Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The future of cinema: Showing TV series on the big screen?

This is topic The future of cinema: Showing TV series on the big screen? in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003058

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-24-2017, 07:38 PM:

Sorry for the somewhat teasery subject, especially since I won't answer the question. [Wink]

Last month, after finishing some refurbishments in our screening room we decided to invite some select "family and friends" to do some sort of soft-reopening. We asked them what they wanted to see. What movie did you always want to see on the "big screen"? Nobody came with a conclusive answer... you know, everybody has their classics, their favorites, but it's pretty hard to find a match that pleases everybody. Some came with an interesting answer though... they wanted to see Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead on the big screen.

Surely we told them that it would be impossible to show an entire series in a single screening, but it got us thinking. What if we wouldn't go for a series that has already 6 or more seasons out? What if we would go for a series that has a somewhat cinematic feel?

So, we decided to go for Stranger Things, the highly acclaimed Netflix hit-series that has just 8 episodes out right now. We also choose it, because it has a distinctive, cinematic feel to it. We decided to put two episodes back to back in a show, with a little intermission in between the episodes. A show would be roughly 120 minutes in total, including two trailers, some stingers and the intermission, so pretty much comparable to your average full-feature screening. So, instead of a single screening, it would become 4 screenings, in this case, two per week.

Once we announced our little plan, our "test audience" went almost crazy, they wanted to invite a whole bunch friends in, especially those who've never seen the show before, forgetting about the fact that it's really just a screening room seating at most 12 people, not an cinema. Many of those 12 people, had actually already seen the whole first season, they didn't mind to see it again.

Getting things setup for those screenings was petty awful, unfortunately. Everything had to be done by hand. We looked for Blu-Rays and all we found was bootleg material, which we didn't even want to try. We've even ended up contacting Netflix outlining the idea. They were no help. They didn't object to our plans as long as the show was for free, but they could not give us anything else than what was available on-line for streaming. So, we ended up doing the show just like that: Live Streaming from Netflix, which is obviously impossible to automate.

I don't need to tell you this, friends and family aren't the greatest test audience when it comes down to objectivity, also, off course, we did those shows for free. But what was obvious is that they loved it. Every single one of them. They were hooked right from the first minute. Every single night (except the last one), after the second episode, they kept asking for "just one more". None of them cancelled for a single night, someone even called in and asked if we could start 30 minutes late, because he couldn't make it in time, we honored that request and we entertained the audience with some shorts. I've been told more than once that they would gladly pay for it, if they could watch it this way, on a big screen in a theater near them.

So, I'm probably not the first "genius" that comes up with the idea, but why couldn't this be a viable model for REAL cinema? Maybe even the future for cinema?

Haven't you heard the argument that today's TV shows are better than today's movies? Many TV shows are getting raving reviews and dedicated followings, whereas you only need to look at the bygone summer to see what happened to Hollywood in the meanwhile.

Yes, there are the obvious problems. Licensing is one of them, but if there's money to be made, that's usually a solvable one.
The other one is the concept: Not that it has never been done before, but it's pretty different from what people have come to expect from a visit at their local movie theater.

Another one is exclusivity, which has hurt cinematic releases more than once.

But, what if, for example, shows could be made available to cinemas, a week before they're released on TV and/or streaming? They could be showing "this weeks" episode and "next weeks" episode back to back. That way, the cinema does have an exclusivity advantage. Also, successful shows tend to build a very loyal audience...

So, what do you think? Is there a model in there? Or is this just total BS?

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 09-24-2017, 08:15 PM:

The trouble here seems to be that currently, Netflix is at war with the cinema industry, because they want day and date releases of hollywood content, and the exhibition industry wants/needs to keep their exclusive release window.

I think many people would love to see the high profile serials in the cinema.

- Carsten

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-24-2017, 08:17 PM:

TV shows really aren't built to be seen on the big screen, especially comedies with live audiences, but it might be fun to watch a series season "cinematized" and shown ahead of its TV debut.

