GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

5 Reasons Scifi Does Better In Movies Than In TV

POSTED BY: CLJOHNSTON108
UPDATED: Saturday, February 23, 2008 13:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2422
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, February 22, 2008 5:18 AM

CLJOHNSTON108



Saw this over on io9.com...

Movies Vs. Television: 5 Reasons Scifi Does Better In Movies Than In TV
http://io9.com/358406/5-reasons-scifi-does-better-in-movies-than-in-tv

Quote:

3) Endless plot tangles. Joss Whedon famously said that a television show is a question, but a movie is an answer. That's why Firefly spun out tons of mysteries, like what happened to River in her special school, or what was the deal with the Reavers. And Serenity, the movie based on the TV show, had a self-contained plot and answered all your lingering questions in the course of two-ish hours. TV shows, especially in this era of arc storytelling, spin out endless plots that reward obsessive viewers -- and scare away casual ones. (This is why I'm still wondering if J.J. Abrams can do a Star Trek movie that doesn't feel like a tease.)





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 5:33 AM

CHRISISALL


For what it's worth, I liked Serenity more than the series, but if the series had gone on for a few seasons, I would have liked that better....

Preferring the butterfly Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 7:27 AM

REGINAROADIE


I disagree with a few of what the article's author had to say, but for the most part, I actually agree with him in terms of sci-fi being somewhat better with movies than with series.

One thing I disagree with is the use of fx in TV. While LOST and HEROES might not have massive fx budgets, when they do use fx, it's done incredibly well. On one of the HEROES commentaries, Jack Coleman says that a regular episode of HEROES looks way better than most movies, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. That has to be one of the most visually dynamic series on the air, and not just fx. The lenses they use, the composition of the shots, the mise en scene, the color pallat, all of it comes together to look like a million bucks.

But I agree with the whole self-contained nature of the stories that movies do really well. I think it has to do more with the nature of the stories. Something like LOST or HEROES or FIREFLY or DOCTOR WHO works great when you have it stretched out over a long period of time so that you can explore your characters and tell your stories and get into the world of the series. But can you imagine 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or THE THING or THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL or any other great classic sci-fi movie stretched out over a long period of time. The impact of that story would be diminished greatly.

So I think that sci-fi in both TV and movies can be great stuff, if they cater to each of the format's strengths and not their weaknesses.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 7:35 AM

CHRISISALL


Good thoughts, RR.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 9:37 AM

KAYNA

I love my captain


I thought #5 was just as relevant to our situation as #3.


5) The networks. Sure, there are plenty of things the movie studios and distributors can do to mess up a movie's chances. They can market it horribly, or not at all. They can release it during a packed weekend. And countless amazing SF movies have died in the development "process." But nothing the movie studios or distributors can do could be as horrendous as what Fox and other networks have done to strangle promising SF shows in their infancy.


And you know what, I like scifi in both formats because you get two different perspectives. I love stories and scifi has some of my favorites. And RR, I don't think he was saying scfi is better in movies, just that it does better.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 12:13 PM

REGINAROADIE


OK. Thanks for clarification. Even with clarification, I still agree.

Also, to elaborate on the tv angle, for all the creativity and golden age that narrative television is in right now, it's still a medium that's controlled by advertisers and the companies they represent. LOST might be able to get away with it's labrynth plot and themes and ideas, but that's only because it's not losing money for the people sponsoring it and not conflicting with their ideology. If LOST were to suddenly become political, then Standards and Practices would be up their ass telling them "No, you can't do this."

Plus, I think there's more experimentation that you can do with sci-fi in movies than with tv. You tell a studio that you want to do an episode where it takes place in three separate time periods and is about a guy trying to find a tree that's supposed to cure his ailing lover, they'll immediately shoot it down and tell you to go back to the drawing board. But if Darren Aronofsky comes up with that and pitches it to Warner Bros, it might take years, budget slashing, re-casting and be ultimately dumped by the studio, but at least he'll have had the chance to go out on a limb and do something completely against the grain, like he did with THE FOUNTAIN.

**************************************************
"And it starts with a sentence that might last a lifetime, or it all might just go down in flames. If I let you know me, then why would you want me? Each day I don't is a shame. Each day I don't is a great shame."

Loudon Wainwright III - "Strange Weirdos" off the "Knocked Up" soundtrack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 2:14 PM

CLJOHNSTON108


Quote:

Originally posted by reginaroadie:
...Jack Coleman says that a regular episode of HEROES looks way better than most movies, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. That has to be one of the most visually dynamic series on the air, and not just fx. The lenses they use, the composition of the shots, the mise en scene, the color pallette, all of it comes together to look like a million bucks.


I haven't watched HEROES (or LOST), but that applies perfectly to Supernatural!
My jaw has been on the floor with every episode I've seen!
Usually during this type of shot...




...but the FX have also been very impressive, as in the episode "Phantom Traveler", when the possessed man yanks open the emergency exit on the airliner.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 3:21 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


If it weren't for the success of a couple of TV series in syndication neither TV nor movie studios would bother with the genre.

For me, I prefer my Scifi on TV. I don't need super special effects and would rather have a good story line than a grand explosion. Nothing beats an old Twighlight Zone episode. As far as movies go I've never even considered which would be by favorite, I thought Outlander was good.

Creative "geniuses" in both media screw things up so often. Look how Berman screwed up Enterprise or the lousy job Verhoeven and Sweeney did with Starship Troopers.

