NationStates Jolt Archive

The title says it all really. Movies vs Video Games, which do you believe delivers a story better? I would have to go with video games. They have so much more flexibility than movies.

Go NSG!

Also this post is sponsored by >>

Books.

Damn kids and your rap music.

Books.


This.

Books.

Damn kids and your rap music.

Hey Grandpa! I was going to put books but I didn't. Don't question my reason as to why. I forgot why.

Books.

Damn kids and your rap music.

I object to the idea that rap is music.

While we're at it, since I've encountered some, I also object to the idea that neufchatel is cheese. >_>

Hey Grandpa! I was going to put books but I didn't. Don't question my reason as to why. I forgot why.

Is it because you're a bad person?

You switched gears. Your title elevates 'originality' into its misplaced and often misapplied position as a determining factor but then you ask 'which delivers a story better.'

Video games are almost a hundred years younger than movies and have only recently emerged as a narrative medium whose surface has only been scratched. It simply does not have as much road to retread. That being said, how many versions of Street Fighter or 2d fighting games in general are there? And how different is the 3d fighter, or really fighting games in general? Cartoon racers? Side scrolling 'platform' games? How involved are first person shooters beyond 'shoot this, open these things' really?

But, then, that plays into the notion of deifying 'originality.' Painters did not stop painting portraits after the Mona Lisa, art isn't in the genre or the 'description', it's in the execution. Aerofighters is not Gaiden.

But on to what delivers the story better.

It depends, again, on what story you're telling. Twisted Metal:Black would be a mess of a movie and would be restricted to tell only a fraction of the stories available. Add to that the overall action would eclipse the story in a way that does not work as well in movies as it does in video games where the story can be ornamental. Video games can also reveal their stories in pieces, having audience guided discovery, good for 'mysteries' and the like.

However, it is difficult to add a 'video game' element to a personal story. A video game with lengthy character developing cut scenes where we see the emotional progress of a characters struggle would be tedious. How could a video game tell the story of Schindler's List, or Juno, or The Color Purple? Would you have a "Hit X and O to gain custody" for Kramer vs. Kramer?

Each medium has its strengths and its weaknesses. Which one is 'better' depends on the story you are trying to tell.

Books paints the most vivid stories IMO.
As for originality, I say it´s divided three-ways.


I object to the idea that rap is music.


I concur, and throw in chaos "music" a la destroying-drums/gitarrs-and-screams/growls-incoherently-death-metal-style.
ahem..

Depends on what you're looking for, originalitywise. Movies tend to have more original stories while game stories are getting more interactive, except for the non-Nintendo Japanese rpgs, which are just movies broken up by bits of gameplay resulting in a Frankenstein monster of game and movie.

I'd say both can deliver a story well (and often don't), but at a guess I'd say that movies tend to do it better. This is probably because games are constrained by the desire to make them "playable" and "balanced", and to cater to the player's desire to win.

I'd say both can deliver a story well (and often don't), but at a guess I'd say that movies tend to do it better. This is probably because games are constrained by the desire to make them "playable" and "balanced", and to cater to the player's desire to win.

Yea, that's the problem with most MMORPG's story lines. All the side has to be balanced, one side can't win more often than the other etc. It gets boring after awhile...

They're about as good as each other, really. And to be fair, even the most failed video games are a little bit entertaining, whereas a bad film is usually just pathetic.

Books paints the most vivid stories IMO.
As for originality, I say it´s divided three-ways.

I'm not falling for that, everyone knows books can't paint. You won't get me that easily.

Yea, that's the problem with most MMORPG's story lines. All the side has to be balanced, one side can't win more often than the other etc. It gets boring after awhile...

It holds true for other kinds of games as well. RTS games for example.

Obviously linear RPGs have an advantage over non-linear RPGs in terms of storyline.

When I play The Witcher, I enjoy talking to townsfolk, taking drugs, reading books, collecting trophies and getting laid. I couldn't care half a shit about the prophecy/mage/professor/factions.

When I play WoW, I just like to see the XP twinkle.

When I play Final Fantasy X, I enjoy watching the storyline cut scenes and guidos playing blitzball, while beelining through the combat.


So in general, there are enjoyable storyline RPGs, and addictive MMO/MMO-style RPGs. FF had an expectation to be a primarily storyline RPG -- failing that category and adopting MMO-settings as seen in FF XII makes it less enjoyable but more addictive. WoW is the epitome of 100% MMO addictiveness with 0% fun.

I feel that with a non-linear RPG, the setting, characterizations, and backstory become much more critical, since that's really all you have to draw the player into the world you are creating.

A good example of this would probably be the Exile series.

TV series.

Books (not comic, proper) come second, games and movies third and fourth.

TV series.

Books (not comic, proper) come second, games and movies third and fourth.

As a film student I'm afraid I must object to that ordering.;)

Films can show things that books and television cannot. They're different, but not nessisarily inferior.

TV series.

If you've ever tried to watch only the X-file episodes that are relevant to the conspiracy, the storyline becomes less interesting. Same goes with Star Trek canon/main story episodes.

If you've ever tried to watch only the X-file episodes that are relevant to the conspiracy, the storyline becomes less interesting. Same goes with Star Trek canon/main story episodes.
Why take crappy ones. Take good ones, not "monster of the week" stuff with a loose connecting story.



Films can show things that books and television cannot.
Seeing as TV series are basically films with more time and less special effects, which things specifically, for some examples?

If you've ever tried to watch only the X-file episodes that are relevant to the conspiracy, the storyline becomes less interesting. Same goes with Star Trek canon/main story episodes.

Nitpick, but all of Star Trek's TV episodes are canon, with maybe a few exceptions. And until the Dominion War of Deep Space 9, their arguably wasn't really any overarching story.

As far as the X-Files is concerned, I found some of the earliest conspiracy episodes to be the show's best, but after a while that story became so confusing and convoluted that some of the non-conspiracy stories turned out better.

Which leads me to a general criticism of television. With long-running shows that have multiple writers and directors, you tend to have very inconsistant style and quality, and a build up of continuity errors over time. For this reason I'm inclined to favor the miniseries format, where you get the television advantage of being able to develop a story over a longer period of time than in most movies, while potentially minimizing the above-mentioned problems.

Why take crappy ones. Take good ones, not "monster of the week" stuff with a loose connecting story.

The X-Files wasn't crappy at first, and neither was Star Trek. They just ran into the problem I described above, among other things.

Seeing as TV series are basically films with more time and less special effects, which things specifically, for some examples?

Films have a different visual quality to films (non-electronic images), and the larger size of the image could probably be used both to show greater detail, and to overwelm the viewer. And you yourself noticed the frequent disparity in special effects quality.

The X-Files wasn't crappy at first, and neither was Star Trek. They just ran into the problem I described above, among other things.
The first episodes of ST:TOS were the second most slow, boring, mind-numbing piece of television I've ever watched intentionally. (The first place is firmly held by some Japanese cartoon.)
Granted, even TOS has good episodes, and DS9 actually has some story, but not all that much. Story-wise, ST sucks.

There are proper, dedicated, all-story TV series. And Whedon's shows, which balance episodic elements with a strong storyline. Take these instead.



Films have a different visual quality to films (non-electronic images), and the larger size of the image could probably be used both to show greater detail, and to overwelm the viewer.
Special effects. Just special effects.
All the cinema ultra-widescreen is really used for 99% of the time is to either show shiny landscapes or startle the viewer with 30 foot high faces - gross and ugly. The film image scale should only exceed the distance-adjusted natural size for short special effects. Talking heads look way ugly in the cinema.

Also, I don't even own a TV set. I watch TV series through a computer and a CRT projector. It totally beats every normal cinema I've ever been in. Clarity, contrast, detail [though only in 1080p or games], colors, smoothness, just everything. Of course, IMAX kicks its ass totally, but short of that, no cinema I know of; and have you ever seen a good movie in IMAX, I haven't.

For scenic landscapes and huge battles, I'll give an edge to the cinema, size is more important picture quality there. LotR, Star Wars, stuff like that, go to the movies.
But I wouldn't consider watching a really good movie like The Prestige or Das Boot in a prole cinema even for a minute. It even looks worse, and don't get me started on popcorn chewers around me instead of the silence and comfort of my home.

The first episodes of ST:TOS were the second most slow, boring, mind-numbing piece of television I've ever watched intentionally. (The first place is firmly held by some Japanese cartoon.)
Granted, even TOS has good episodes, and DS9 actually has some story, but not all that much. Story-wise, ST sucks.

Star Trek: TOS relied on difficult moral dilemas and the dynamic of the characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in order to create drama. In doing so, on those counts alone, it surpasses a lot of recent television. Though DS9 did have some strong writing as well. Compared to Voyager and Enterprise, however...:(

Special effects. Just special effects.
All the cinema ultra-widescreen is really used for 99% of the time is to either show shiny landscapes or startle the viewer with 30 foot high faces - gross and ugly. The film image scale should only exceed the distance-adjusted natural size for short special effects. Talking heads look way ugly in the cinema.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Are you saying that films should never do close-ups of people. Well, its an... unorthodox attitude.

Also, I don't even own a TV set. I watch TV series through a computer and a CRT projector. It totally beats every normal cinema I've ever been in. Clarity, contrast, detail [though only in 1080p or games], colors, smoothness, just everything. Of course, IMAX kicks its ass totally, but short of that, no cinema I know of; and have you ever seen a good movie in IMAX, I haven't.