However, I doubt the TV show makers would ever go for that model, and theater owners might not either because it would further blur the lines between TV shows and theatrical movies.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 09-24-2017, 09:13 PM:

I like what you did, even if it only proves that people really DO want to be out of the house, socializing and consuming snacks in a dark room (or under a starry sky of course). That's something that needs to be reinforced constantly. I bet there's any number of interesting ideas that could be tried from time to time, so long as it didn't get stale.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-24-2017, 10:53 PM:

My wife and a couple of our friends like to watch concerts on the screen. I just convert 'em to DCP and we crank up the volume. It's way better than going to a real concert because you don't have to have the ear-bleeding volume, or the $100-plus ticket price, or the guy behind you pouring beer on you, or all the other annoyances that go with live concerts, which by the way are WAY more annoying than the annoyances you get with movies. Besides, for us it's a minimum 100-mile drive to the nearest concert site.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-24-2017, 11:37 PM:

I would pay to see “Twin Peaks: The Return” on a big screen in a room full of fans.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-25-2017, 02:49 AM:

quote: Carsten Kurz
The trouble here seems to be that currently, Netflix is at war with the cinema industry, because they want day and date releases of hollywood content, and the exhibition industry wants/needs to keep their exclusive release window.

Netflix might be an unfortunate example, I agree. But on the other side, Netflix spends billions of dollars a year on content production those days. They might just come to realize that there's still a lot more margin to be gotten in the exhibition industry than the direct-to-tv/instant streaming business. A more "intimate" relationship with the exhibition industry might even help to open them up for the arguments of the exhibition industry for keeping a window of exclusivity.

quote: Mike Blakesley
TV shows really aren't built to be seen on the big screen, especially comedies with live audiences, but it might be fun to watch a series season "cinematized" and shown ahead of its TV debut.

I agree, a lot of content simply doesn't work on the big screen. For example, my girlfriend is a big fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. So, after countles of requests, I showed one episode to her on a big screen. Needles to say, it simply didn't work out. Even the "remastered" HD version looked like crap on a big screen. (Actually, the HD version looks far worse than the original. They tried to expand the picture to 16:9 and botched it up in many regards.) It also became obvious, the picture wasn't framed for big screen viewing. So, Buffy really is best remembered on a 24" TV in your living room.

But many of those newer series are actually some pretty high value productions. We went through quite some of these once we settled for Stranger Things. It was acquired in 6K on RED cameras and shot in 24fps. The aspect ratio of 2.0 is a bit uncommon, but feels like a trade-off between making it feel cinematic, while not wasting too much space on your average 16:9 TV.

With a bit of work, we managed to get the 4K stream to work and while it was being scaled back to 2K, simply due to lack of a proper 4K HDMI port on the projector (I'm looking at you, Barco), the picture still looked amazing. The framing and whole cinematography worked great on a big screen. Someone really put a lot of care and attention into it. It really wasn't shot for your average TV, so it's actually a pitty almost nobody will see it this way.

quote: Dave Bird
I like what you did, even if it only proves that people really DO want to be out of the house, socializing and consuming snacks in a dark room (or under a starry sky of course). That's something that needs to be reinforced constantly. I bet there's any number of interesting ideas that could be tried from time to time, so long as it didn't get stale.

I do strongly believe in the importance of the social aspect of cinema. I think it's also the reason why it survived both the advent of TV, video and why it will survive the advent of streaming.

I think it's important for cinema to try to renew itself though, the cinema of the future might be different from what we have now. While that might be scary for some, it might not be that bad at all, at least if you accept change. In the end you're selling an experience to your audience. But getting there is like with so many things in life, you probably end up with a lot of failures before hitting a single home run.

