TV shows can answer those questions that movies can’t, because they have time to do so. They can show more realistic time lapses and a less rapid character growth in a way movies just can’t reach. They can’t make movies like they can make a TV series. I’m not saying that the movie industry is at fault for this, it’s just the way it is.
ReplyDeleteTV does better than film because it has a way of inspiring fans in a way only certain movies can. Almost all TV series that have at least completed one season of their show has a substantial fan base that keeps viewers coming back each week. Movies don’t inspire that same kind of love and loyalty because its usually one movie idea that isn’t repeated again. In TV series we have a chance to fall in love with the characters, to get emotional invested in their lives and their problems. I think in a way TV does better because we feel more connected to the characters and the show because we see them weekly, then movies that we maybe see once or twice. Just because movies aren’t as good as TV in some areas, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t win out in others.
With movies you can just do more than you can with TV shows. They have a larger budget and people backing them, which leads to better effects, directors, acting, etc. Along with that basis, they have better advertising than most TV shows. They can get actors to promote the movie on talk shows and they can get lots of commercials in theaters and on TV. Their promotion of movies is way better than that of a TV series most times, unless the TV series is a hit show. The larger budget also allows better sets, and more believable action pieces, which can’t be pulled off as well on TV because of its lower budget.
All in all, these articles did not teach me anything I didn’t already know or think. They were, however, very interesting, especially as they are not from the past few years. If these articles were progressive when they came out, the information in them is almost common knowledge today. For a long time, I’ve thought that TV is a more thought-provoking entertainment medium, able to reach more people and, clearly, generate more profit. The television shows mentioned in the articles might not quite hold the same relevance today (adios, Glee) but the numbers don’t lie: television is trouncing film in almost every aspect.
ReplyDeleteIn one of the articles it mentioned that movie stars are the biggest draws for talk shows and magazine covers, but in recent years this has not been true. I read an article a year ago about how TV stars are actually more coveted for these things, because people are more likely to form parasocial relationships with people they see on their screen week after week, rather than twice a year, and thus would rather see them on the cover of their favorite magazine or being interviewed by Jimmy Fallon. So even the thing that the articles claim movies do better is no longer true, driving their point home even further.
I agree with the articles again on the point that, despite all the stats and figures on television domination, movies are nowhere near irrelevant. The Oscars are still talked about. The summer still sees families at animated features every year. And movies tend to stick in the minds of the viewers a little longer, I think (the good ones or the horrendously bad ones only). TV shows might dominate “water cooler” talk on a seasonal basis, but few shows, once they are over, will influence people’s opinions and conversations. Not every show can be The Sopranos or I Love Lucy. Of course, I could be wildly wrong. I do still talk about Breaking Bad on a daily basis and that show checked out over a year ago.
After reading part one and part two of the TV vs Film debate, I can honestly say that my perspective has slightly changed. As a child I always believed that movies from Hollywood were how the most amount of money was made for people involved in the entertainment business. After seeing the statistics presented in the second article, it is easy to see the where the money is actually made. The fact that Viacom, Disney, and Universal all make a majority of their money from television reaffirms the fact that movies are declining in popularity. Corporations aren’t going to place all of the attention in movies if the money isn’t made there. Television is winning because there is more variety to choose from. There is also a lot of television that can tell a much better story than what we see in movies. Shows like House and other very popular shows have kept audiences watching by having cliffhangers and long-term relationships being built between characters. It is the long running shows with the brilliant and relatable plot lines that cause TV to be more popular than a feature film. The best part is that if a scripted show is not your cup of tea, you can always watch a reality show. Whether it is a game show or a following of a family there is a reality show that everyone can enjoy. Yet, movies do have one thing that television shows will never have: big stars. The biggest stars and directors are in movies. Yes, movie stars may make appearances in a show, but you would never see Leonardo DiCaprio staring in a long running scripted show. As long as there are movie stars, people will go see the movie. Personally, I don’t even need to know anything about the movie if I know there are certain actors in them. Even so, I believe that Television is a much more interesting media industry than the current film industry.
ReplyDeleteAt first, I wasn't too surprised to read that the TV industry has surpassed the movie industry. With that being said, I was baffled to see the profit numbers and how much more money companies make from TV than movies. I agree with the first article that there is something special about seeing a movie in a theater with friends and buying over priced popcorn and candy. The reason it is special is because I don’t do it that often and when I do go to the movie theater, it’s usually either because I have been wanting to see the movie from the hype that the trailers delivered, or because my friends and I have nothing else to do. It takes a lot more effort to driver to a movie theater than to sit on my couch and flip on the TV.