What do you find makes IMAX so great as compared to ordinary cinema? It can't be size, because then regular film would beat TV, right?

For scenic landscapes and huge battles, I'll give an edge to the cinema, size is more important picture quality there. LotR, Star Wars, stuff like that, go to the movies.
But I wouldn't consider watching a really good movie like The Prestige or Das Boot in a prole cinema even for a minute. It even looks worse, and don't get me started on popcorn chewers around me instead of the silence and comfort of my home.

How does it look worse? And when it comes to TV/film comparisons, I find commercials to be at least as annoying as popcorn chewers.

Film is at once a less constrained and more constrained format than television. First of all, it is an uninterrupted story open to the pacing set forth by its authors and not commercial considerations. While you personally may watch it in whatever method and are about to stomp, "Harrumph, I don't have to watch the commercials, old man, I have device x!" That is irrelevant. Regardless of whether you watch them, the show is paced to include them.

Additionally, the television program is restrained in over all time, either @20 minutes or @40 minutes without much in the realm of variation.

Furthermore the kinds of stories that can be told are limited on television vs. the cinema. Also, you're not as likely to see 'independent television' in the same way you'd see it in film. There is ITV or IDTV, I forget which...but without looking, where is that on your dial?

The mistake here is to confuse volume with quality. The tv series can most certainly stay with a character longer, we spent 20 years with Matt Dillon in Dodge City, but does that inherently make Gunsmoke better than The Wild Bunch? This argument would give the Police Academy movies an edge over Citizen Kane.

Film is also an intimate experience between the audience and the film. While you are in the room with strangers, you are in the dark, all seats forward enveloped in the film. Television is in your house, the lights are on, the phone is plugged in, the computer is on. Every seven minutes there's a two minute or so pause to pitch some stuff to you.

Like video games, television and film have their own strengths and weaknesses. Some stories are better fit to tell in the open format of film, where length is more flexible, content more open, and there is no need to continue the story every week for 28 weeks in a way that will attract enough viewers to sell Clean & Clear.

Star Trek: TOS relied on difficult moral dilemas
Yes, like whether 2+2 should be 3 or 5, if it can't be 4.

These one-bit dilemmas, like with that salt alien, are even funny, as long as they're pretentious enough. But got me bored quickly.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Are you saying that films should never do close-ups of people. Well, its an... unorthodox attitude.
I'm saying there are few things uglier than a 30 foot high face in the cinema.
Filmmakers do these closeups for TV and home DVD viewers, and it looks terrible on the big screen. Or, at least, if not terrible, being startled by faces the height of two houses is usually not exactly the right effect.


What do you find makes IMAX so great as compared to ordinary cinema? It can't be size, because then regular film would beat TV, right?
Size and picture quality.


How does it look worse?
The equipment they use in cinemas completely sucks most of the time. The image has lower clarity, lower contrast, worse color reproduction, lower detail level, and generally worse quality compared to a good home CRT projector.

So I prefer to watch everything on my own projector over going to da moviz.


And when it comes to TV/film comparisons, I find commercials to be at least as annoying as popcorn chewers.
As I've said, I don't own a TV set, so I remain blissfully ignorant of all but the most beaten-up commercials. I remember the Mastercard ad, the Coca-cola one, and... well, that's all I can recall right away.

I'm saying there are few things uglier than a 30 foot high face in the cinema.
Filmmakers do these closeups for TV and home DVD viewers, and it looks terrible on the big screen. Or, at least, if not terrible, being startled by faces the height of two houses is usually not exactly the right effect.
First of all, quit sitting in the front row.

Second, you're high. The close up was not invented for the home DVD market. Kids these days...







The equipment they use in cinemas completely sucks most of the time. The image has lower clarity, lower contrast, worse color reproduction, lower detail level, and generally worse quality compared to a good home CRT projector.

So I prefer to watch everything on my own projector over going to da moviz.

It's light shown through a strip of film. I'm doing to go ahead and disagree with this assessment having watched films on high quality projectors and on film in the same theater.

Film is at once a less constrained and more constrained format than television. First of all, it is an uninterrupted story open to the pacing set forth by its authors and not commercial considerations. While you personally may watch it in whatever method and are about to stomp, "Harrumph, I don't have to watch the commercials, old man, I have device x!" That is irrelevant. Regardless of whether you watch them, the show is paced to include them.

I presume television has more commercials because how else is it to pay for itself? Movie theaters can charge admission fees.

Additionally, the television program is restrained in over all time, either @20 minutes or @40 minutes without much in the realm of variation.

This doesn't have to be the case. I don't see why we couldn't have a two hour program, for example, if someone chose to make one. I guess it would conflict with other shows programming though.

Furthermore the kinds of stories that can be told are limited on television vs. the cinema. Also, you're not as likely to see 'independent television' in the same way you'd see it in film. There is ITV or IDTV, I forget which...but without looking, where is that on your dial?

This isn't so much an inherent problem as it is a contemporary technological and business one. Thus far, television has mostly been controlled by a few companies, and they have often interfered with the kinds of stories that can be told for business reasons. However, I suspect that technological trends will lead to television and computers merging into one technology, which, given the relative freedom of the internet, may lead to the end of the TV monopoly. We already see this to some extent with Youtube, for example.

The mistake here is to confuse volume with quality. The tv series can most certainly stay with a character longer, we spent 20 years with Matt Dillon in Dodge City, but does that inherently make Gunsmoke better than The Wild Bunch? This argument would give the Police Academy movies an edge over Citizen Kane.

Volume is not the same as quantity, but I at least have never claimed otherwise. However, you can potentially use television to develop a character or an idea over a longer period of time, and in greater detail. Of course, you must deal with the problem of growing continuity errors and general inconsistencies over time. Thus, my preference for the miniseries format, which I feel is underused and can combine the advantage of long-term development while eliminating the disadvantages of inconsistant continuity and style that seem to frequently come with long running shows, especially those that have many writers and directors.

Film is also an intimate experience between the audience and the film. While you are in the room with strangers, you are in the dark, all seats forward enveloped in the film. Television is in your house, the lights are on, the phone is plugged in, the computer is on. Every seven minutes there's a two minute or so pause to pitch some stuff to you.

Technically, there's nothing to stop me turning my lights off and unplugging my other electronics. But I suppose I can see your point.

Like video games, television and film have their own strengths and weaknesses. Some stories are better fit to tell in the open format of film, where length is more flexible, content more open, and there is no need to continue the story every week for 28 weeks in a way that will attract enough viewers to sell Clean & Clear.

I think that the story constraints are not inherently as great as you claim. However, you may have a point with the time constraint issues.

I presume television has more commercials because how else is it to pay for itself? Movie theaters can charge admission fees.
Well...yes. Did you somehow read that as a question? I'm not sure why you decided to note this.

Pay channels have the advantage of programing that can ditch the pacing required for commercials and have less restrictions in relation to content. The stories can be, lets say, grittier like with Deadwood (while I'd put the stories in Breaking Bad against any pay channels programing...)



This doesn't have to be the case. I don't see why we couldn't have a two hour program, for example, if someone chose to make one. I guess it would conflict with other shows programming though.
Flow. Plus viewing habits. Much like an internet viewer isn't likely to watch anything over 10 minutes, unless it's a 'special event' a television viewer isn't likely to watch two hours of the same program. Not to mention the cost. If you have to create one once a week, two hours is going to cost.



This isn't so much an inherent problem as it is a contemporary technological and business one. Thus far, television has mostly been controlled by a few companies, and they have often interfered with the kinds of stories that can be told for business reasons. However, I suspect that technological trends will lead to television and computers merging into one technology, which, given the relative freedom of the internet, may lead to the end of the TV monopoly. We already see this to some extent with Youtube, for example.
I have a friend building a start up that would agree with you on most parts, but youtube really isn't that good of an example. It hasn't so much replaced tv as much as it's replaced America's Funniest Home Videos. I don't think Boxy is set to topple the Peacock...



Volume is not the same as quantity, but I at least have never claimed otherwise. However, you can potentially use television to develop a character or an idea over a longer period of time, and in greater detail. Of course, you must deal with the problem of growing continuity errors and general inconsistencies over time. Thus, my preference for the miniseries format, which I feel is underused and can combine the advantage of long-term development while eliminating the disadvantages of inconsistant continuity and style that seem to frequently come with long running shows, especially those that have many writers and directors.
Something that I already pointed out.

But, again, not all stories require or even benefit from time. This is why, and I'm afraid I have to stress this once again, every medium has its strengths and weaknesses. For some reason, and I find this to be an annoying internet obsession, everyone has to put things in some sort of listed order instead of acknowledging that everything has its place and there isn't some sort of inherent "Better" and "worse" that can be empirically numbered and quantified.



I think that the story constraints are not inherently as great as you claim. However, you may have a point with the time constraint issues.
Watershed hours, the FCC, Janet Jackson's boob, and more disagree with you.

First of all, quit sitting in the front row.
Second, you're high. The close up was not invented for the home DVD market.
No, it wasn't, of course. But it's still one of the ugliest things outside internet when seen in a modern large cinema. On a blank screen to LM scale, I would rate the experience of looking at a 30 foot high face in an otherwise good movie as somewhere between albinoblacksheep and lemonparty.

Gets better if you sit in the back, but still bad.


It's light shown through a strip of film. I'm doing to go ahead and disagree with this assessment having watched films on high quality projectors and on film in the same theater.
There are no CRT projectors that can provide enough light for a pubelick cinema. These had to be light output oriented DLPs, if not even LCDs. Not quality oriented stuff.

No, it wasn't, of course. But it's still one of the ugliest things outside internet when seen in a modern large cinema. On a blank screen to LM scale, I would rate the experience of looking at a 30 foot high face in an otherwise good movie as somewhere between albinoblacksheep and lemonparty.

Gets better if you sit in the back, but still bad.



There are no CRT projectors that can provide enough light for a pubelick cinema. These had to be light output oriented DLPs, if not even LCDs. Not quality oriented stuff.
Wasn't a public cinema, it was a screening room.

Well...yes. Did you somehow read that as a question? I'm not sure why you decided to note this.

I was merely agreeing with you, and elaborating on the (somewhat obvious) reason.

Flow. Plus viewing habits. Much like an internet viewer isn't likely to watch anything over 10 minutes, unless it's a 'special event' a television viewer isn't likely to watch two hours of the same program. Not to mention the cost. If you have to create one once a week, two hours is going to cost.

I've watched movies on TV that are probably around two hours, and I've done the same on-line. Just last night I watched the entirety of Prince Caspian in Youtube clips. However, people might not have the time or inclination to sit through a two hour program at the same time every week.

I guess you have a point with the cost issue. A show would probably have to be quite successful to pay for weekly two hour episodes.

I have a friend building a start up that would agree with you on most parts, but youtube really isn't that good of an example. It hasn't so much replaced tv as much as it's replaced America's Funniest Home Videos. I don't think Boxy is set to topple the Peacock...

I wish your friend the best of luck. As for Youtube, I agree its largely garbage, but so is current television. Another example of an independent production distributed on-line would be the Star Wars fan film Revelations, which was produced on a budget in the thousands, got covered by Anderson Cooper on CNN, and was I think called better than Episode 2 by at least one reviewer (wank in my opinion, though).

Something that I already pointed out.

But, again, not all stories require or even benefit from time. This is why, and I'm afraid I have to stress this once again, every medium has its strengths and weaknesses. For some reason, and I find this to be an annoying internet obsession, everyone has to put things in some sort of listed order instead of acknowledging that everything has its place and there isn't some sort of inherent "Better" and "worse" that can be empirically numbered and quantified.

Well, I think some things are definitely better or worse. But with TV and movies, they do both have their advantages. Which I have already acknowledged.

Watershed hours, the FCC, Janet Jackson's boob, and more disagree with you.

So their's more censorship of television than film? Maybe, but perhaps you could argue that the problem their is not so much the medium itself, as it is the government censorship. Of course, they can probably make the argument in favor of censorship for TV because it goes into your home where the children might see it, but its not like little kids never get taken to see gory, sex filled movies.

Film is at once a less constrained and more constrained format than television. First of all, it is an uninterrupted story open to the pacing set forth by its authors and not commercial considerations. While you personally may watch it in whatever method and are about to stomp, "Harrumph, I don't have to watch the commercials, old man, I have device x!" That is irrelevant. Regardless of whether you watch them, the show is paced to include them.
But who cares if it's still paced better than a typical movie? The first episode of Angel is the most awesome and cool 40 minutes of film I've ever seen. And I don't care if it's been paced to include commercials or not, it still beats Bond movies.


Additionally, the television program is restrained in over all time, either @20 minutes or @40 minutes without much in the realm of variation.
That is both a drawback and an advantage. This partially self-contained packaging makes it easier to watch the story in multiple takes, rather than all at once.
Yes, I have seen the full, 5.5-hour, German language version of Das Boot, four times. But only one of these times non-stop. It's a big commitment to find 6 hours to dedicate to the immersion in a movie.

I wanted to see the LotR non-stop once, but I haven't found the 11 hours required (for the full version), and perhaps never will.


That makes long movies basically like TV shows without preset cut-here perforations. On the other hand, in the 1990s-2000s TV, it's common to have multi-part episodes, where you can set the pace as you desire.

At the same time, it's somewhat hypocritical to criticize series for lack of length variation, when most movies have to fit into the 90-minute format, being mercilessly cut and stripped of the best (but cheaper to make) parts to do that.


Furthermore the kinds of stories that can be told are limited on television vs. the cinema. Also, you're not as likely to see 'independent television' in the same way you'd see it in film. There is ITV or IDTV, I forget which...but without looking, where is that on your dial?
Indies and oldies are a separate category altogether. Although 99% of indies are about gay cowboys eating pudding anyway.

As for the oldies, I prefer to watch Kane, Strangelove, Metropolis at home, rather than at cinema. At home, I have only those people around me whom I have explicitly invited. It's like a car versus a bus.


The tv series can most certainly stay with a character longer, we spent 20 years with Matt Dillon in Dodge City, but does that inherently make Gunsmoke better than The Wild Bunch?
It doesn't. But the series format you can have character development. In a movie, if you try to, you won't have any time left for anything else.


Film is also an intimate experience between the audience and the film. While you are in the room with strangers, you are in the dark, all seats forward enveloped in the film. Television is in your house, the lights are on, the phone is plugged in, the computer is on. Every seven minutes there's a two minute or so pause to pitch some stuff to you.
Oh no. Strangers don't excite me. When I'm in da moviz, I feel like I'm just passing by, wearing outdoor clothes, sitting on a dirty chair in a dirty hall, having to conform to the rules. And the seats forward are enveloped in chewing, drinking sodas and chatting to each other, occasionally picking up their mobile, laughing, screaming. It's a crowd. Hate crowds.

The projector is in my house, which is a nice and clean place, and the lights are exactly as bright or dark as I want them (kinda value my vision). There are absolutely no noises, other than the sound from my hi-fi audio system - not the banging junk they use in the cinemas. I have the mini-bar handy, so I can always take the right drink to go with the movie or the series, and it doesn't have to be a soft one. If I have to use the restroom, I just pause the movie and don't miss anything. It's better than the cinema in every single respect. Better comfort, better picture and sound, better immersion.



Some stories are better fit to tell in the open format of film, where length is more flexible, content more open, and there is no need to continue the story every week for 28 weeks in a way that will attract enough viewers to sell Clean & Clear.
Some are. Most aren't. Sure, I love lots of movies. Most of them would never work as series. A serious movie like The Prestige or a subtle black comedy like Dr.Strangelove, they have to be consumed in one go, and can't be expanded.
On the other hand, Das Boot works well both as a film and a miniseries, and I'd say it could be even better as a longer series. A half-season it already nearly is, and it easily could fill a whole 24-ep season. Would have less awesomeness per minute, but more overall.

And, also, 90% of the movies would be better if they were reduced to 40-80 minutes of TV. Or maybe even more than 90%. Although no, rather just 30%, the other 60% suck irredeemably anyway. But these 30% of movies, they'd do better if shortened.
Cut out the sex scenes, I have proper hardcore porn (and some that could get you in prison in many states), I don't need your gratuitous bodies under a blanket. Cut out the lame attempts at characters introduction, if your characters are cardboard blanks, I won't care about them anyway. Shorten the post-finale junk, I want to remember the culmination scene. Just cut to the chase.

The average movie doesn't contain any more story or content than an episode of a TV series. It just takes 45 minutes for the story and the other 45 to try to introduce the characters. So why repeat these other 45 for every movie? Just introduce a set of characters once and tell each story you've got in an episode. That's how episodic series work. Look at Firefly, each episode could easily be a movie of its own. But isn't. Saves you the time and the boredom, just leaves the fun in.

You seem to have more problems stemming from agoraphobia than an honest assessment of the strength of film in relation to television.

Having the same characters is great when you want to develop the story of, say, a group of space smugglers over time, but I'm not likely to be able to tell the story of turn of the century potato farmers with the characters from Firefly, now am I?

You seem to be stuck arguing one half of my argument, that series television allows for development over time of characters, and then a Howard Hughes like fear of human contact as some sort of detraction from film.

An example of an extraordinarily long movie of which there are not many like it and a desire to watch a trilogy all at once does not really make film something 'better served as a mini-series' either.

But who cares if it's still paced better than a typical movie? The first episode of Angel is the most awesome and cool 40 minutes of film I've ever seen. And I don't care if it's been paced to include commercials or not, it still beats Bond movies.

Well, Bond movies are hardly the height of cinema. Making a probably subjective claim that Angel's first episode is better than Bond as proof that better pacing doesn't matter? Are you on Meth?

That makes long movies basically like TV shows without preset cut-here perforations. On the other hand, in the 1990s-2000s TV, it's common to have multi-part episodes, where you can set the pace as you desire.

At the same time, it's somewhat hypocritical to criticize series for lack of length variation, when most movies have to fit into the 90-minute format, being mercilessly cut and stripped of the best (but cheaper to make) parts to do that.

I'd like to think that we're moving away from that now. Lord of the Rings did fine as a series of three or three+ hours films. If its good enough, people will sit through it. You know the four films that have made over a billion at the box office (Titanic, Pirates of the Carribean 2, The Return of the King, The Dark Knight)? I think at least the last three break the 90 minute format. Hell, RotK is over twice that.

Indies and oldies are a separate category altogether. Although 99% of indies are about gay cowboys eating pudding anyway.