We've seen a lot of things already happening like flashy new sound systems, improved projection, bigger screens, more cosy seats, etc. But I think what matters most is still the stuff that hits that big screen. We might have lost some nostalgia and arguably some other things with 35mm, but digital cinema also gives us some new opportunities, like showing live-casted Opera, recorded concerts of big ticket stars or some other big live events. Since practically "everybody" can create a DCP nowadays and everybody can hook up something to the HDMI port on your projector, there's a lot more room to experiment with alternative show formats, I think we should use those powerful tools more and better.

I've been a fan of the "Double Feature" for a while. Now, I can understand not everybody really likes to sit in a dark room for 4 hours or more, even though most seats have become way much more comfortable than like 30 years ago. Hollywood doesn't seem to cater to a market with shorter features, so that's why TV series have a certain appeal to me in this regards.

quote: Sam Graham
I would pay to see “Twin Peaks: The Return” on a big screen in a room full of fans.

Twin Peaks: The Return was actually on our shortlist. It works pretty well on a big screen, but there were simply too many episodes for our little experiment.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-25-2017, 07:01 AM:

I have done some HBO screenings for a few of their shows. Most recently, they did some of the Game of Thrones shows (this was a year or two ago) just before they were broadcast. I am not sure how tickets were distributed (I assume that they were free), but they brought in food and a "throne" and had a photographer to take pictures of people in the "throne."

These shows used to come in on HDCAM or HDCAM SR tapes, but the newer ones came in as regular DCPs (with keys). They showed about an hours' worth of material, plus a brief introduction (there were no stars or others involved with the production present, so there were no Q&As).

They seemed to have no trouble distributing 400-ish tickets for these events.

My personal opinion is that movies should try to distance themselves from television as much as possible (especially as the technology behind the two continues to converge), but the people who attended these events seemed to enjoy them.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 09-25-2017, 10:10 AM:

What are you using to convert to DCP Mike? My wife of all people (who used to be pretty shy on the microphone) would like to do some of our own "policy trailers" which we could put on the screen pre-show.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2017, 10:41 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
But, what if, for example, shows could be made available to cinemas, a week before they're released on TV and/or streaming? They could be showing "this weeks" episode and "next weeks" episode back to back. That way, the cinema does have an exclusivity advantage. Also, successful shows tend to build a very loyal audience...

I don't think a theater would get very many takers on this kind of offer. There are two big reasons why I don't think the model would work: the product's image of price/value and the issue of time/convenience.

I don't expect very many couples to blow $50 or more on a trip to the theater just to watch a couple episodes of a TV show. Which episodes would they choose to watch on the big screen? It would be an enormously expensive proposition to watch every episode in a theater. A mere one week window is a very short time to wait in order to watch at home, at one's convenience, for far less money.

Watching a TV series is now a major time committment. Many modern TV shows all have a continuous story line, forcing the viewer to watch an entire series from beginning to end. Decades ago episodes of M*A*S*H or Kojak were all self-contained; viewers had to follow afternoon soaps for continuous story lines spanning many episodes. The streaming services have become very popular for watching TV shows since they allow viewers to choose when and where they watch as well as how many episodes to watch in one sitting (and without all the damned commercial breaks). On those platforms all episodes of a season are immediately available to watch rather than doled out one per week.

quote: Carsten Kurz
The trouble here seems to be that currently, Netflix is at war with the cinema industry, because they want day and date releases of hollywood content, and the exhibition industry wants/needs to keep their exclusive release window.

Netflix is doing what it can to prop up its stock price. It's a short term gain ploy. Day and date release of Hollywood movies would be a disaster for the entire entertainment industry and even the consumer electronics industry. The problem is people like Reed Hastings are living in absolute denial of this fact, blinded by efforts for short term gain. Day and date release would put the movie theater industry out of business. Without movie theaters Hollywood studios would no longer be able to make big budget 2 hour movies. Their product would essentially turn into made for TV movies. The contagion of that lower production value content would have a very negative effect on premium & basic cable TV networks, what remains of the video rental industry and even negatively affect the streaming services of Netflix, Amazon, etc. Big budget movies help push sales of big TV sets and surround sound systems. The music industry gets a certain bump from movie soundtrack sales. This goes on and on like domino theory.

