Is television better than film?
No,not yet.
No,not anymore.
No, not.
Tony is a straight up villain.
>>71929811
tv is better for edgemasters who look up to Omar or le /ebin/ Heisenberg
adults prefer film
Radio is still the god of entertainment mediums
>>71929811
Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and The Wire are top-level crime-drama series but /tv/ will always talk shit about them because they're popular. Carnivale exists but people regularly discuss Game of Thrones like it's the shit. Boardwalk Empire, Six Feet Under, Treme, and others constantly fly under the radar of modern-day tv fans who favor cable schlock like Mr. Robot. There's no "better than" or "worse than". Television is getting better all the time but some fans will always be misinformed.
The best actors and directors still do movies, but I could see anthologized tv shows becoming better in the next 10-20 years.
>>71930211
Meme.
>>71930253
Yogurt.
>>71929811
Cut out Breaking Bad or Madmen and replace one of them with Boardwalk Empire.
>>71930421
>Boardwalk Empire
And this is why tv will never be better, because these are the retards that make up the audience
TV
>better character development/arcs
>able to handle up to dozens of plotlines and characters
>more daring with the stories told
>length allows the viewer to become attached easier. more emotional resonance
Film
>more money for cgi
>>71930545
>He says this as he posts a Mad Men image.
Get some fucking taste or go back to /v/
>>71929811
Not even close. TV is for people who like uninteresting characters, side story arcs that go nowhere, and filler episodes. TV is the cancer of storytelling.
>>71930888
>>71930421
>That shit s4
>that cut back s5
>have to kill off everyone cause we're got now
BE could of been sopranos tier, I mean it had based Michael Shannon in it but it just fell on its face at the end guys
Tony > Walter > Omar > Don
>>71930888
>get some fucking taste and watch "Bang! Bang! Cops and Robbers, but in the 1920's this time so the guns and clothes are kind of different, but still pretty similar to all the ones that take place in the 1940's!"
Literally GoT-tier
>>71929811
No OZ?
>>71931021
>W-Why isn't everyone acting like they're from another planet, t-this is the 1920s!
Retard
>>71929811
Over the past 15 years collectively, yes.
The best directing in tv has never surpassed the best directing in film. The writing and acting in tv can sometimes be up there with film.
>>71930661
Your watching the wrong movies bud
>>71929811
One of these shows is not like the others.
>>71929811
Mad Men is shit and overrated
>>71930888
Mad men is much better than bwe
>>71931185
My point is that it's a repackaged godfather coasting on the gimmick of its setting in lieu of quality writing
>>71929811
Breaking Bad is below the others because it doesn't deal with society issues like the others do.
>>71929811
Ok faggots, I am going to watch one of these: Sopranos, Lost, or Heroes.
Which one should I watch? (I don't care about the length).
>>71931567
Sopranos
Lost and Heroes both go to shit early on
>>71931588
Ignore him. Lost is GOAT. Heroes I've never seen.
>>71931567
Sopranos > Lost > Heroes, but only the first season of Heroes is worth watching so you might want to knock that out first
The true patrician has spoken.
>>71930661
>better character development/arcs
Unimportant
>able to handle up to dozens of plotlines and characters
Unimportant
>more daring with the stories told
Nope
>length allows the viewer to become attached easier. more emotional resonance
Unimportant
Film is not just a storytelling medium. TV stans can only critique art via something as universal and accessible as narrative. They have very little understanding of form because it requires something further than what you learn in lit 101. Anyone can analyze characters, themes, narrative structure but how many have an understanding of lighting, framing, depth of field, cinematography. You need to memorize a ton of history and jargon. Look at someone like Hitchcock and you can see that it's his striking imagery and not his narrative that makes his films so genius. And that's a hollywood director, albeit one of the most experiment ones. Can't even see how TV stans would react to a Kubelka or a Benning. No television show can offer that kind of experimentation.
Film occupies a different spacial-temporal dimension to that of tv.
"Cinema is not made of images but of shots and the shot is the indivisible bloc of image and time"
TV is an inferior medium simply because it's inherently diluted by commercialism.
The potential of film is visual and aural poetry.
The potential of tv is plot progression and character development.
The reason for this is $, which is delegated by the producer(s).
>>71929811
Yes
>>71930043
Sopranos was the first show to make people sympathize with and cheer for a villain
>>71930661
You only watch Hollywood blockbusters don't you bud?
Why don't you actually try watching some actually good movies.
>>71930081
That movie sucked.
>>71931674
>better character development/arcs
>Unimportant
opinion dropped
>>71929811
This image needs to replace Walter White with Kevin Garvey
>>71932022
>Sopranos was the first show to make people sympathize with and cheer for a villain
You mean Oz.
>>71929811
Replace Mad Men or BrBa with Deadwood.
>>71930081
Ah yes, kino of mind
>>71933080
The viewer still has an outsider's perspective with Oz. Tony is your neighbor with at least some of the same relationship and health issues that you have, and his work in organized crime is demystified to the point where it feels like another monotonous day job.
Maybe you sympathize with some of the characters in Oz, but you're never really intended to empathize with them. Even Beecher feels more like a cautionary tale than a relatable character.
>>71930948
It had to kill off everyone because that's the line of work they were in. Same with Sopranos.
>>71931701
What about premium cable networks like HBO, or alternative channels like Netflix?