ReplyDeleteI think that TV shows tell much better stories than movies and it’s simply because of the timing. Generally speaking, TV shows have either 23 or 48 minutes per episode and the season can last for anywhere from 8-20 episodes. This allows a large story to develop and trap the view into waiting every week to watch it. In the case of Netflix, viewers can watch seasons of TV shows in whatever timing they want. For Netflix movies, you kind of have to watch them all in one sitting, and in the case of going to a movie theater, its not too often you’ll find yourself leaving before the movie is over. To me, the timing is the greatest advantage that TV has and is part of the reason why I’d rather start a TV series on Netflix and be entertained for weeks than spending an hour or two watching a movie on Netflix.
The numbers don’t lie, 80% of Time Warner’s profits are from TV and that stat alone tells the whole story: TV dominates over movies. Movies provide a better physical experience as far as being in a theater with your friends or potentially a date, but TV does a better job capturing the audiences emotion and making them come back week after week, episode after episode. Even with all of the statistics though, I’ll still make my movie theater appearances and I’ll still be addicted to at least one TV show at a time until it stops producing and I’m forced to start another.
After reading the articles and reflecting on my own experiences, I believe that in most cases, TV has surpassed film as an American pastime. From the financial point of view, TV brings in much more advertising money than film and as the advertising industry continues to grow the gap will become even greater. I have interned at a media planning agency and the advertising that brought in the most revenue by far was TV and film was no where to be found – we even had some films as clients trying to by other forms of advertising. On a more personal level, I do think that TV tends to be able to tell better stories than movies and that in recent years the quality of television has increased exponentially. I admit that I watch a lot of TV and rarely go to the movies, but this is because I believe I get a greater connection with characters through the long form storytelling of television. I think being able to watch a story unfold week after week and season after season draws you in to the characters and the story more than a two and a half hour long sprint in a theater. Even as a member of the generation that always wants things immediately, the wait between seasons and weeks can be invigorating because it allows you to postulate what is going to happen and talk to your friends about it. Movies don’t always give you the same experience and when they do it is often through sequels and prequels, which are usually worse than the original. This is not to say that movies can’t stay with you – I have often told all of my friends that they need to see a specific movie because it was so amazing. It just seems that in recent years, television shows are more worth the wait and the chatter than most movies.
ReplyDeleteThe revenue that television and film bring in makes a standing point of where people fall in their interests in entertainment. Now, for a big company CEO to decide to whom to invest their company’s money to bring back a bigger profit, it is safe for a CEO to risk focusing and producing a television show series than a big blockbuster-intended film. The only reason why I say that is because for a film, a writer and producer only have one shot to bring in an audience to the movie theatres and bring in revenue and recover costs from production and the amount they spend for advertisement. For the television industry, the mega television broadcasting companies compete with one and another so they heavily rely on good content to bring in ratings to which attracts businesses to advertise in that time period. In a television show, if a television series is bringing little to no revenue, then they can simply pull the plug and that would be the end of the line for the show and the company would go find another show that they think will make a hit for them and bring the company back into the competition. Not only can broadcasting companies have the advantage to advertise their available spaces, they can change the prices of the ads to bring in more revenue to the company to use it for future shows or bad films that did not score a profit. The thing with television is that after making a good first impression in their pilot episode, the writers are able to bring in more creativity and experimental forms to the show without completely jeopardizing it. This is one advantage for television that film does not, the advantage that they have more opportunities to make up from mistakes or things because a film has just one time to tell a story and it must be very good for critics to bring in viewers to the theaters. But then, in a film, they can really focus in the story without needing to make the story plot interesting at the end of each episode to bring the viewer back the following week. Television shows just brings up things that are better than films and films can be better than television shows but it all depends on the way the story is told in the medium. To summarize, I think that TV does not produce better stories than film and the difference instead is how the story is told for the particular visual medium.
