Is US TV better than Hollywood?

[TheCracker]

I've not seen a thread on this here, but its a conversation you hear plenty in the media.

The US is churning out some fantastic TV at the moment; Lost, 24, Prison Break, Law & Order, The Shield, Boomtown, Third Watch etc etc - Whilst Hollywood is struggling with 'remakes' of previous 70/80's films and TV shows; Possieden(sp?) Starsky & Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard, Miami Vice etc or ever poorer sequals of generally poor-in-the-first-place movies.

I've always been a big cinema goer and consumer of DVD's, but i've found that in the past 18 months i've felt compelled to visit the cinema only once (StarWars EpIII) and most of my DVD purchases have been 'must buy' classics that i've seen cheep or boxset TV shows. I've spent so much time visiting Blockbusters and wandering around not seing anything i've wanted to rent, leaving empty handed or with a film i know i won't (and usually don't) enjoy.

Do you think it's a blip, or do you think Hollywood is on a major downhill slope that it probably won't recover from?

 

[Dave A]

I tihnk Hollywood is affraid of trying new ideas anymore, they're cash cows they know people will go and see Miami vice no matter if it's good or not, people would go and see Dukes of Hazzard, people would go and see Starsky and Hutch etc. Thoes filmsregardless of being good or not, almost gaurentee to make money. TV is ower budget, so there's less risk in creating an original conect a new story and interesting new characters.Hollywood is o a downward slope and sliding, they just need to stop being such big cash cows, becuse while it's benefitting them now, people are buying nito sequels and remakes less and less, year by year and eventually they'll stop going to the cinema no matter what the film is.

 

[TheCracker]

I tihnk Hollywood is affraid of trying new ideas anymore, they're cash cows they know people will go and see Miami vice no matter if it's good or not, people would go and see Dukes of Hazzard, people would go and see Starsky and Hutch etc. Thoes filmsregardless of being good or not, almost gaurentee to make money. TV is ower budget, so there's less risk in creating an original conect a new story and interesting new characters.Hollywood is o a downward slope and sliding, they just need to stop being such big cash cows, becuse while it's benefitting them now, people are buying nito sequels and remakes less and less, year by year and eventually they'll stop going to the cinema no matter what the film is.

Trouble is, a lot of these films are costing more to make than they get back at the box office. There are only a finite amount of films/programmes you can rehash before you seriously start scraping the barrel - i think Hollywood is at this threshold.

 

[Danoff]

It's all hollywood.

 

[Dave A]

True a lot of TV shows like 24, prison break etc are Hollywood too, but they're still on different levels of budgets. I think hollywood needs to cut down on the expensive effects and concentrate a bit more on good and original scripts.

Trouble is, a lot of these films are costing more to make than they get back at the box office. There are only a finite amount of films/programmes you can rehash before you seriously start scraping the barrel - i think Hollywood is at this threshold.

In the box office perhaps, but then you have the money they make from rental charges, DVD sales, pay per view sales etc. Hollywood make money off thoes as well, but I don't have any figures of profits to see how often the break even or make a profit as opposed to a loss. Hollywood can blame pirate movies all it want's, but they don't need to look hard to see that all people want is quality appearing in the cinemas rather than ****e.

 

[TheCracker]

True a lot of TV shows like 24, prison break etc are Hollywood too, but they're still on different levels of budgets. I think hollywood needs to cut down on the expensive effects and concentrate a bit more on good and original scripts.

CGI isn't a worthy substitute for a decent script or an original idea.

In the box office perhaps, but then you have the money they make from rental charges, DVD sales, pay per view sales etc. Hollywood make money off thoes as well, but I don't have any figures of profits to see how often the break even or make a profit as opposed to a loss. Hollywood can blame pirate movies all it want's, but they don't need to look hard to see that all people want is quality appearing in the cinemas rather than ****e.

Going to a cinema and seing a good film is a decent way to spend a night out. Watching an average or poor film is a way of killing a couple of hours time at home at best. If new films being produced are mainly of the latter two discriptions people are obviously more likely to not bother going 'out' to see the film but perhaps watch it, in the comfort of their own home, where they are not obliged to sit through the whole film. With so many people now illegally downloading films to watch at home, and therefore losing the studios revenue, the studios only have themselves to blame for not producing 'must see at the cinema films'.

 

[Solid Lifters]

It doesn't matter which is better, TV or movies. All the money goes to the same people. Like, danoff stated, of sorts.

 

[Dave A]

Going to a cinema and seing a good film is a decent way to spend a night out. Watching an average or poor film is a way of killing a couple of hours time at home at best. If new films being produced are mainly of the latter two discriptions people are obviously more likely to not bother going 'out' to see the film but perhaps watch it, in the comfort of their own home, where they are not obliged to sit through the whole film. With so many people now illegally downloading films to watch at home, and therefore losing the studios revenue, the studios only have themselves to blame for not producing 'must see at the cinema films'.

That's exactley what I mean.

 

[a6m5]

My interest in Hollywood type flicks have definitely slowed, but I think they have just enough "good" movies coming out to keep it afloat.