South Park, lol.;)

As for the oldies, I prefer to watch Kane, Strangelove, Metropolis at home, rather than at cinema. At home, I have only those people around me whom I have explicitly invited. It's like a car versus a bus.

Maybe some people like the public experience?

It doesn't. But the series format you can have character development. In a movie, if you try to, you won't have any time left for anything else.

You can have character development in a movie. In fact, you can probably do it more than in a single TV episode. Though I completely acknowledge that a long-running series gives you more time to work with.

Oh no. Strangers don't excite me. When I'm in da moviz, I feel like I'm just passing by, wearing outdoor clothes, sitting on a dirty chair in a dirty hall, having to conform to the rules. And the seats forward are enveloped in chewing, drinking sodas and chatting to each other, occasionally picking up their mobile, laughing, screaming. It's a crowd. Hate crowds.

Doesn't hugely bother me, unless the folks in the crowd are jackasses.

That said, I can only think of one time when I've actually told someone in an audience to shut it. I was in a theatre where they were projecting Obama's inauguration, and the wankers kept booing every time any one connected to Bush walked on the screen.

The projector is in my house, which is a nice and clean place, and the lights are exactly as bright or dark as I want them (kinda value my vision). There are absolutely no noises, other than the sound from my hi-fi audio system - not the banging junk they use in the cinemas. I have the mini-bar handy, so I can always take the right drink to go with the movie or the series, and it doesn't have to be a soft one. If I have to use the restroom, I just pause the movie and don't miss anything. It's better than the cinema in every single respect. Better comfort, better picture and sound, better immersion.

For you, perhaps. Has it occurred to you that not everyone's experience is the same?

On the other hand, Das Boot works well both as a film and a miniseries, and I'd say it could be even better as a longer series. A half-season it already nearly is, and it easily could fill a whole 24-ep season. Would have less awesomeness per minute, but more overall.

Oh God it dragged on and on. Maybe it would be better if broken up in bits, but I felt it overstayed its welcome.

And, also, 90% of the movies would be better if they were reduced to 40-80 minutes of TV. Or maybe even more than 90%. Although no, rather just 30%, the other 60% suck irredeemably anyway. But these 30% of movies, they'd do better if shortened.

I'm not sure that's true. Some movies need to be longer. Some stories just need more time. You know they wanted to do The Lord of the Rings as one film? Do you have any idea how much that would have sucked ass? It would have been rushed, clumsy, and full of plot holes. As examples of movies that could have used more time for pacing and character/plot development, I would hold up Star Wars Episode Three and at least the last two Harry Potter films.

Anyway, I thought you liked TV partly because it gives more time for character development? Movies need time to. Why is it ok to use a long show for character development, but not make a long movie? I can think of some answers, but I'd like to here yours.

Cut out the sex scenes, I have proper hardcore porn (and some that could get you in prison in many states),

I'm not sure what to make of that. I generally think of things like snuff films and little kids when I hear "illegal porn." Though some parts of the US are so conservative that less horrific stuff could easily be illegal. I think Alabama outlawed sex toys or something.

I don't need your gratuitous bodies under a blanket. Cut out the lame attempts at characters introduction, if your characters are cardboard blanks, I won't care about them anyway. Shorten the post-finale junk, I want to remember the culmination scene. Just cut to the chase.

Sometimes sex serves a legitimate narrative or dramatic purpose. Saying all sex is gratuitous is like saying all violence is gratuitous. In a war story, for example, the violence may be nessissary.

Also, I thought you were in favor of character development? Well, you'll need to spend time on it if you want the characters to be anything more than cutouts.

As for shortening post-climactic content, that's probably a good idea in most cases, yes. Of course, some movies do the double climax (The Dark Knight for example). Actually, The Dark Knight is an excellent example of a film that probably needed to be long. By having multiple confrontations between the Joker and Batman, it helped to build up the character as a foe who just kept coming back, foreshadowing and adding impact to the theme of "I think you and I are destined to do this for ever." Thus enhancing the tragedy and overall emotional impact of the film. Repetition can be an effective tool. Indeed, I feel that having the Joker in the next film would likely be superfluous, as the character has been so thoroughly explored.

The average movie doesn't contain any more story or content than an episode of a TV series. It just takes 45 minutes for the story and the other 45 to try to introduce the characters.

I'd be interested to see if you can back up the first sentence with anything more than your baseless assertion.

Anyways, doesn't that equal 90 minutes? Ie, typical movie length? Or are you saying they shouldn't do movies with both complex characters and a good story, because that takes to long? Leaving aside that their actually are short films and TV episodes with both story and character development. Maybe that was your point. I don't know.

So why repeat these other 45 for every movie? Just introduce a set of characters once and tell each story you've got in an episode. That's how episodic series work. Look at Firefly, each episode could easily be a movie of its own. But isn't. Saves you the time and the boredom, just leaves the fun in.

I'm not sure how to reply. Are you saying that TV shows should or must start with a 45 minute pilot that's all intro and no story, then have a series of other 45 minute episodes with new stories but no new characters being developed, and that this is superior to a 90 minute film with both? What the hell are you trying to say?

I just want to ask one question: do you believe that the conventional feature film format has any merits over television, especially in terms of length?

Well, Bond movies are hardly the height of cinema. Making a probably subjective claim that Angel's first episode is better than Bond as proof that better pacing doesn't matter?
As a proof that it's not better.

Just because one can have a more precise control over pacing in a movie doesn't mean he'll get better results than in a series.

Take this analogy, you can draw a better picture with an assortment of fine brushes than with one cheap brush, but if you can't draw anyway, fine brushes won't help you - a good artist will still beat you with the cheapest brush.


I'd like to think that we're moving away from that now.
We are. But unless you're doing a top-grade movie (and I don't mean the way everything today is called top-grade), you don't get that freedom. Most movies still conform to the 90..120 minute length.


Maybe some people like the public experience?
Well, I don't. And if I did, I'd go to a baseball or soccer game, not to the movies.

I see watching a good serious film as an experience of a more private nature. Between me and the filmmakers, not between me and the crowd with the film somewhere in the background.

Of course, comedies work the opposite way.


You can have character development in a movie. In fact, you can probably do it more than in a single TV episode.
Very little or it. And all the best movies I've seen have very little character development. Almost always it's completely one-bit, just one change in one aspect of the personality. You have the beginning state, the final state, and in the very best cases a linear transition between them, but most often just a switch.

Can't blame them for this - there just isn't any time to work on character development in a movie, unless it's the size of Das Boot or LotR.



For you, perhaps. Has it occurred to you that not everyone's experience is the same?
No, it hasn't. If you want it, you'll get it. It's not 1990s when good projectors used to cost $30,000-$100,000 and beyond. Today these machines sell for just a few grand, with a couple decades worth of 'mileage' still left in them. Not to mention the massive market of DLP projectors, which may be not as good as CRT, but still give an acceptable image for a bargain price. So if you don't have a home theater, you either don't want it or don't want it enough to bother.


Oh God it dragged on and on. Maybe it would be better if broken up in bits, but I felt it overstayed its welcome.
Exactly. Unless you're a particular fan, it's better to watch broken up in bits.
They've actually released it this way, as a miniseries.


I'm not sure that's true. Some movies need to be longer. Some stories just need more time. You know they wanted to do The Lord of the Rings as one film?
Some do need more time. Like Lord of the Rings. Like some others.

But most don't. Your average film scriptwriter and director don't have enough gray matter to make a story complex enough to take even 90 minutes. They make the same story as in a TV series episode, and then add filler to pad it up to the format.



Anyway, I thought you liked TV partly because it gives more time for character development? Movies need time to. Why is it ok to use a long show for character development, but not make a long movie? I can think of some answers, but I'd like to here yours.
Because you can't do it in 90 minutes, or in 120 minutes, or in 150 minutes anyway. And if you can't do something right, better don't do it at all. I'll take well-drawn static characters over a crappy attempt at one-bit character development any time of the day.

The only example I can think of right now where one-bit development is really required is V for Vendetta. They had to have it to follow the comic, and to make the point. It was about the development. Note there still wasn't any worthwhile development in the V movie, just a few one-bit changes. But it worked best that way.

But most of the time, they just introduce lame characters to "develop" them into what they should have been from the very beginning. An example scenario is when a normal guy is first introduced and shown to love his family (oh how original!), then the bad dudes come, he first tries to reason with them, but then they kick a puppy, the normal guy sees they are really bad, takes a gun and proceeds to help kick their ass. It's overused and boring, better just start with the scene where he does take that gun.



I'm not sure what to make of that. I generally think of things like snuff films and little kids when I hear "illegal porn." Though some parts of the US are so conservative that less horrific stuff could easily be illegal. [...]
Sometimes sex serves a legitimate narrative or dramatic purpose. Saying all sex is gratuitous is like saying all violence is gratuitous. In a war story, for example, the violence may be nessissary.
No, nothing like that. Rather, criminalized for being "obscene" and "offensive". Highly hypocritical, seeing as porn is obscene by definition. And everyone has his own offensiveness threshold, for a measure, I find goatse pretty mild. But they're law people, what do you expect of them.

And yes, sometimes it does. In like... An, no, in most movies, really, because most movies are about how man a woman come to love each other and eventually have sex.
But I'm referring to the insertion of sex scenes to other movies, where they're not needed at all, just because "every movie must have a love story and a sex scene". Seriously, cut it out. It detracts from the movie and adds nothing.


As for shortening post-climactic content, that's probably a good idea in most cases, yes. Of course, some movies do the double climax (The Dark Knight for example). Actually, The Dark Knight is an excellent example of a film that probably needed to be long.
Yes, perhaps, although comic origin is more influential here IMHO.


I'd be interested to see if you can back up the first sentence with anything more than your baseless assertion.
I could give you links to a movie script and a script/transcript of a TV episode, and show that their stories are essentially the same length. And even find the same story in both movie and episode format. But I don't want to waste time. We both know I can do it, and you can too if you want to.


I'm not sure how to reply. Are you saying that TV shows should or must start with a 45 minute pilot that's all intro and no story, then have a series of other 45 minute episodes with new stories but no new characters being developed, and that this is superior to a 90 minute film with both?
Take a bit less absolutist interpretation.

If you have 20 stories to tell, the format of a TV show that introduces the characters in the pilot and spreads their detail and development over the rest, telling a story per episode, is generally superior to 20 movies with a lame attempt at characters in each.

There's a reason sequels and movie series (e.g. Potter, Bond) are so popular. Getting to like characters takes time. The time available in a single movie is only sufficient to introduce the characters, and take them away from you just as you are starting to like them.


I just want to ask one question: do you believe that the conventional feature film format has any merits over television, especially in terms of length?
It is better for some things, and worse for others.

For instance, the film format is better if you're going to kill the characters a lot. Although modern shows are adopting the "anyone can die" concept, but they still stick to the main hero. On the other hand, killing a series character has a stronger effect than killing a movie one. But nonetheless the movie format is better here.

But in terms of telling a really good story with good characters, the standard film length is inadequate, so it's best done in either jumbo movies or short series.

But most don't. Your average film scriptwriter and director don't have enough gray matter to make a story complex enough to take even 90 minutes. They make the same story as in a TV series episode, and then add filler to pad it up to the format.
Elitism in defense of TV writing is kind of enjoyable to watch. Ridiculous, but fun all the same.




I could give you links to a movie script and a script/transcript of a TV episode, and show that their stories are essentially the same length. And even find the same story in both movie and episode format. But I don't want to waste time. We both know I can do it, and you can too if you want to.


No, you can't. Television and screenwriting have different formats which can, depending on which script format your reading (shooting scripts, etc) produce similar page lengths, but this is hands down the most ridiculous assertion you've made so far.

Elitism in defense of TV writing is kind of enjoyable to watch. Ridiculous, but fun all the same.
It's not elitism, it's statement of fact. Of course, your average TV writer/director isn't any better than their movie counterparts. They produce the same stories.

But here's the difference. The TV writer has to fill 40 minutes, the movie one 90 to 150. And a story that looks great in 40 minutes is often utter crap when stretched into 120.

Very few scriptwriters, producers and directors are qualified enough to make full-length movies. And even then, most of them only have enough steam for one movie.
Take Wolfgang Petersen. Das Boot, excellent. Everything else he did, complete crap.
Take Joss Whedon. A brilliant TV producer, not just the best one there is, but way better than all others. Tried to make a movie, Serenity. Result? A decent but not good watch, mediocre sales, and criticized even by the original show's fans.

Or put it this way. Every schoolkid can fill a page with a pretty decent story. Just look into the RP or II forums, some posts read better than a typical good book. Much better even. But their authors are not writers - and most of them could never be writers. It's easy to write a good story in two pages, much harder to keep it interesting for 500 pages.


No, you can't. Television and screenwriting have different formats which can, depending on which script format your reading (shooting scripts, etc) produce similar page lengths, but this is hands down the most ridiculous assertion you've made so far.
Yes, I can, and you have confirmed it yourself. The stories are the same. The movies just get more special effects and longer intro/epilogue parts.


You seem to have more problems stemming from agoraphobia than an honest assessment of the strength of film in relation to television.
Agoraphobia, heh. Not at all. You don't need to be afraid of crowds to dislike them. You don't need to have some phobia to prefer a clean place to a dirty one.
And this is not about the strengths per se. Rather, this is a dismissal of the argument than with films you get a bigger screen, no ads and a dark room, and with TV you don't. That argument would have nothing to do with the honest assessment of the strength of film in relation to television even if it was valid. But it isn't, because, assuming you have a home theater, you normally watch both in the same conditions.


Having the same characters is great when you want to develop the story of, say, a group of space smugglers over time, but I'm not likely to be able to tell the story of turn of the century potato farmers with the characters from Firefly, now am I?
Since when is Firefly about the story of a group of space smugglers? Only a couple eps involve any smuggling at all, the rest are pretty much independent movies set on specific 'planets' with different local stories. Ironically, often involving turn of the century potato farmers -in space-.

If it's a good story, it's not about potatoes and not about turn of the century, so you could just as easily tell it with -in space- potato farmers in the Firefly universe or with the post-nuclear Klamath and Arroyo.

As a proof that it's not better.

Just because one can have a more precise control over pacing in a movie doesn't mean he'll get better results than in a series.

Take this analogy, you can draw a better picture with an assortment of fine brushes than with one cheap brush, but if you can't draw anyway, fine brushes won't help you - a good artist will still beat you with the cheapest brush.

I'm not sure what the point of your analogy is.

You are perfectly correct that pacing alone won't save an otherwise shitty piece of work. But that doesn't prove that good pacing doesn't matter. It just means its not the only thing that matters.

We are. But unless you're doing a top-grade movie (and I don't mean the way everything today is called top-grade), you don't get that freedom. Most movies still conform to the 90..120 minute length.

I suppose that's generally true. But still, progress is progress. And it shows that such time limits are not an inherent flaw of the film medium. Its more a matter of executive interference for business reasons.

Well, I don't. And if I did, I'd go to a baseball or soccer game, not to the movies.

Not everyone's experience is the same. Some people may prefer the social situation.

I see watching a good serious film as an experience of a more private nature. Between me and the filmmakers, not between me and the crowd with the film somewhere in the background.

As above.

Very little or it. And all the best movies I've seen have very little character development. Almost always it's completely one-bit, just one change in one aspect of the personality. You have the beginning state, the final state, and in the very best cases a linear transition between them, but most often just a switch.

Can't blame them for this - there just isn't any time to work on character development in a movie, unless it's the size of Das Boot or LotR.

A false assumption. Character development doesn't have to take hours. A single scene can reveal a great deal about a character and their motives.

Nor does their have to be a choice between character development and story. If a writer is good, they will be able to advance the story through character development, and vice versa.

I hate to use the same example over and over but its a good one. In The Dark Knight, we have scenes that simultaneously advance the plot and reveal a great deal about the Joker's character. Take the "why so serious" monolog. Its simultaneously an emotionally gripping bit of horror, a progression of the plot as it shows the Joker beginning his takeover of the Mob, and a glimpse into his mind, showing that he is made what he is by something horrible in his past. Of course, he later contradicts his own story, which to me was a brilliantly handled bit of character development. By having the Joker relate multiple backstories, they left his origins mysterious. It makes him seem larger than life, an embodiment of chaos with a past that is the sum of human misery. But at the same time, it suggests to us that something horrible did happen to him that drove him to do what he does. Thus, with just a few brief monologs, perhaps totaling one or two minutes of screen time, the writers helped to give us the best of both worlds: a larger than life symbol, who was also horrifically human.

Sometimes character development can be as simple as a single shot. To take another Joker example, look at the scene where he attacks Dent's convoy in a truck. The truck he uses has "laughter is the best medicine" written on the side, repainted to read "slaughter is the best medicine." Little things like this are all parts of character development, without taking up a great deal of time.

(incidentally, I would point out that, as great as Heath Ledger was, he can't be given all the credit. The Joker was also rather well written, so some praise must go to the screenwriters).

No, it hasn't. If you want it, you'll get it. It's not 1990s when good projectors used to cost $30,000-$100,000 and beyond. Today these machines sell for just a few grand, with a couple decades worth of 'mileage' still left in them. Not to mention the massive market of DLP projectors, which may be not as good as CRT, but still give an acceptable image for a bargain price. So if you don't have a home theater, you either don't want it or don't want it enough to bother.

Well, some people are dirt poor. However, not everyone nessissarily does want it that much. Or they can enjoy both watching movies at home and watching them in theaters. They are different experiences, but that doesn't make theaters inferior.

Some do need more time. Like Lord of the Rings. Like some others.

But most don't. Your average film scriptwriter and director don't have enough gray matter to make a story complex enough to take even 90 minutes. They make the same story as in a TV series episode, and then add filler to pad it up to the format.

I'd say you really need the time for novel to screen adaptations in general. Authors don't operate under the same time constraints, and if they're good, they probably won't have a lot of pointless crap in their books. So you need the time to keep from cutting important material.

Likewise, certain themes benefit from repetition. See my Dark Knight example.

Because you can't do it in 90 minutes, or in 120 minutes, or in 150 minutes anyway. And if you can't do something right, better don't do it at all. I'll take well-drawn static characters over a crappy attempt at one-bit character development any time of the day.

I really hate to keep using this example, but it works. In The Dark Knight, they developed the Joker to the point where I would be inclined to consider another film featuring the character superfluous, while also doing the origin of Two Face. Of course, they did have the advantage of having dealt with Batman in the first film, and they wisely avoided doing an origin story for the Joker instead of just sticking to exploring his motivations and tactics.

