haha now i get why the movie partisans are all mad at you
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:48 (twelve years ago) link
i actually kind of agree that movies are theoretically better at being beautiful and perfect than tv shows but i honestly can't remember the last time i saw a movie that was actually beautiful or perfect
― n/a, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:49 (twelve years ago) link
xpost lol
― n/a, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:50 (twelve years ago) link
novels are tv in this analogy anyway. movies are poetry.
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:50 (twelve years ago) link
what does 'modern novels are abt as bad as modern movies' mean
― є(٥_ ٥)э, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:50 (twelve years ago) link
proportionally about as likely to make you feel/think something amazing
― n/a, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:52 (twelve years ago) link
which isn't really true, novels are better than movies in that sense. i don't really want to drag novels/poetry into this tbh
i liked middlemarch
― judith, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
sorry it just seemed similar to me. the thing people say about novels is that they're character driven but baggy and imperfect and poetry is about the pure beauty of language or whatever. that argument is annoying.
xp <3
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:53 (twelve years ago) link
by "people" i basically mean "this one professor"
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:54 (twelve years ago) link
novels are also stuff girls like/write, whereas poetry is the important stuff dudes like/write
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:56 (twelve years ago) link
obviously that's not actually true it's just the stuff that creeps into the argument
stuff
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 02:57 (twelve years ago) link
― n/a, Monday, December 12, 2011 9:49 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink
yeah this is how i feel.
― Mr. Stevenson #2, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:00 (twelve years ago) link
i also think its interesting the way both are/were (pre internet/vhs/whatever) communal experiences, but in different ways. tv shows and the water cooler and movies and everybody alone together in the dark. i mean i'm drawn more to that, the dark room, the whirring projector, the laughter or sobbing or gasps of the rest of the audience kindof piercing into the isolation of the cinemagoer. the way tv shows force you to stay with them to keep coming back, they pull on your time, whereas a movie burrows into your brain in a different way. its singular maybe because its a single thing. i think of that shot in texas chainsaw massacre where hes spinning around with his chainsaw or the red coat in don't look now or i'm not sure, but just the way the images burn without needing to increasingly reveal themselves.
― judith, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:06 (twelve years ago) link
man we need to get some mcluhan in here
― tumblr whine-y (dayo), Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:10 (twelve years ago) link
voted movies, if you want a long and engaging story w/ a complex plot and multidimensional characters go read a book
peace
― tumblr whine-y (dayo), Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:11 (twelve years ago) link
TV would be my answer for most of the reasons already mentioned and also because I really love good comedy - most of the good stuff is on TV; there is very rarely a truly funny movie out, for whatever reason. I find a lot of incidental everyday stuff funny (Peep Show, etc) which would not suit the movie format.
― kinder, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:13 (twelve years ago) link
the everyday world is also all around you though i mean
― judith, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:14 (twelve years ago) link
like right there
and also over there
eh mcluhan
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:21 (twelve years ago) link
also with tv you can pretend it's going to go on forever and conquer death etc.
― horseshoe, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:22 (twelve years ago) link
also ad breaks
― judith, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:24 (twelve years ago) link
well most movies arent art really but at least a couple a year seem to manage it
"a couple," or 40 or 50 I saw this year
(that admittedly mostly don't play in huge swaths of America, but u know discs/downloads etc)
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:56 (twelve years ago) link
u would consider 40-50 movies from this last year "art"?
― Mordy, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:59 (twelve years ago) link
it could be so. i don't know if i've ever even seen that many new movies in the year. seems like a huge number tho
― Mordy, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:00 (twelve years ago) link
I'd say about 600 feature films were exhibited for a week or more in NYC this year.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:01 (twelve years ago) link
for sure, but that means that something like 6% of movies are art
― Mordy, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:03 (twelve years ago) link
film as an art form exists outside of those 600 feature films
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:04 (twelve years ago) link
tv does not exist outside of tv
tho it can be show outside of tv
I think it can be summed up like this for me: I love my favorite movies more than I love most good TV series (w/probably the exception of, like, Larry Sanders or Kids In The Hall...which, incidentally, I remember Morbs also adoring!), but I think there might be more television that I love than movies that I love. And I daresay that the television I love has been far more impactful on a number of levels.
― In Your Velour Slacks (Hairplug Receipts), Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:06 (twelve years ago) link
i stuck a noodle up my nose
― if you ain't gonna wash it, i ain't gonna eat it, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:22 (twelve years ago) link
tv's got the bewbs
― wrinklepause, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:24 (twelve years ago) link
lol aspie rube shut-ins
― t. silaviver, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:28 (twelve years ago) link
Do you really think TV can claim a better average?
(For the record I think of the best of both mediums as essential, w/ different strengths.)
― Simon H., Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:29 (twelve years ago) link
tv = less letters so it wins
― if you ain't gonna wash it, i ain't gonna eat it, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 04:29 (twelve years ago) link
I think the problem w/ sustainednarrative tv is that there are usually so many writers involved that someone ends up fucking it up along the way, it's a lot easier for a movie to be perfect than a tv series
not all shows work like this, not all shows have to work like this. actually can you clarify that you're not assuming that a show's story is tossed around from one writer to the next episode by episode without any leadership or communication, cause i'm not sure
serialized television getting better will happen as long as shows keep getting more centralized leadership from talented writers (ie louie, the semi-auteurs of HBO). but having a room filled with talented writers backing the author up and providing salient perspectives and filling in the empty spaces and writing glorious dialogue where the author might be better at story = potential greater than most glorious films. rarely reached tho
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:02 (twelve years ago) link
also wtf, why is television less capable of achieving moments of beauty? it has happened much less with television but it's a young and slowly growing medium
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:04 (twelve years ago) link
no it's not
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:04 (twelve years ago) link
and i agree that tv isn't in a renaissance at all, ppl just have too low expectations for it. if breaking bad is the best drama on television we're definitely not in a renaissance. i think tv has to outgrow its current format fully for that to happen
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:07 (twelve years ago) link
tv will not outgrow its current format it will just stop being ""tv"" and start being media that gets put on the internet in various formats
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:07 (twelve years ago) link
iatee can you try explaining why television is inherently incapable of cinematic-level beauty
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:08 (twelve years ago) link
it's not inherently incapable it's just even less likely due to the way it makes $
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:09 (twelve years ago) link
xp so why exactly will internetized tv fail to continue growing? piracy?
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:10 (twelve years ago) link
ya i agree, but the way it makes $ is evolving
piracy, long-term problems w/ making money through traditional tv commercials, people being increasingly unwilling to pay for cable due to the way we consume media
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:12 (twelve years ago) link
movies are pirated too, i don't think it's as damaging as you think it is. advertising doesn't need to be a part of tv's future -- premium cable networks are still getting by fine without it. i'm an optimist but i think tv will get a successful itunes treatment before it fails and dies. and subscriber cable will still support networks.
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:17 (twelve years ago) link
er, cable networks i mean. ABC and them will do what they do and not necessarily have a major impact on the evolution of cable.
― zachylon, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 05:19 (twelve years ago) link