On the other hand, I think the TV series are getting a lot better, and are closing in on Hollywood movies. Like TheCracker, I've been buying little bit of TV series DVD sets. Most of them are oldies, but two newer ones are "Lost" and "Band of Brothers". They are both as good as the best movies produced in Hollywood.

 

[niky]

I've always felt that "Band of Brothers" is what "Saving Private Ryan" should have been... and the longer format allows for more character development. It's amazing they got this one done at all.

The problem with Hollywood is that, from their point of view, they need the expensive special effects just to get people to come sit down.

I, too, lament the dearth of good movies, but seriously, how many small-budget films make big numbers, when you would be equally comfortable watching them at home? Heck, if I want to live the dramatic lovelife of gay cowboys, I don't need to watch closeups twenty feet high... my television is just the right size.

It's only the big "effects" films that benefit from screening in the cinemas... and with widespread hardcopy piracy and illegal downloading, and the advent of internet chatrooms and the strength of word-of-mouth sales (or non-sales), even the big ones have a hard time filling seats.

Not to say that Hollywood filmmakers are blameless... in their attempt at demographic shopping, they're starting to render even sure-fire hits bland and predictable. Note:

- the made for kids chase scenes in movies like "Minority Report" and "King Kong" (movies which I otherwise liked).

- slyly written adult humor and in-jokes in just about every kids film released in the past three years (sometimes it works, sometimes it's just pointless).

- bad scriptwriting... predictable stories, so that every last person in the audience can understand what's going on.

- product placement. Yes, we're desperate for money... ah, hell... we're just greedy. Worst I've seen these past two years, I Robot - so merch, it's not funny, and War of the Worlds - Ford/Mazda. I found it so funny that every single car in the first "Alien Tripod scene" was a Mazda (there were dozens!) that it took me a long time to get back into the "serious watching mode".

- Huge special effects sequences, even in movies that don't need it. Sometimes even the simplest scenes are rendered in CGI, more for quick production turn-around and that "wow-it's-CGI" effect instead of cost savings (which they don't... not really). In fact, because CGI is expected, a lot of scenes are written solely to feature CGI.

-Whatever happened to "Jurassic Park"? That's a movie that used a ton of CGI, and even now, many years later, it isn't glossy or glaring or fake like in current movies. Why? Because CGI was used as a tool... not as a central feature of the production.

*side note... I just watched Golden Eye on TV, and I realized... I miss scale model effects.

-----

TV Movies get it right because:

- They're written for specific time-slots. No made for kids, adults, teens, couples and grandparents crap. These are specific, demographic targetted films.

- The long-series and mini-series formats allow for more story development, and a ton of scenes don't end up on the cutting room floor. Less wasted budget.

- On a lower budget, CGI once again becomes a tool rather than a feature, and more attention is paid to the story. Also, you're not going to spend a lavish fifteen minutes on one CGI scene (a la Matrix Reloaded) when you have to package your show into 45 minute sections.

- Related to above: dramatic timing - because of those 45 minute segments, you have to make every single minute count.

- Deferred cost - because TV is paid by advertising and subscriptions, primarily... you already know how much you can spend, and you will recoup the expense right away. It's only after a few flubs that revenue falters, not like in Hollywood, where you're dependent on ticket sales up front.

-----

Thus, yes, TV is better than Hollywood. It's more competitive... more people can come join the party and play... and it's getting to be fun to watch.

The movies are dead... long live HBO...

 

[a6m5]

Heck, if I want to live the dramatic lovelife of gay cowboys, I don't need to watch closeups twenty feet high... my television is just the right size.

Says, you. You are straight.

- product placement. Yes, we're desperate for money... ah, hell... we're just greedy. Worst I've seen these past two years, I Robot - so merch, it's not funny, and War of the Worlds - Ford/Mazda. I found it so funny that every single car in the first "Alien Tripod scene" was a Mazda (there were dozens!) that it took me a long time to get back into the "serious watching mode".

I don't even remember that one, but I agree whole heartedly on this. I'm still sore at "The Island". So much promise in that story, but the idiot director(maybe studio?) decided to turn it into the largest commercialfest I have ever witnessed in my life!

*side note... I just watched Golden Eye on TV, and I realized... I miss scale model effects.

I've felt this way since "Star Wars Episode II", maybe with the "Matrix: Reloaded" as well. With the new Star Wars, SFX looked SO FAKE!. It was like watching a cartoon. Me and my coworkder get into this argument time to time. I go, "CGs suck. They need to get back to models and CGs". His take, "It looks bad now, but they have to start some where", "models used look bad in the beginning too". He does have a point.

 

[niky]

Sort of straight... I still watch kiddie cartoons with my wife...

Problem is, not all CG sucks. Like I've said, Jurassic uses CGI to great effect, and watching it, even now, it's hard to pick holes in.

CG isn't the main problem, it's over-reliance and mis-use of CGI.

If you can put an actor or acrobat on a wire and delete that wire by CG (a la Matrix), okay... but if you rely on CG to model the actor in the first place (a la Reloaded.), ugh.