But what do I know, except if I like it (Firefly, Dresden Files, John Doe, Space Above and Beyond, etc.)it gets cancelled quickly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 3:42 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by cljohnston108:

I haven't watched HEROES (or LOST), but that applies perfectly to Supernatural!
My jaw has been on the floor with every episode I've seen!

Honestly, Supernatural & Heroes (in that order) are the two best photographed series currently in production, IMO.

DOPChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 22, 2008 7:14 PM

HUGHFF


Quote:

Originally posted by cljohnston108:

Saw this over on io9.com...

Movies Vs. Television: 5 Reasons Scifi Does Better In Movies Than In TV
http://io9.com/358406/5-reasons-scifi-does-better-in-movies-than-in-tv

Quote:

3) Endless plot tangles. Joss Whedon famously said that a television show is a question, but a movie is an answer. That's why Firefly spun out tons of mysteries, like what happened to River in her special school, or what was the deal with the Reavers. And Serenity, the movie based on the TV show, had a self-contained plot and answered all your lingering questions in the course of two-ish hours. TV shows, especially in this era of arc storytelling, spin out endless plots that reward obsessive viewers -- and scare away casual ones. (This is why I'm still wondering if J.J. Abrams can do a Star Trek movie that doesn't feel like a tease.)







Two thoughts:
1. I can't see why this is the case in sf when it isn't the case in every other genre: situational comedy, action/cop, chick flick etc ad nauseum all do fine on either big screen or small.
2. Not disparaging Joss' observation but my view is that a tv series like Firefly is a novel, playing out with lots of sub-plots to a coherent conclusion; a movie is a short story, heading without diversion to a simple climax. That's why a good tv series (Firefly, Veronica Mars, Scrubs) is BETTER than a movie. I like the complexity.

There's no question in my mind that the BDM is inferior to every single episode of Firefly and significantly inferior to the series as a whole. Still bloody brilliant though.

www.cpfc.org - my life
www.nbhs.school.nz - my work

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:27 AM

DARKFLY


Quote:

Originally posted by reginaroadie:
On one of the HEROES commentaries, Jack Coleman says that a regular episode of HEROES looks way better than most movies, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. That has to be one of the most visually dynamic series on the air, and not just fx. The lenses they use, the composition of the shots, the mise en scene, the color pallat, all of it comes together to look like a million bucks.



That's because Heroes does have a episode budget of a million bucks

---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/darkfly7
Knightfly on Xfire, www.xfire.com/profile/knightfly/
Want pics, vids, ringtones,ect releated to Serenity and Firefly...
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=26986

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:16 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

hughff wrote:
Friday, February 22, 2008 19:14

Two thoughts:
1. I can't see why this is the case in sf when it isn't the case in every other genre: situational comedy, action/cop, chick flick etc ad nauseum all do fine on either big screen or small.
2. Not disparaging Joss' observation but my view is that a tv series like Firefly is a novel, playing out with lots of sub-plots to a coherent conclusion; a movie is a short story, heading without diversion to a simple climax. That's why a good tv series (Firefly, Veronica Mars, Scrubs) is BETTER than a movie. I like the complexity.



Good points. I think your right on both counts. There's no good reason that SF translates better to movies than TV. Maybe if your big on stunts and special effects, but then the same would hold true for cop/action series. Those car chases and big bangs cost money. If anything Chick-flix are more geared toward the big screen than TV.

On point No. 2. I like being able to tune in a catchup with a show once a week. On a long running series you can watch characters develop over time. Biggest problem is networks don't know how to leave well enough alone. They move shows around, prempt them, etc. almost like they feel they have to do something to prove their existence.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:09 PM

LORDVELOS


Quote:

Originally posted by Veteran:
Quote:

hughff wrote:
Friday, February 22, 2008 19:14

Two thoughts:
1. I can't see why this is the case in sf when it isn't the case in every other genre: situational comedy, action/cop, chick flick etc ad nauseum all do fine on either big screen or small.
2. Not disparaging Joss' observation but my view is that a tv series like Firefly is a novel, playing out with lots of sub-plots to a coherent conclusion; a movie is a short story, heading without diversion to a simple climax. That's why a good tv series (Firefly, Veronica Mars, Scrubs) is BETTER than a movie. I like the complexity.



Good points. I think your right on both counts. There's no good reason that SF translates better to movies than TV. Maybe if your big on stunts and special effects, but then the same would hold true for cop/action series. Those car chases and big bangs cost money. If anything Chick-flix are more geared toward the big screen than TV.

On point No. 2. I like being able to tune in a catchup with a show once a week. On a long running series you can watch characters develop over time. Biggest problem is networks don't know how to leave well enough alone. They move shows around, prempt them, etc. almost like they feel they have to do something to prove their existence.




I too miss Space Above and Beyond.

I touched on this very topic beliefly earlier today in another post.

Sadly I think it all just boils down to this in the end... MONEY.

Most TV shows have a tight budget. If they can get away with NOT creating expensive visual effect they do. I know alot of show will do anything thing they can to avoid the expensive special effects. They wil even go so far as to re-write a story to make it fit better within a budget. Gene Rodneberry admited to doing this a number of times for Star Trek.

As for the few sci-fi shows that do well I hate to say it, but I feel those shows play more like a televison DRAMA than a sci-fi show. I used the new Battle Star Galatica as an example of this. I have asked people who do no like sci-fi to watch a few episodes of the new BSG and they are hooked on it! Shows like BSG,Heros, and Lost leave you hungering for more with plots twist and storylines that extend for the entire series. They play more like a soap opera in a sci-fi setting so to speak than true sci-fi.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL