|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The future of cinema: Showing TV series on the big screen?
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-25-2017 06:00 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, what I've learned that for many people, watching a couple of the episodes they really like, is often worth more for them than watching a movie, even if it's in a proper cinema.
Unfortunately there is no way to tell in advance which episodes are going to be better than others, deliver the biggest plot twists, action set pieces, etc. Many modern TV series will surprise viewers, putting the biggest plot developments one or more episodes in advance of a season finale. I've seen a lot of season openers that were a snooz, bogged down with lots of plot and character set up work. I think the people writing and producing these shows are well aware that viewers will either binge watch multiple episodes at once, either from their DVRs or via streaming services. So they're not bound so much by typical TV show conventions.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
My primary problem with the standard series format is that it requires everything to be condensed into this ~50 minute window. Some series are even produced with stringent requirements for commercial blocks in mind. Those kind of built-in format limitations are often mind numbing for the creative process.
Some shows are better than others in how gracefully or not they handle the breaks where commercials are inserted. I suppose it's a double-edged sword. If the viewer is watching a TV show on a basic cable network broadcast they might need an editorial reminder where the show left off before the 5 minute long commercial break began. When you're binge watching the same show online, sans the commercial breaks, you'll go from the cliff-hanger moment leading into the commercial break and then immediately jump cutting to a sort of deja vu repeat of that cliff-hanger moment as the show continues. That editorial style can be distracting and annoying, but not as annoying as a 5 minute long cable TV commercial break. Premium cable shows don't have this problem.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clint Koch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1435
From: San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-25-2017 11:42 PM
I'd pay to see some older (classic) TV shows on a big screen if the picture quality was decent. Shows like The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis, Ozzie and Harriet, Addams Family, Mutual of Omahas Wild Kingdom, Ed Sullivan, Steve Allen Show, early Carson, Fractured Flickers, the local Friday Night horror shows with the local hosts were some of the best. Cartoon shows such as the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, Looney Toons and the like. Things like that I remember from an early age. I realize a lot of what I saw was actually reruns even then but they made up my earliest memories of TV. Black and white tube with a coat hanger for an antenna, probably all of 13 inches. Oh, I would watch the moon landing, and all the Nasa stuff over and over and over and over. I was mesmerized by that. Laying on the hardwood floor in the living room glued to every slight nuance that came across the screen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-25-2017 11:45 PM
Personally, I won't watch any movie on basic cable. Between the absurd number of breaks and the large number of spots within each break and the fact that most don't present films at the proper aspect ratio, it's a deal breaker for me.
But I don't think the masses give that much of a crap either way, except for those who have switched to streaming. Over time, just as the broadcast networks have pretty much given up broadcasting movies, so will the cable networks.
For all the reasons we continually discuss (shorter windows, mass availability of media, competition for leisure time, bad movies, bad theater environments, cost, lack of showmanship, perception of media value, etc.), I don't think theaters have a great future. There will always be some, but I think we're going to lose many in the coming decade. And even when we're not losing theater counts, we're losing seats because of this insane strategy to pull the seats out and install a far smaller number of lounge seats.
In NYC, even though there's been some new builds, we've lost 28% of the theater count and 14% of the screen count since 2001. We've lost 25% of the seat count since July of 2012 and 55% of the seats since 1987. And the conversion to lounge seating has just begun. The only thing that might stop the seat decline is the fact that AMC is in such big financial trouble and they might hold back on further investment.
As I posted in another thread, Landmark just opened a luxurious new theater on 57th street. But the seat counts are 25, 34, 48, 75, 164, 171, 19 and 22. Do we really want to see movies in a 19 seat theater? There are home theaters with more seats.
As far as showing TV shows is concerned, the only way it could possibly work is if it's treated like a serial and shown in addition to the movie, but that would reduce the number of shows per day. And back in the serial days, many people went to the movies 3x a week. Now the average person goes 4x a year.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-26-2017 03:19 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Unfortunately there is no way to tell in advance which episodes are going to be better than others, deliver the biggest plot twists, action set pieces, etc. Many modern TV series will surprise viewers, putting the biggest plot developments one or more episodes in advance of a season finale. I've seen a lot of season openers that were a snooz, bogged down with lots of plot and character set up work. I think the people writing and producing these shows are well aware that viewers will either binge watch multiple episodes at once, either from their DVRs or via streaming services. So they're not bound so much by typical TV show conventions.
