Two articles in the space of a week - one on Time Out, one on The Guardian's web site - argue that TV is better than film, not just artistically but also because you don't need to endure other people at the cinema.
What do you think? Do you prefer TV or would you rather watch a good movie? And are The Guardian and Time Out merely rebelling against modern cinema and are swayed by the lower quality of much of modern television? Would the argument have been any different if it had been held in the 70s or 80s?
November 20, 2008 | Reply
I hardly ever go to the cinema and do prefer TV, but cinema viewing is far better now than it was in the seventies - primarily because there are so many screens now that virtually every film plays to an almost empty set of seats.
November 20, 2008 | Reply
Well, people watch far more TV than they do films, so I suppose TV is the friendlier and more convenient of the two. It's in your home, accessible 24/7, whereas you have to make an effort to visit a cinema. I don't think it's really fair to compare the two, or pick a favourite. There are too many factors involved.
Usually, I'm more impressed by a really good film. But films don't inspire as much loyalty, whereas TV shows can become a fixture in your life, and have a cumulative effect. The last ever episode of a long-running TV series you love can leave a deeper mark than a really excellent film -- simply because you've invested hundreds of hours in the story and characters. The pay-off is huge, if done right. Then again, the sheer scope and artistry of a film can't often be replicated by TV. Not properly.
I get more excited by the prospect of a big movie on the horizon, than waiting for a TV series to come back on-air, too. So there's that. I think you take TV for granted (and realize there's a LOT of crap on, which you choose to ignore), whereas you're more discerning with films and still treat them as something special. If I could see Watchmen right now, or a whole season of Lost I haven't seen, I would narrowly choose Watchmen. There's something to be said for the two-hour, contained-narrative hit of a big-budget film that's taken years to create.
November 20, 2008 | Reply
"There are so many screens now that virtually every film plays to an almost empty set of seats"
Yeah, but you live in Scotland and only about five people live there. Down in London, it's like a Calcutta train just to see a matinee at times.
November 20, 2008 | Reply
There is one compelling reason to watch a film in a cinema --- the shared experience. I am so glad that my first viewing of Singing in the Rain, for example, was in a packed student cinema with people roaring with laughter at Donald O'Connor and fake tap-dancing up the aisles afterward. I'll always remember the rapt expressions of a row of 19-year-old boys watching our town's very first screening of ET, the stunned silence following Schindler's List, and the gasps at the seemingly endless Empire warship pursuing Princess Leia in the opening moments of the first Star Trek. We're social creatures, and despite the irritating habits of fellow audience members who really should limit their movie-viewing to their own homes, some moments are richer shared, even with strangers.
November 21, 2008 | Reply
I agree with Dan. I don't think you can compare them (it's like saying you prefer beef to chicken - what's wrong with liking both and having them at different times?). As it so happens my life at the moment precludes me getting to the cinema very often (on a rare night out with my husband I'd rather sit and chat then watch a film), so to me it's a special treat and something to look forward to.
Last thing I went to see was Mamma Mia! Twice. Cos it was so much fun, and it made me want to get up and dance and sing and you wouldn't get that from watching it on the telly.
I can still remember the excitement of seeing Star Wars for the first time at Leicester Square. The spaceships were so huge and the sound so impressive, it really felt they were coming out of the screen at you.
I'd argue that film is involving in a way that TV isn't - it's possible to get so lost in a great film that you (well if you're as sad as I am anyway) feel like your living the story - I don't get that from a series on TV which I am wrested in an out of week after week (however much I might enjoy it).
But having said that am equally enthralled by episodes of Dr Who, Spooks etc when I'm actually watching them. Like I said, I don't think you can compare the two medium. It's horses for courses.