Has Television Become Bigger and More Important than Cinema ?

[CupofJoe]

I found 3D to be aggravating. t\The movies looked dark and subdued and that drove me nuts.

And for some [10%?] the 3D just didn't work. Went to see Avatar and lasted 10 minutes.

 

[.matthew.]

I think a lot of movie actors go over to TV for the money.

They might get paid millions for a film, but big shows can pay big names upwards of a million dollars an episode. They do like 20 of those a year and that's more than they'd see from doing movies. Plus if the series is successful, that's basically a guaranteed job for 5+ years.

TV Hollywood is also a lot better at paying residuals than cinema, and from what I've heard, the actors from a show like Friends still rake in nearly 20 million a year nearly 20 years later, just from syndication.

 

[Narkalui]

With regard to big name actors going to TV, I think it's more to do with an artistic decision. The chance to really get their teeth into a part over the course of 8 to 12 hours of narrative rather than an hour and a half just be quite the draw.

 

[.matthew.]

With regard to big name actors going to TV, I think it's more to do with an artistic decision. The chance to really get their teeth into a part over the course of 8 to 12 hours of narrative rather than an hour and a half just be quite the draw.

I've known a lot of wannabe actors and actresses (yes, I still use the apparently un-PC term) and without exception all they've really cared about is attention. I have sincere doubt that many at all care about the roles they play (the exception being more common with theatre players).

Consider how many utterly terrible movies and TV shows get made for proof that they do it only for money and ego (more so when many of these people are millionaires many times over when they take the roles). Plus, TV characters get them more prolonged attention with the weekly episodes over many seasons.

 

[BAYLOR]

I've known a lot of wannabe actors and actresses (yes, I still use the apparently un-PC term) and without exception all they've really cared about is attention. I have sincere doubt that many at all care about the roles they play (the exception being more common with theatre players).

Consider how many utterly terrible movies and TV shows get made for proof that they do it only for money and ego (more so when many of these people are millionaires many times over when they take the roles). Plus, TV characters get them more prolonged attention with the weekly episodes over many seasons.

And over time, make more more money by doing tv .

 

[BAYLOR]

With regard to big name actors going to TV, I think it's more to do with an artistic decision. The chance to really get their teeth into a part over the course of 8 to 12 hours of narrative rather than an hour and a half just be quite the draw.

It's televisions gain.

 

[stephen g parks]

There is no question that the pandemic has put the damper on the movie theaters but , in the scheme of things , has television become bigger and more important than cinema?

Interesting question

From a technological perspective, TV has caught up to and even overtaken cinema - TV screens are huge, dolby and other cinema-quality audio streams are available, and straming bandwidth and/or bluray allows for the delivery of better picture quality.

From the social perspective - TV offers greater flexibility in timeshifting, pausing, rewinding to catch a missed piece of dialogue. Theatre's main advantage is the "experience", which other than seeing a picture in a crowd, is also being improved upon by consumers watching TV at home.

From a content perspective - Theatre's exclusivity window keeps shrinking. So movies can be enjoyed at home sooner. As per the quality difference between movies and TV shows, that's been dwindling for some time. For me, HBO's Rome was the first indication that TV could supplant movies as the home of epic storytelling. I think many studios are coming around to the idea that serialized TV is a better format than movies. Look at how characters like Jack Ryan are migrating from movie releases to TV seasons. Marvel's various forays into TV series have shown them that the format was viable for something cinematic like WandaVision.

From a cost perspective: Taking a family to the movie theatre twice a month could easily set you back $100. How many streaming services (with massive libraries) could you sign up to for the cost of taking your family to see those two movies?

So for consumers, I think the shift from movie theatres to home theatre experience is inevitable. And I thnk studios realize it and are planning accordingly. If any of you are old enough to remember theatres before the megaplex concept, then you know that theatres have been losing audience for a long time and have been trying to reinvent the traditional experience.

Will theatres disappear completely? Probably not, but I would expect they'll end up more like the DVD-bongs that thrived in Korea in the early 2000's - a small room that you rented to view a movie with a hand-chosen audience. Mass capacity mix-and-mingle theatres may be preserved for special premiers, or they may just be victims of technology.