Ok, so I guess the Joker would be more an example of a "well-drawn static character," so I guess we're using different definitions of character development. You are referring only to changes in a character, while I'm also talking about the presentation of the existing character. I'll concede that both creating a character and convincingly showing changes might take a little more time.

For an example of well-done character changes over the course of one (or two) movies however, I'd say Sarah Conor in the first two Terminator films. I certainly buy Sarah's progression from an ordinary woman to someone who can bring down a Terminator, and its done in gradual steps over the course of the film, interwoven with the progression of the story. Each escalation in the conflict prompts an escalation in Sarah's development. Then in the second film we have the reverse, with Sarah having to learn how to be a decent human being again after the trauma of her experiences.

And yes, sometimes it does. In like... An, no, in most movies, really, because most movies are about how man a woman come to love each other and eventually have sex.
But I'm referring to the insertion of sex scenes to other movies, where they're not needed at all, just because "every movie must have a love story and a sex scene". Seriously, cut it out. It detracts from the movie and adds nothing.

Are their shitty writers? Yes. But don't overgeneralize.

Also, love is a part of life, and their are many movies where it must be dealt with one way or another. Agreed on overly graphic or exploitive scenes, however.

I could give you links to a movie script and a script/transcript of a TV episode, and show that their stories are essentially the same length. And even find the same story in both movie and episode format. But I don't want to waste time. We both know I can do it, and you can too if you want to.

Some themes benefit from repetition, as I said. Regardless, one or even fifty examples prove nothing when it comes to discussing inherent flaws in the medium of film. At most, it just shows that most people are doing it wrong.;)

Take a bit less absolutist interpretation.

I hardly think I've taken an absolutist interpretation.

If you have 20 stories to tell, the format of a TV show that introduces the characters in the pilot and spreads their detail and development over the rest, telling a story per episode, is generally superior to 20 movies with a lame attempt at characters in each.

There's a reason sequels and movie series (e.g. Potter, Bond) are so popular. Getting to like characters takes time. The time available in a single movie is only sufficient to introduce the characters, and take them away from you just as you are starting to like them.

Well, with a series like that, they don't have to do what you said, and keep starting over with each film. For some reason, however, film sequels seem to often be worse than the first one. Star Wars being a noticeable exception.

But in terms of telling a really good story with good characters, the standard film length is inadequate, so it's best done in either jumbo movies or short series.

Not nessissarily true. For reasons I have already attempted to explain.

I'm not sure what the point of your analogy is.
You are perfectly correct that pacing alone won't save an otherwise shitty piece of work. But that doesn't prove that good pacing doesn't matter. It just means its not the only thing that matters.
You misunderstood the point. It's not that pacing isn't important. Rather, it's that working in a movie format doesn't ensure better pacing.

It gives you a bit more precision to work with - you don't have to stick to length ranges of 35-50, 70-100 or 110+ minutes, for instance. But is it a big advantage? No, you can make multi-eps in a show, so you can have any length you want, just with granularity. And if it turns out to be 1:06:32 exactly, you always can add character-related padding.
Movie format gives you a bit more freedom to time the "breaks", but ultimately, you still have to give the viewer some breathing time once in a while.
But will you really use that freedom? More often the answer is no.

And there are some aspects in which the series format actually gives more freedom. A movie is 90 to 150 minutes, any more is only for very big titles. In a series, you can have anything from 40 to 1000 minutes.
And there actually are series which use their massive length allowance. Even the LotR totals 9 hours, while 24 is full eighteen. Non-stop, nothing episodic, straight action. What's more, they actually turned the commercial breaks into an advantage of sorts, allowing them to skip boring the parts while keeping the realtime format.


Not everyone's experience is the same. Some people may prefer the social situation.
My take is that they're more interested in the social situation rather than in the movie itself. It's not like I've never used cinemas for the popular social interaction.


In The Dark Knight, we have scenes that simultaneously advance the plot and reveal a great deal about the Joker's character. [...]
Yes, characterization. That is well possible within a movie, although takes a lot of effort.

But it's hard to do any character changes in a movie, just by the time you're done drawing the character, there's the end of the film.


Well, some people are dirt poor. However, not everyone nessissarily does want it that much. Or they can enjoy both watching movies at home and watching them in theaters. They are different experiences, but that doesn't make theaters inferior.
Maybe. As said above, though, for pure movie-watching rather than social-event experience I'd clearly give an edge to a good home system.

On a sidenote, it's my experience that the people who criticize some "unreasonable expense" the loudest are the ones most likely to go to over the top with the very same expense if their income changes. I don't refer to people in this thread, but to those who prefer public cinema and can't afford a home system anyway - most of them would be the first to decry cinemas if they actually got their hands on a home theater (say win it somewhere).

But today I think everyone posting on NSG has at least a large LCD or a plasma. This has changed and continues to change the TV series too - it's no longer a lights-on, tiny-screen experience, so modern series are increasingly produced more like movies. You couldn't watch some of them with the lights on, wouldn't see anything. Commercials are timed to the the episode, not vice versa. And of course everything is HD now.



I really hate to keep using this example, but it works. In The Dark Knight, they developed the Joker to the point where I would be inclined to consider another film featuring the character superfluous, while also doing the origin of Two Face. Of course, they did have the advantage of having dealt with Batman in the first film, and they wisely avoided doing an origin story for the Joker instead of just sticking to exploring his motivations and tactics.
Perhaps. But, as you mention yourself, it took focusing the film on that character to just exhaustively finish a static character.


Are their shitty writers? Yes. But don't overgeneralize.
Also, love is a part of life, and their are many movies where it must be dealt with one way or another. Agreed on overly graphic or exploitive scenes, however.
There are many where it must be dealt with. You couldn't do Immortality without it at all. But there are also very many where the obligatory one-bit love story between the main character and the prettiest female character is there only because "it should be there".
And worse examples, like in LotR, violating the book script. Admittedly, it didn't look overly out of place, well, that's to be expected from a top-notch movie. But it still shows how strong the conformity pressure is in cinema.



Well, with a series like that, they don't have to do what you said, and keep starting over with each film. For some reason, however, film sequels seem to often be worse than the first one. Star Wars being a noticeable exception.
Because Star Wars is essentially a series (of 6), not a film with sequels. Sequels tend to suck because they try to build on what is already a complete, finalized work.

As for starting over with each film, add multiple writers and directors into the mix. Most genre films are made to a genre template of sorts, using essentially the same archetypal set of characters with different faces and names. Yet their stories are often good, just not good enough to justify making a whole movie to tell them; they could be interesting if condensed into an episode, without new characters each time.

Perhaps this is the reflection of my personal bias, though. As I prefer a group of friends over a crowd of strangers, so do I prefer a few well-drawn, detailed and developing characters over new one-bit types each time. Still, I have an impression that such a set produces works that are actually better, not just preferred by me.

If you add the word "typical" to the question, then I would say games. The typical Hollywood movie is not at all original.

But if you are including all movies and all video games, then I think movies pull ahead into the lead. There is a wealth of creative, original material out there in the independent, semi-independent, and foreign film markets.

It's not elitism, it's statement of fact. Of course, your average TV writer/director isn't any better than their movie counterparts. They produce the same stories.
No, it's not and no, I haven't and no, they don't.

You really need to understand the difference between matters of taste and statement of facts. We've outlined how the stories are different, you've outlined how the stories are different, but then waved your hand "Ah, but, you know, they don't" or "Screenwriters are poopy heads." These are not statements of 'fact,' they do not illustrate a weakness in a medium. They are matters of taste, yours, frankly, are questionable.


Yes, I can, and you have confirmed it yourself. The stories are the same. The movies just get more special effects and longer intro/epilogue parts.
No you can't, and no I haven't.

Oddly enough, you manage to complain that movies are both too long and too short in the same posts. I refute the dismissal that movies are just TV shows with exposition. It's just too cartoonish a claim to even know how to approach it.



Agoraphobia, heh. Not at all. You don't need to be afraid of crowds to dislike them. You don't need to have some phobia to prefer a clean place to a dirty one.
And this is not about the strengths per se. Rather, this is a dismissal of the argument than with films you get a bigger screen, no ads and a dark room, and with TV you don't. That argument would have nothing to do with the honest assessment of the strength of film in relation to television even if it was valid. But it isn't, because, assuming you have a home theater, you normally watch both in the same conditions.
Similar conditions are not the same conditions. Not to mention your bizarre 'let them eat cake'-like notion of how everyone could do such a thing. I have a 15 year old 50" rear projection SD TV I got free off Craigslist because working on the stuff you watch on your thousands of dollars worth of tech 'everyone can get' doesn't pay for such indulgences. But it's good to know my twelve hour days and meager pay goes to such a grateful audience...



Since when is Firefly about the story of a group of space smugglers? Only a couple eps involve any smuggling at all, the rest are pretty much independent movies set on specific 'planets' with different local stories. Ironically, often involving turn of the century potato farmers -in space-.
Sorry dude, not every story, no matter how good, is served by having to include a bitter war hero, his tough girl sidekick, her nerdy husband, cute chick mechanic, cartoonish tough guy, and classy whore with the heart of gold. It's this flagrant attitude that gets us local Shakespeare productions setting The Tempest on the moon...it doesn't work.

Your argument has devolved into two camps, your (again) Howard Hughes-esque fear (sorry, distaste) of other human beings and 'writers suck! (but if you confine them to 20-40 minute episodes, they suddenly rule! Why, just look at the scribblings of people on this internet game with my subjective random analysis as proof!)'

Don't bother to respond. I've already read it too often to care.
If it's a good story, it's not about potatoes and not about turn of the century, so you could just as easily tell it with -in space- potato farmers in the Firefly universe or with the post-nuclear Klamath and Arroyo.[/QUOTE]

NSG has gone mad, judging by the poll results.

Story Oiginality?

Between movies and games I give it to games

Movies are constrained in their time. but games are not.
the Storylines for Final Fantasy or Phantasy Star would make a great tv series.

sure books can have better storylines, but they have more room to play with.

TV series.


What TV shows in particular?

You misunderstood the point. It's not that pacing isn't important. Rather, it's that working in a movie format doesn't ensure better pacing.

Fair point. Their's only one thing that can ensure quality in any field, and that's skill on the part of the people involved.

It gives you a bit more precision to work with - you don't have to stick to length ranges of 35-50, 70-100 or 110+ minutes, for instance. But is it a big advantage? No, you can make multi-eps in a show, so you can have any length you want, just with granularity. And if it turns out to be 1:06:32 exactly, you always can add character-related padding.
Movie format gives you a bit more freedom to time the "breaks", but ultimately, you still have to give the viewer some breathing time once in a while.
But will you really use that freedom? More often the answer is no.

Maybe, but the episodic format has its own pitfalls. You are expected to wrap up each story segment within that precise unit of time, regardless of the number of segments you have. And multi-episode stories may be discouraged (probably because they discourage casual viewers). Of course, this can be at least partly written off as corporate interference, as opposed to an inherent flaw of the medium.

And there are some aspects in which the series format actually gives more freedom. A movie is 90 to 150 minutes, any more is only for very big titles. In a series, you can have anything from 40 to 1000 minutes.
And there actually are series which use their massive length allowance. Even the LotR totals 9 hours, while 24 is full eighteen. Non-stop, nothing episodic, straight action. What's more, they actually turned the commercial breaks into an advantage of sorts, allowing them to skip boring the parts while keeping the realtime format.

Clever, though rarely done. And again, that model has its own problems. I believe something similar was done in Prison Break (not real time though), and it felt... disorganized, with no real breaks or pauses. Though Prison Break wins a stupid award for trying to follow each character's story every episode. In my opinion, they should have focussed on one or two characters per episode, rather than jumping back and forth all the time. But this may be getting a little off topic.

Yes, characterization. That is well possible within a movie, although takes a lot of effort.

But it's hard to do any character changes in a movie, just by the time you're done drawing the character, there's the end of the film.

Hard? No doubt. Making movies at all is hard. But impossible? No.

But today I think everyone posting on NSG has at least a large LCD or a plasma. This has changed and continues to change the TV series too - it's no longer a lights-on, tiny-screen experience, so modern series are increasingly produced more like movies. You couldn't watch some of them with the lights on, wouldn't see anything. Commercials are timed to the the episode, not vice versa. And of course everything is HD now.[/QUOTE]

You get a different image from a television. Its an electronic image, whereas film is basically projected light. You can argue over which you prefer, but their is a different visual quality, and hence, a different experience for the viewer (if a subtle one).

Perhaps. But, as you mention yourself, it took focusing the film on that character to just exhaustively finish a static character.

They also had to contend with the rise of Two Face. Of course, origin stories tend to feel a bit contrived, but it was done fine as far as such things go. It was foreshadowed from early on with "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and other philosophical comments of Dent's. Then we get the beginning of his decent during the interrogation scene, and finally his snapping completely after the Joker basically destroys his life. All handled concurrently to the Joker's story.

There are many where it must be dealt with. You couldn't do Immortality without it at all. But there are also very many where the obligatory one-bit love story between the main character and the prettiest female character is there only because "it should be there".
And worse examples, like in LotR, violating the book script. Admittedly, it didn't look overly out of place, well, that's to be expected from a top-notch movie. But it still shows how strong the conformity pressure is in cinema.

I'm not sure if any romance was added to LotR. Altered, sure. Given a more prominent role, indeed. But their were really only two major romances: Arwen and Aragorn (from the book), and Eowen's unreturned affections for Aragorn (also from the book, though maybe he humored her a bit more in the films).

Perhaps this is the reflection of my personal bias, though. As I prefer a group of friends over a crowd of strangers, so do I prefer a few well-drawn, detailed and developing characters over new one-bit types each time. Still, I have an impression that such a set produces works that are actually better, not just preferred by me.

Their you go. Personal taste, not anything inferior with the film medium. Nor must films be limited to simplistic archetype characters.

The title says it all really. Movies vs Video Games, which do you believe delivers a story better? I would have to go with video games. They have so much more flexibility than movies.

Go NSG!

Also this post is sponsored by >>
Almost always movies, most video game writing is dreadful.

Almost always movies, most video game writing is dreadful.

Indeed. In fact, I don't think I've played one game with a truly great story or exceptional character dialog. Maybe the Exile series, though I think that was more just a cool and detailed setting.

Indeed. In fact, I don't think I've played one game with a truly great story or exceptional character dialog. Maybe the Exile series.
Most of Bioware / Black Isle's stuff was great for its writing (outside of Icewind Dale, obviously), and the early Lucasarts stuff is still good.

Fair point. Their's only one thing that can ensure quality in any field, and that's skill on the part of the people involved.
Yes. And most times, that skill is nowhere as high as required for the format to become the limiting factor. That's the point I was making.


Maybe, but the episodic format has its own pitfalls. You are expected to wrap up each story segment within that precise unit of time, regardless of the number of segments you have. And multi-episode stories may be discouraged (probably because they discourage casual viewers). Of course, this can be at least partly written off as corporate interference, as opposed to an inherent flaw of the medium.
Exactly. It's the executive attempts to standardize everything which discourage multi-part episodes.

But good writers usually get their way. For instance, already starting with S2 of Buffy (if not to mention the 2-episode pilot), Whedon was playing with multi-parts completely freely. And by the late seasons, stories wrapping up in a single episode became rare, it was mostly a continuous stream.
With TV series released on DVDs, it works particularly well.

The movie format is good if your story requires one-time characters and 90 to 150 minutes of screen time. For that specific case. It's not inherently better, just better for some stories.


Hard? No doubt. Making movies at all is hard. But impossible? No.
But the issue is, most times they do it wrong. And the harder it is to do, the more often it fails.
The advantage of TV series is that it's easier to do it right. And even the failures aren't usually as bad as in movies. In the series medium, the momentum of the main story and the power of the characters easily roll over a few potholes. Not so with a movie.


You get a different image from a television. Its an electronic image, whereas film is basically projected light. You can argue over which you prefer, but their is a different visual quality, and hence, a different experience for the viewer (if a subtle one).
Movies today are actually produced in a digital form as well, due to the mass use of special effects. Then the digital movie is printed on the film. Could just as well distribute it directly.

As for the pixelation issue, it's indeed a significant disadvantage with LCD and DLP projectors. Fortunately, CRT ones are free from such problems, and the picture is very much like real film. Only sharper and better than in most cinemas.


I'm not sure if any romance was added to LotR. Altered, sure. Given a more prominent role, indeed. But their were really only two major romances: Arwen and Aragorn (from the book), and Eowen's unreturned affections for Aragorn (also from the book, though maybe he humored her a bit more in the films).
There was a real outcry among the JRRT fans, "Das ist nicht richtig!!" screams all around. And indeed I myself remember that the Aragorn romances were a bit more than barely mentioned in the books.


Their you go. Personal taste, not anything inferior with the film medium. Nor must films be limited to simplistic archetype characters.
Personal taste, in part maybe, but I don't think that entirely. Well done characters are better than poorly done characters, there's no contest about that. And TV series pretty much always offer better characterization.

The question of whether it is better to have poorly done characters, but precisely tailored to the story, or adjust the story to the well done characters - now that is a matter of taste. For most stories I prefer the latter.

Indeed. In fact, I don't think I've played one game with a truly great story or exceptional character dialog. Maybe the Exile series, though I think that was more just a cool and detailed setting.
What about Planescape:Torment? Both a great story, very well told, and clearly exceptional dialogue.

What about Planescape:Torment? Both a great story, very well told, and clearly exceptional dialogue.

Never played it. I'm limited in the range of games I can play, both for financial reasons and because I have a Mac.

Never played it. I'm limited in the range of games I can play, both for financial reasons and because I have a Mac.
You've missed a lot then. Planescape:Torment stands out even among the best RPGs for its story and dialogue. In a league of its own pretty much, I can't quite compare even Baldur and Fallout to it. It's 1999, so there might be a way to run it on a Mac through a Windows emulator.

A very interesting setting, the multiverse where beliefs define the reality, three factions based on philosophies (not some guilds or political parties, but philosophies), over a thousand pages of outstanding dialogue. All very well played, the game has a good deal of freedom (although in an overarching story, but it can end differently) and actually meaningful choices, not just good/evil. And your character has a long backstory, which you don't remember, and gradually recover bits of it. It may be a bit like Insomnia movie, but way better.

And, unlike Dreamfall, which often borders on an interactive movie, Torment actually tells its story in a specifically game format, even though one heavily hinged on dialogue. If I had to pick one computer game as art rather than merely entertainment, that would be it.