If you specifically target your show on such a dual-release strategy, you could account for this. So, if you know it's going to be shown to fans in a theater, you can make sure you put major plot twists in the more anticipated episodes, like the first and last two. Yes, it will impose another artificial structure on the story, but it's not like they're constantly managing the expectations of the audience via the same kind of artificial structures already.
quote: Bobby Henderson
That editorial style can be distracting and annoying, but not as annoying as a 5 minute long cable TV commercial break.
It obviously isn't as annoying, but those kind of releases would simply be no fit for any theatrical showing.
Still, we all know they're working to some kind of cliffhanger at the end of the show and a major one at the end of the season. It might be just me, but having those "clifhangerettes" every 10 or 15 minutes really annoys the hell out of me. It hurts the flow of the story. I think it's far better to just cut to commercials after a scene change. If the audience really needs a cue, then rewind it about 10 seconds and take it up from there.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The five-minute (or more) commercial breaks are what killed the idea of watching a movie on any kind of non-premium TV channel. They'll show the first 20 minutes uninterrupted, then as the show goes on it's five minutes of commercials every ten or twelve minutes...that's just nuts. I once counted SIXTEEN commercials during a break, some of which were 15 seconds.
I can't even remember the last time I watched a movie on a non-premium, commercial TV station. I think that anybody used to streaming or watching movies in a proper room, would never even consider watching a movie like that ever again. Maybe that's why they've essentially given up on it. I still remember a time where a 2-hour feature had just two commercial breaks, at least around here. That must have been before the airwaves and cable networks became littered with junk that competes for the same audience and advertisers.
quote: Clint Koch
Oh, I would watch the moon landing, and all the Nasa stuff over and over and over and over. I was mesmerized by that. Laying on the hardwood floor in the living room glued to every slight nuance that came across the screen.
I guess we also miss some of those events with such a positive, global impact. With modern technology, it would be entirely possible to broadcast it on big screens all around the globe. Unfortunately, global events are mostly bad news those days...
quote: Martin Brooks
As far as showing TV shows is concerned, the only way it could possibly work is if it's treated like a serial and shown in addition to the movie, but that would reduce the number of shows per day. And back in the serial days, many people went to the movies 3x a week. Now the average person goes 4x a year.
In the serial days, TVs were either non-existent or majorly expensive. Also, those were the days when people would get out and go to a cinema, just to catch the weeks newsreel. Many cities even had dedicated theaters to serials and newsreels. Yet, many of those theaters were the equivalent of the bland multiplex of today. The mass-infotainment and entertainment du jour.
But are those TV shows of today really any different than the serials of yesteryear? Yes, the technology has greatly improved, the way we tell stories has evolved, but the only real difference I can see is the delivery format.
Still, those "silly" TV series, they seem to unite people in a special kind of way. I keep hearing people talking about the last episode of Whatnot Season 42, often quite emotionally.
One of the arguments this would not fly is because of the costs involved of going out to the movies every week and I guess it could be the major Achilles' heel. I still know plenty of people going to the movies once a week on average, but my frame of reference might be skewed. But on the other hand, I see people buying expensive DVD and Blu-Ray box-sets of their favorite series all the time.
Also, why couldn't a ticket to a theatrical presentation of a "TV show" be less expensive than that to a "regular" movie? Those studios could easily lower their percentages, because they know they will likely be selling more tickets over the run time of a show. Yet, their margin will still vastly exceed anything they would ever get from a stream.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-26-2017 05:42 PM
quote: Martin Brooks
Personally, I won't watch any movie on basic cable. Between the absurd number of breaks and the large number of spots within each break and the fact that most don't present films at the proper aspect ratio, it's a deal breaker for me.
And then the cable TV networks pull other stunts to make a movie viewing experience even worse. During the movie you can expect to see various bits of on-screen spam for other shows paraded along the bottom of the screen. They trim away as much of a scene transition as possible heading into a commercial break, which takes a giant dump on the editorial pace. They routinely alter both the opening and end credits of movies any way possible to stomp on them with promos of other shows and even commercials for other products. The end credits get reduced to a tiny window and put into extreme fast-forward speed while one or more things are played at the same time.