 

[Droflet]

That is a very well thought out bit of writing, Stephen. I agree with everything you've written, which is unusual for me. I was born before TVs came on the scene and have seen the changes you've mentioned. Yep, the last movie theater I attended was to see, wait for it, The Phantom Menace. A dozen friends with kids saw that load of drek with me and I had to control my tendency to swear in front of the kids. At home, I would just go out to the back yard, drop kick the cat over the fence and scream at the moon. So, I see your points.

 

[stephen g parks]

The one aspect I forgot to mention is that movie theatres aren't owned by studios, so they are a middleman between the studios and their profits. If the studios can build streaming services, then they own the middleman's share of profits as well.

 

[Finch]

Watching the TV going to the cinema and visiting a theatre are all different experiences. I like to watch music on Youtube, but it will never replace watching a live band.

 

[.matthew.]

It's televisions gain.

I wouldn't say that. Most big names aren't actually very good at acting, they just have the face for it. Big names also demand much higher salaries, meaning studios are more likely to cancel shows because of the cost. Cost increase is actually one of the reasons many Netflix shows end after 2 seasons - the point at which they are contractually obligated to pay far more money per episode.

The one aspect I forgot to mention is that movie theatres aren't owned by studios, so they are a middleman between the studios and their profits. If the studios can build streaming services, then they own the middleman's share of profits as well.

The theatres seem to make their money on concessions more than the actual movie, but I still wouldn't be surprised if the same people who own stock in studios don't also own stock in theatres. If I was a big-time studio executive/shareholder I would likely have (pre dark times) diversified into related industries.

 

[Judderman]

Cinemas still score over home for a teen date night, or folks just wanting to watch a film amongst an excited rabble. Or meeting a group of friends at a central place.

 

[Dave Vicks]

There are annoyances in movie theaters. Iike Smart phones.

 

[Vladd67]

There are annoyances in movie theaters. Iike Smart phones.

and people.

 

[Droflet]

and kids. (with stupid parents)

 

[KGeo777]

Home theaters are ok, but they cannot match the sensory experience of a giant screen. The reason older movies had more wide shots is because they would have these massive scenic displays. THE BIG COUNTRY for example. That would be amazing on a big screen.
Acting also is affected by the screen--often they say an actor has to be mindful of the size of the projected image because any emotion they show will be magnified much larger-and so they think about their reactions depending whether they are in close up or full screen.

And people report who have watched older movies shown in a theater-that it makes the movie seem all new to them-seeing it in a theater for the first time.
The main problem with tv is that they want the serial.
They are not interested in the single volume story--which is a massive loss. A story told over 2 hours is different in impact from one told over a season.

I think the studios do want to drive the theaters out of business. China, according to the BBC, is seeing a big leap in movie-going. The virus has helped homegrown filmmakers. Hollywood is not interested in promoting the homegrown. There is no homegrown to them.

And as others said--in a healthy society-you don't want to be trapped in your home.
You want to get out, in the community, the corporations don't understand or care about that.

 

[Finch]

There are annoyances in movie theaters. Iike Smart phones.

For me, it is the downside of visiting the cinema. The ratling and crunching and the smell of popcorn.

 

[tinkerdan]

TV used to be substandard media for big screen stars.
Today--where image is mostly about getting exposure-TV is a better alternative to what some of the tabloids can offer.
TV is their social media that they can regulate and even get paid for.

Think how much fun it would be for you if facebook paid you to throw your life out there for everyone to see.

 

[.matthew.]

Think how much fun it would be for you if facebook paid you to throw your life out there for everyone to see.

That sounds horrifying :/

 

[svalbard]

Cinemas still score over home for a teen date night, or folks just wanting to watch a film amongst an excited rabble. Or meeting a group of friends at a central place.

Yes, yes and yes. I fear there is a whole generation that might we'll lose that rite of passage of taking your date to the cinema. Sitting at the back, cuddled up and sometimes forgetting where you were.