I don't think video games are very good at story telling at all. But that is not really what they are all about, to me they are more about a creating an environment and an atmosphere rather than narrative. Endless cut scenes trying to shoe horn plot points tend to irritate me in games. If I want coherent narrative books and films are where I go.

Almost always movies, most video game writing is dreadful.

Yep. And more over videogames just flagrently steal movie plots. You can't even compare the two.

Books.
Can only agree.

Movies, but only because movies have been around long enough for writers and directors and such to learn how to take advantage of the medium's strengths. If you watch early movies (and I mean EARLY), you'll see plays or what would be considered crappy home videos today, like the film about some guy sneezing.

Games tend to steal plots from movies, which in turn often steal their plots from books and plays.

Movies have linear plots, due to the limitations of the medium. The events in a specific movie never change. This allows for deeper plots as the writers, developers, actors, etc. only have to focus on specific scenes.

Games are alot like the early movies. Like the early movies being basically recorded plays, games nowadays tend to be movies with scenes seperated or replaced by bits of gameplay. To effectively use the medium's strengths, developers need to make the story interactive. The player needs to be the actor. They need to be able to effectively affect and change the story. Games are interactive and the story shouldn't be like comercials, breaking up gameplay like a comercial breaking up tv show's scenes.

... I'm going to go with the book crowd on this.

Why did a movie v. game thread become a movie v. tv v. book thread?

Movies and games tend to rip off, or be influenced by books and authors. It's not easy to find a movie that was not a book first.

Movies and games tend to rip off, or be influenced by books and authors. It's not easy to find a movie that was not a book first.

really?

Phantasy Star III... what book was that ripped off of?
Final Fantasy 6 (three for the SNES crowd) came from which book?

gamewise, stories can't be too detailed because it has to take user interaction into account but the basic story premise tend to be unique.

While a game should not attempt to perfectly imitate reality (don't people play them to get experiences and learn things that they can't in reality?), I would actually like to see more games that avoid a rigid story and create a more free-flowing world. No doubt this can be tricky to do, but as a player I like the freedom to explore a world in detail and chart my own course. This is not to say you can't have a good game with a good story, but I don't feel its needed. A good setting and backstory, however, is often very important to me. Again, observe the Exile series, which is an example of a very old but still playable RPG with a large and complex world and a very cool if not entirely original setting (world-dominating surface empire, known simply as the Empire, with a vast underground series of caverns full of monsters into which the Empire throws its trouble makers).

I've probably said this before on these forums, but I'd like to see a game that gave the player a great deal of freedom in the course they chart. The world would have laws, cities, faiths, and cultures. It would have rival kingdoms. The player would start out as just one guy in this world, and they would have great freedom to do as they wished. They could wander the land, work as a sword for higher, serve the Clergy, train to be a mage, rise through the ranks of the local king's army gaining control of ever more previously ai controlled forces (and perhaps stab the king in the back), become a brigand, or build a trading empire. The player would have no set story to fulfil, but to give him some guidence and direction, their would be a very cool and detailed backstory, and a complex and engaging setting. The backstory would deal with a powerful dark mage (or in a sci-fi version, perhaps an alien threat). As the game progressed, it would become clear that this mage will eventually return. Now, the player has great freedom as to how they would choose to respond. They could fight the enemy, or join them. But if they ignore them, then eventually everything else they did will be for nothing when the mage takes over the world. Victory would be the death of the mage. However, the player would be free to pursue their own method of achieving that goal, and to keep playing once it was achieved.

And what is the point of this long rambling, in relation to the topic at hand? Simply that I don't believe a complex or brilliant story is needed for the character(s) in a game, so much as a good setting and backstory. In some cases, it can be a detriment. I want the freedom to explore the reality the game has created, not to be forced down a rigid path that I do not agree with and would never choose myself, however brilliantly written it is.

While a game should not attempt to perfectly imitate reality (don't people play them to get experiences and learn things that they can't in reality?), I would actually like to see more games that avoid a rigid story and create a more free-flowing world. No doubt this can be tricky to do, but as a player I like the freedom to explore a world in detail and chart my own course. This is not to say you can't have a good game with a good story, but I don't feel its needed. A good setting and backstory, however, is often very important to me. Again, observe the Exile series, which is an example of a very old but still playable RPG with a large and complex world and a very cool if not entirely original setting (world-dominating surface empire, known simply as the Empire, with a vast underground series of caverns full of monsters into which the Empire throws its trouble makers).

I've probably said this before on these forums, but I'd like to see a game that gave the player a great deal of freedom in the course they chart. The world would have laws, cities, faiths, and cultures. It would have rival kingdoms. The player would start out as just one guy in this world, and they would have great freedom to do as they wished. They could wander the land, work as a sword for higher, serve the Clergy, train to be a mage, rise through the ranks of the local king's army gaining control of ever more previously ai controlled forces (and perhaps stab the king in the back), become a brigand, or build a trading empire. The player would have no set story to fulfil, but to give him some guidence and direction, their would be a very cool and detailed backstory, and a complex and engaging setting. The backstory would deal with a powerful dark mage (or in a sci-fi version, perhaps an alien threat). As the game progressed, it would become clear that this mage will eventually return. Now, the player has great freedom as to how they would choose to respond. They could fight the enemy, or join them. But if they ignore them, then eventually everything else they did will be for nothing when the mage takes over the world. Victory would be the death of the mage. However, the player would be free to pursue their own method of achieving that goal, and to keep playing once it was achieved.

And what is the point of this long rambling, in relation to the topic at hand? Simply that I don't believe a complex or brilliant story is needed for the character(s) in a game, so much as a good setting and backstory. In some cases, it can be a detriment. I want the freedom to explore the reality the game has created, not to be forced down a rigid path that I do not agree with and would never choose myself, however brilliantly written it is.

Kinda like the old Might and Magic series. where you can explore the world and take on various quests (in any order). where areas are not 'locked until you complete A-B-C quests.'

yeah, those were fun.

My old sega Genesis had a might and magic game cart. that was fun.

Books, I almost always read the novelization of the movies/video games I like, and the books are almost always better...

Plus, being that the majority are in all three mediums,I dont exactly have to choose, lol...

Now I just need my Halo: The Movie, Dammit....

With any luck, it looks like movies will win. Its certainly a lot closer. I'd like to take credit for the shift that's taking place, but my guess is that all the hardcore gamers got here early, and the poll is only now starting to reflect the actual numbers.

Blah blah blah


That was similar to the point I made on page 4. For far too long, developers have been trying too hard to make games that emulate movies by breaking up the gameplay with cutscenes. As a result, the games get pretty linear. Plus, breaking up a game with cutscenes is like breaking up a movie with bits where only a bunch of words appear on screen like a page from a giant book. It could easily work with some thought put into it, but it would rarely be taking advantage of the medium's advantages.

What you suggested was a way to accomplish what I want developers to do: take advantage of the medium. Instead of making an "interactive movie", they should create a virtual world.

That was similar to the point I made on page 4. For far too long, developers have been trying too hard to make games that emulate movies by breaking up the gameplay with cutscenes. As a result, the games get pretty linear. Plus, breaking up a game with cutscenes is like breaking up a movie with bits where only a bunch of words appear on screen like a page from a giant book. It could easily work with some thought put into it, but it would rarely be taking advantage of the medium's advantages.

Sorry if it sounded like I was copying what you said. I must have missed or forgotten about that post.

What you suggested was a way to accomplish what I want developers to do: take advantage of the medium. Instead of making an "interactive movie", they should create a virtual world.

Agreed that they should be making use of the medium. As I think you may have already mentioned, you could draw parallels to early film, and its tendency to be simply projected theatre.

However, as I tried to make clear, I do not take "virtual world" to mean a carbon copy or anything. God I hate the sound of all that "second life" crap. Why would anyone want to play an inferior imitation of the real world (unless they find the real one too hard to play;))? I want games that simulate things I can't get in real life, that deal with the fantastical, and that gloss over a lot of the needless ugly details.

Sorry if it sounded like I was copying what you said. I must have missed or forgotten about that post.



Agreed that they should be making use of the medium. As I think you may have already mentioned, you could draw parallels to early film, and its tendency to be simply projected theatre.

However, as I tried to make clear, I do not take "virtual world" to mean a carbon copy or anything. God I hate the sound of all that "second life" crap. Why would anyone want to play an inferior imitation of the real world (unless they find the real one too hard to play;))? I want games that simulate things I can't get in real life, that deal with the fantastical, and that gloss over a lot of the needless ugly details.

Don't worry. I always knew I wasn't the only person who wanted a virtual world, one that might be populated by wizards and fox-people, where modern technology/sci-fi meets magic and ancient/medieval history. Where dragons and knights could coexist with cavemen and astronauts and none of them would be out of place.

Where I don't have to endure fifteen minute-long unskippable cutscenes that look almost nothing like the in-game graphics and have music and voice-acting that would make even the deafest of people cringe in pain. After all, if I wanted a bad movie, I'd have bought a bad movie instead of a game. It's kind of like books on a disc with no special features or movies or games or anything. If I wanted to do some reading, I'd pull out a book that doesn't require me to turn on my computer, pop in a disc, and hope that the disc isn't scratched or dirty. I'd pull out a book containing actual sheets of paper that I could quickly browse through until I find the desired page.