ReplyDeleteI personally found both these articles extremely interesting as they have supported a trend I’ve noticed over recent years in regard to my personal media consumption. I have notice a large shift between my desire to watch movies and my consuming streaming services like Hulu and Netflix. The numbers discussed in this article reflect that this is a trend the whole country is experiencing and not just me. Even though this market has definitely changed over the recent years I believe that there will always be a desire to consume high production value content on a big screen. There will always be a high demand for movies even though more people are consuming TV and the revenue stream is much higher. Having said this the production value and overall quality of television has increased dramatically in recent years with TV shows like Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad and Walking Dead showcasing big screen special effects and locations on a TV medium. It’s possible that this highly ambitions shows will be where the money is at and I will be curious to see if production companies and producers are willing to invest film sized budgets on seasons of TV. I’ve noticed that TV is able to work far more with character development and this can often lead to audience engagement in the fait of certain characters in a way that movies will never be able to achieve in their 90 min time constraint. Inversely movies are able to tell a much more concise and focused story. Also due to the nature of movies they often are able to move at a much faster pace and engage the audience more through quick story progression. Overall I’m excited to see what the future of media holds.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRather than telling ‘better’ stories, I think TV tells different stories than movies do. While TV can give extensive, arching, seasons long stories, movies tell the story in around an hour and half, giving a different feel to the narrative. Movies provide the nice little bow at the end - whether the story itself gives the viewer a feeling of closure or not, everyone knows that the story is over. TV provides the viewer without that bow, because of its installments through episodes. When watching a movie, the viewer knows they will get an ending after an hour and half - yet with TV, the consumer has no idea when or if the series will end. Shows have been cancelled halfway through or at the end of one season, leaving the fans without an ending, unlike the move. I think TV can delve deeper into topics and themes that a movie simply can’t hit; but they also have the possibility of ‘jumping the shark’. When watching a movie, the only risk the viewer takes is if their hour and a half will be wasted; with a TV series though the risk is much greater. This is part of why movies will never leave, regardless of what the article writers may suggest. Further, movies are the most antisocial, social thing a group of people can do. And there will always be people that want to make movies, that want that big box office hit.
ReplyDeleteIt’s undeniable that TV has a high social impact on our culture, and that shows are used as conversational currency. But it would cheapen the legacy of the movie to suggest that films haven’t done the same. Films seem to transcend generations in a way that TV can’t. Though I Love Lucy is in syndication, I can’t name many people my age that have seen it or love it the way they do It’s A Wonderful Life, for example. Though TV may make the big bucks, movies just aren’t going anywhere.
I feel it’s not whether or not TV tells a better story than movies but how Television can more strategically tell a story that is targeted with pin point accuracy to a viewing audience. The parameters for TV vs Films seem to be less artistic and more formulaic. It’s the nature of the beast….as advertising provides the capital, the resources for TV production clearly out pace that of film. It’s as if (unless it’s a sequel ) the film industry takes a concept, proofs it, produces it and closes its eyes while releasing it into the market, with a statistically based best guess strategy. It seems there is just to much overhead in television for this level of uncertainty, therefore the pressure is greater to provide continuously more and better content.
ReplyDeleteThat being said the All American Movie still offers a unique experience for the viewer. Regardless of what the numbers say there is a demographic who continually indulge in the movie experience, whether it is the ritual of popcorn, candy and hanging with strangers or dating or the nostalgic tradition for family. People typically stay and will watch a film, good or bad but on TV, just change the channel.
In the end it’s not that one is better than the other, so much as one sets the standard for the other. We go the movies for the amazing visual effects, sound and star power. We look at TV productions for familiar scenarios, almost predictable outcomes and satisfaction guaranteed in the end.
Craig Holderbaum
It is not surprising to me that television brings in more money than film. The amount of money that is brought in from both advertising and syndication is one of the major reasons for this. Another is the creation of more cable networks and streaming opportunities. Film attendance is decreasing as production and marketing costs rise; the failure of movies like “Battleship” and “Dark Shadows” showcase how this could be an issue. It’s fascinating to see how little major media companies rely on films, with only News Corporation making more than 10 percent of annual operating income from them.
ReplyDeleteThe disappearance of DVDs and movie rental is also a factor in the movie industry’s downturn. This is an example of disintermediation, or a change in the distribution process, creating major problems for the filmmaking business. For me personally, I find watching television series to be much easier than watching movies. It is much more convenient for me to spend an hour watching an episode or two of a television series than to commit two full hours to a single movie. At the same time, the fact that television series as a whole are longer makes them more enjoyable. An example is “Breaking Bad”, which was described in class as a 60-hour-long movie. This makes it possible to create much more complex characters and storylines. Walter White’s transformation from depressed high school chemistry teacher to sociopathic meth kingpin is something that just wouldn’t be the same in the much shorter time slot allotted to a movie. This is the case for many TV shows that are described in the article, including “The Sopranos” and “Mad Men”.
When discussing whether television or film is better, one has to consider any argument from both an artistic and corporate perspective. In regards to financial profit, the second TV vs. Film source indicated that television programs bring in more of the total revenue for a major media conglomerate than film or any other medium they may offer. In regards to storytelling, writers have to approach film and television differently. In a movie script, the writer has to introduce and develop the main characters, uncover the plot, establish any relevant backstory, and finish the story in about two hours. Television, however, allows the writers to take their time with the story and character development over the span of the show, which can last around five to ten seasons. Television allows the audience to connect with the characters’ daily lives, whereas movies rely heavily on temporal shifts and flashbacks to get all of the information out within the screening time. In this way, television is more effective in telling stories that make the audience connect to the subject because they get to experience the events that helped shape the character and story firsthand as opposed to jumping in the middle of the story with a semi-developed character as it is with movies.
ReplyDeleteI’m not very surprised by these two articles. Looking at the two decades of history that I’ve been around for, I know me and those around me spent a lot more time watching TV than going to the movies. Both TV and movies tell exceptional stories, and do a great job of capturing an audience for a period of time and allowing them to momentarily escape reality. The big difference between the two, however, is how long these escapes last for the audience. The average movie is about ninety to one hundred and twenty minutes, which limits the entertainment of this story to only last for maybe a few hours for those watching. For Television shows, the process of airing an episode of a show at the same time every week allows the story to become a part of a persons routine life. It’s an amount of time that they can look forward to every week, and there is more than just one of these tv shows that do this. These stretch out to a very long story, and provide much more possibilities for the story to develop, and truly capture the audience, than a movie might in its shorter time frame.
ReplyDeleteBoth forms, however, can be revisited and loved repeatedly by viewers. That is why movies are often aired on TV, and old TV shows are played in syndication. The TV industry knows this, and those are techniques used to bring in the highest ratings and the most money from advertisers. That is why when a movie is shown on TV, the studio that produced the movie will be the one that is partnered with the studio airing the movie. While TV shows obviously makes a great deal more money, there is still a need for movies in society and a desire for them from people.
Both of these articles bring up good points about why Television is more successful than film. In my own opinion, I feel that film has the potential to tell longer and more complex stories while televisions main goal is to sell advertising space. Television however is truly more profitable because it is more easily accessible to Americans as a whole. It is much easier to turn on the television and watch a 30 minute show then take 2 hours out of your day to see a feature length film. The aspects of each form of media are very similar in the fact that they are both trying to tell a story. Both use different camera techniques and lighting methods to visually tell that story, and both include various audio tracks to enhance the picture. Considering how the entire TV and film industry is a complex web of different companies that own other companies, there are actually quite a few companies that control a majority of the media. This adds to the similarity between the two mediums. There are differences however. Primarily, as I said before, films are longer which allows writers to allow for more character and plot development. This allows the audience to truly feel for the characters. In a television series, writers have to come up with new ideas every week for each show. They also have to include long storylines that tie every episode together but won’t make a viewer lost if they jump in mid season. This allows for a certain freedom for the writers letting them change and bring on new characters at any time during the story. We all know a TV show that one of the main characters was written off or killed off. Overall, I feel that TV has more flexibility than film yet film can offer a more lasting feeling of emotions.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, these articles make a valid point that film is an art that has perhaps seen better days. The days of the film revolution, which produced classics such as The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, are long gone and it now seems as if the industry has taken a turn away from art, creativity, and slight elitism, and has instead turned into a world of hit or miss moneymakers. In the world of television, there is increasing profit, but there is also increasing risk and creativity. With each episode of a series there is a new installment to a story is being released. It is as if many of the new series are extremely long films, because of the brilliant way they are being shot. Shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead are massively popular and give television a whole new name and brand. Instead of being cheap and a producer of “TV stars,” television is now the media hot spot.
ReplyDeleteEven if you are streaming in your movies or TV shows, there is still a huge draw away from theaters, which, after all, are very pricey and far less convenient then ordering online or On Demand. However, this is not to say that the film industry is not just as important as it once was. Film is an incredible medium through which to tell a story and, despite the late lack of presence in major theaters across the country, there are still many unique and fine tuned films (independent or not) that are being created to keep the tradition and art alive.
ReplyDeleteThrough readings our class was assigned it is obvious that television trounces big budget films in yearly revenue. Profits for big companies such as Disney and Viacom come from both the film and television industries; however, the profits from their television branches reaches up to ten times more than their film branches. What is it that is making the television industry increasingly successful while the film industry is beginning to struggle?