I guess the honchos at networks like AMC & FX believe viewers don't mind any of this crap. The on-screen spam they show from time to time is relatively minor to the biggest offender: 24 hour cable news channels. The screen-hogging, all-caps ticker clutter is just completely overbearing. This visual shit all started with 9-11 and has never stopped since. I've written off 24 hour cable news channels as a form of emotional pornography. It's not journalism; the goal is only to get a rise out of people, making them angry or fearful. Since so many people absolutely love be pissed off about something they compulsively tune in to the channels to get their rush. That creates more ad revenue. I think if most Americans took an extended break from watching cable news channels we would probably see a significant drop in heart attacks and strokes, thanks to the stress reduction.
Even regular news shows on regular broadcast networks do a bunch of that crap now. Different heads in different boxes shouting at each other and lots of on-screen text spam. While getting ready for work this morning I had to change the channel to something not news when Nancy Grace's face appeared in a video box spewing anger at another analyst trying to have a civil conversation. I looked up the weather on my new iPad to check the local forecast.
Anyway, there is a lot to hate about cable/satellite TV these days and not much to like. Some of the dramatic TV shows/series are good. But very often I find myself streaming them, free of commercials and on-screen spam.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-28-2017 02:22 AM
I never really understood how Cable News actually could be a sustainable business. Other than some kind of a lingering background filler in the business lounge of your local airport, I don't see any real use for it. Does anybody really watch this crap? Apparently yes... But come on, it's the SAME, shallow, narrow-minded news, repeated like a gazillion times all over again. It's like watching that 60's newsreel in repeat, only with far more junk on screen...
Until somebody let's go of a fart, then it's instantly BREAKING NEWS.
Breaking News used to be when the world was about to explode in an intercontinental fireball, not when some celebrity got caught for DUI.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-28-2017 11:18 AM
It's all just cheap sensationalism. They have to yank everybody's chain to keep them tuning into the program and then just keep yanking harder and harder. Viewers have their own share of blame to carry for this problem since most will self-select the flavor of news that patronizes their bias. It's very obvious the anchors, reporters, etc. are acting on orders to latch onto and amplify anything remotely controversial. They turn the coverage into a long-term vigil if the manufactured controversy gains any momentum. Other more important yet more boring news stories can get lost in that mess.
So-called Reality TV shows trade in some of the same kinds of cheap emotional hysterionics. Participants are encouraged to be rude and abusive to each other. Some shows even have the hosts, judges or whatever trading insults. And then there's that music, that freaking over-bearing music. It seems like every "unscripted" show, even ones where the characters treat each other respectfully, have that same style of music. Finally, they'll string viewers along for hours doing something that could have been done in 30 minutes. Every tiny development is only revealed after a lenghty commercial break.
These days I can't even watch the Weather Channel anymore. It was struggling before, but pretty much went to hell since NBC/Comcast bought it. Most of the time they're not showing actual weather coverage. It's just marathon blocks of weather-related reality shows they've played countless times previously. And when they're actually doing any weather coverage they try to emotionally hype everything. I couldn't believe their audacity to start naming winter storms.
Despite the loud surround sound and dramatic story lines I find movies to be far more relaxing than any of the crap I described above.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 11-02-2017 07:33 PM
What might work, if one could get the appropriate license is presenting a single episode of a series along with the movie, , especially a half-hour series since that would run only about 22 minutes without commercials. That could be especially effective if the series chosen in some way relates to the movie. Theaters used to show cartoons, newsreels and shorts, so this would be consistent with that. It just night put some additional butts in seats, although it could also reduce the number of showings per day.
And for the record (and I've worked in the areas of rights management, so I have some experience in this), Netflix does not acquire theatrical rights. So unless the show in question was a Netflix original where they licensed ALL rights (which would be unusual as the production company usually holds back certain rights), Netflix could not have legally given anyone permission to run a show theatrically, regardless of whether admission was charged. Had the copyright owners known about this, they could have sued the theater and if Netflix had supplied the media, they could have sued Netflix as well.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic