Series for Cinema (instead TV) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


010101redstar010101 -> Series for Cinema (instead TV) (4/1/2013 9:00:02 PM)

I am a huge film-fan, however in the last years my preference shifted from seeing the latest blockbusters to watch some of the very well made tv-series (Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead e.g.). I think in a tv-series with 10 or more episodes there is just a lot more room for character development - where movies, in comparison, just don't have the time to develop their characters equally detailed.

Watching most of nowadays movies (which recently were exceptionally dull anyways) it always seems to me they are just scratching the surface of what would be possible if the same story was told through a tv-series.

Therefore my idea. Why not produce a series for cinemas!

Myself, I would be willing to pay (4-5$) each week to see for example "Firefly"** but with the budget (and therefore possibilities as well as visual quality) of "Serenity"** for each episode.


Am I crazy or are the other people who would be willing to pay some bucks extra to see their favourite tv-show produced at blockbuster standards?

Would be great to get some opinions.


Cheers.


** seemed like a good example, because Serenity is the movie version of the tv-series Firefly.




Whistler -> RE: Series for Cinema (instead TV) (5/1/2013 11:49:24 AM)

I can't see anyone going for it. Having to pay for each individual episode every week when they would essentially be free on TV wouldn't go down well. And there would be the issue of having to get yourself out to the cinema each time for a mere 40-50 minute episode, something I can't see people doing when they can get the same episodes at home. I guess I can see where you're coming from on an entertainment level (it would be fun to watch Firefly on the big screen), but in reality it just wouldn't work. A lot of extra work for very little gain. TV is the place for series'.




OpinionatedMovieGoer -> RE: Series for Cinema (instead TV) (5/1/2013 1:23:31 PM)

Sherlock seems like it was MADE for the cinema. Each episode is about the length of a movie and there's enough content in there to justify the ticket price. Other than Sherlock though, I can't really think of any. Maybe the Doctor Who specials (not that I'd go to the cinema on Christmas)




010101redstar010101 -> RE: Series for Cinema (instead TV) (5/1/2013 1:46:47 PM)

Fair enough.

If the episodes would stay the same length it probably wouldn't be worth the effort going to the cinema each week. However, if the length was extended to sth like 60 - 80 minutes for each episode I could see myself going, or just show 2 episodes every 2 weeks for example.

Also, while watching a series on the big screen is a great benefit I was more thinking of the possible budgets for series if people would be willing to pay for it. Besides showing it in cinemas I think you could als offer it as a payable download on iTunes e.g. for the lazy people (including myself) to get the same entertainment value while staying at home.

I would even go one step further. Maybe it is time to rethink cinema. The movie format (lets say hollywood cinema) was developed in 1915 with Birth of a Nation - that's a long time ago. Since then the format has stayed the same, telling stories in approx 2 hours time, often based on a novel. But if I talk to people who have read a book and seen the movie the feedback is always the same - they are not pleased with the result. Why is that. Probably they imagined things differently, yes - but maybe they are disappointed because all the little details, a lot of the little twists and character details which make the book special got lost in the movie. Either because the movie format didn't allow to bring it in (refering to story telling) or there was not enough time. On the other hand, if I talk to people watching a series based on a book I most certainly will get good feedback.

So, there are movies which offer great visual quality, nice action and good entertainment - but lack depth. There are tv-series on the other hand which have great character development and therefore good drama, but lacking the good action scenes and viusual quality because of budget restrictions.

This is, of course, entirely hypothetical but I think this could be a business model for the future since series are getting more and more popular while cinemas having trouble attracting enough audience. I would pay for it :)




Whistler -> RE: Series for Cinema (instead TV) (5/1/2013 2:11:13 PM)

You make some good points there, but:

quote:

So, there are movies which offer great visual quality, nice action and good entertainment - but lack depth.


Yes there are, but there are also plenty of movies that offer great depth.

quote:

But if I talk to people who have read a book and seen the movie the feedback is always the same - they are not pleased with the result. Why is that. Probably they imagined things differently, yes - but maybe they are disappointed because all the little details, a lot of the little twists and character details which make the book special got lost in the movie. Either because the movie format didn't allow to bring it in (refering to story telling) or there was not enough time.


That is often true, but there are plenty of cases where the adaptations are just as good as the books: No Country For Old Men, The Road, LOTR, Blade Runner... the list goes on. Also, you argue that two hours isn't usually long enough to do a book justice, which can also be true, but equally ten hours (roughly in a drama TV series) is too long. I think there's a place for both. Something like Game Of Thrones is massive and does require plenty of time to tell the story and develop all the characters, but a book of 200-300 pages can be quite adequately adapted into a two hour movie, as long as the right people are doing it.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125