There is one main thing that the television industry does that makes it much more successful than the film industry. Television is able to put out far more content, therefore reaching a much larger audience. A single television network has the ability to show up to 48 shows in 24 hours. Being able to put out more content allows for larger and more diverse demographics to be reached. Since the television industry relies mainly upon commercials and advertisements for income the first priority is to increase the number of individuals that will see these commercials. This already puts the film industry at a huge disadvantage. Films make far less money than television because they do not use commercials or advertisements. Yes, films do use product placement but this does not raise nearly as much revenue as consistent commercial viewership. Films rely mainly upon showing rights and ticket sales to make money. There is no guarantee that a large audience will go to see a film yet there will always be people watching television.
I do not think that either industry releases consistently better content, yet each has a specific advantage. Films are short; they take one sitting to watch so when people go to see they it is usually a full experience. Viewers gather friends, travel to a theater and pay a lot of money for snacks. I think this is one of the strongest aspects that film has going for it. Unlike film, a television series takes a long time to watch from start to finish. If a viewer would prefer to follow a story in depth television has a distinct advantage; however, for a quick one time a experience the film industry wins every time.
After reading the two articles, it’s very obvious that TV has the biggest profit for the media industry, because if we take a look at the numbers of revenue, which the two industry bring, we can tell that TV revenue is the ruler of these production companies. I don’t think it is something bad for the film industries because whatever they going to do there will always be limited audience special when their stories are from a specific society, limited amount of films develop a large gross worldwide because the story will be developed for a large consumer audiences however TV is more open for a large audience which is a main reason the advertisers companies put a big effort in the TV. from my point view, me as a Lebanese girl I have been raised on watching Disney channel when I was kid in Lebanon, later on the most shows that I used to watch were American shows, like series and different shows, this is an example how the TV industry have a big impact on the world and can attract different audiences from different countries. In addition, TV now is playing an educational role for the audience, so it’s not only an entertaining material, people watch TV to learn stuff like making food. And that’s a big part why TV is doing much better than the films, production companies know the deal, so that’s why they concentrate on the TV to raise their revenues.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, we cannot forget that people enjoy watching films and going to the movie theater to get entertained and have fun. These two industries will always exist, but I think TV will always stay on the top.
I’m not surprised to see that T.V. is dominating the revenue game for corporations. People today are more drawn to there television shows then they are to movies. When you see people become loyal to a movie, it usually is part of a series. For example, you have your Twilight fans and you have your Iron Man fans. Both of these series or sagas pumped out millions in revenue and were huge hits. This is because people were loyal to the series or they were eager to see how the ending would play out. Harry Potter is another good example of this. This is the advantage that T.V. has over movies. T.V. shows tell a story every week that keep the viewers coming back for more. It’s easier to become loyal to a T.V. show when it’s as easy as turning on your T.V. at the same time every week. Once a show is popular, it’s easier to prove that to companies to get advertisers. It’s hard to prove to a company that your movie is going to be a hit nowadays when there is really no way of knowing until the release. However, with T.V. shows, ratings are the key.
ReplyDeleteToday we are seeing a tremendous shift to online streaming and unconventional television. I believe that the future profiteers of the industry will be those who adapted the quickest and the most successful. I think more and more movie ideas will be brought up as television series ideas as well. We may also see more remakes of old classics. As I said before, people watch what they are loyal to and are curious to see remade. A good example of this is the new Marvel: Fantastic Four movie coming out. A terrible example would be the remake of “Annie” with Jamie Foxx.
After reading these articles, it's clear to me how much has changed over the years in the media industry. It used to be that film was the "big deal" and that no one really talked about television because it was not profitable. It's obvious now that television is the money maker in the industry. This all being said, I don't think that the film industry is anywhere close to being considered "dead". As we have covered in class, studios still make lots of money from big blockbusters. And with special effects and budgets the way that they are now, the film industry is at the top of its game. However, society is now starting to lean towards television more as their main source for news, information, and most importantly entertainment. I believe that a reason for this is the fact that society is starting to become so fast paced. We don't have enough time in the day to sit down, relax, and watch a two hour movie, we would rather watch a 30 minute show that is able to keep us entertained and not take a lot of time out of our schedules. I think that the television industry is also able to do something that movies can only sometimes do, inform. The only exceptions to this are documentaries and movies that are based on true stories. Other than that, television is able to inform us with up to date news about what is going on in the world. After putting all of this together, it is clear that the television industry is taking the top spot in the media world. Unfortunately at some point, what goes up must always come down.
ReplyDelete