There would probably still be some kind of movie industry surviving if America's theaters and movie studios bit the dust, but that industry might be overseas. America's movie industry has a major effect on global popular culture. If that industry goes on a suicidal path it can allow other nations, like China for instance, to start one-upping us in pop culture.

quote: Mike Blakesley
TV shows really aren't built to be seen on the big screen, especially comedies with live audiences, but it might be fun to watch a series season "cinematized" and shown ahead of its TV debut.

Certainly a TV comedy with a laugh track would not work in a movie theater. On the hand, many dramas, particularly bigger budget dramas like Game of Thrones have very similar production methods and production values of feature movies. They're using the same camera/lens systems. The shows are mixed in 5.1 surround; hell, GOT on Blu-ray has Atmos tracks now. The digital back-lot technique is widely implemented on both feature movies and TV shows.

If anything, it's the Hollywood features that need to take bigger steps to feel less like TV shows.

Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 09-25-2017, 12:44 PM:

quote:
We've even ended up contacting Netflix outlining the idea. They were no help. They didn't object to our plans as long as the show was for free (...)

What? This makes no sense, they cannot possibly be cool with a show (even a free one) in a non-domestic setting, meaning that you could - theoretically - charge for concessions and/or other services.

There have been some experiments of this type in my area. They were successful, but it was clear from the beginning that they were completely unauthorized and under the radar.

Should there be be a legal way to do that, I'm sure it could work.

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 09-25-2017, 02:49 PM:

quote:
So, we ended up doing the show just like that: Live Streaming from Netflix, which is obviously impossible to automate.

"That's just a software problem"

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-25-2017, 03:16 PM:

Earlier this year for about a month, NetFlix was allowing public screenings of Ava DuVernay's 13th. They had to be streamed and shown for free. We had a connection to get a BluRay, which was fortunate, because the streaming looked horrible.

They are currently allowing theatrical screenings of Okja. Haven't tried to show it yet, so it may be pulled by now.

Generally speaking, NetFlix only allows theatrical screenings for Academy Award qualifications and that's it. Now and then, like 13th, they allow some free screenings.

We've done a few rentals with HBO over the years, but it has been awhile. Those are usually shows that have some local connection that they want to "premiere" before showing on cable. They usually bring in all of their own equipment.

Some of the other cable networks do special "premieres" of the season opener, or the pilot of a new show. For the most part, television shows are not allowed to be theatrically shown because those rights weren't negotiated. I can't imagine running a tv show for a week.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-25-2017, 04:31 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
My personal opinion is that movies should try to distance themselves from television as much as possible (especially as the technology behind the two continues to converge), but the people who attended these events seemed to enjoy them.

I've always been more of a "movies guy" than "TV series" guy. Still, the ongoing convergence of them is almost undeniable. Many TV series are recorded with the same or better gear and having similar budgets per minute than medium budget films.

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.

Unfortunately, many modern movies also look like they're made out of a template, after being vetted by the studio consortium of old, wise men for their flavor ingredients.

I just recently started to watch some series again and it's hard to deny the appeal of some of those. It actually hurts to say this, but some of them are of a level of quality in storytelling, acting and cinematography, they make the 13-in-a-dozen drivel coming out of Hollywood look bad, real bad...

quote: Dave Bird
What are you using to convert to DCP Mike? My wife of all people (who used to be pretty shy on the microphone) would like to do some of our own "policy trailers" which we could put on the screen pre-show.

DCP-o-matic is a powerful open source tool, you should check it out. I remember Mike using it too, as many others on this forum. The lead developer also sometimes comments on this very forum. It converts most common video and audio files into DCPs. So if you can produce a decent video, you should be able to make a DCP out of it.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't expect very many couples to blow $50 or more on a trip to the theater just to watch a couple episodes of a TV show. Which episodes would they choose to watch on the big screen? It would be an enormously expensive proposition to watch every episode in a theater. A mere one week window is a very short time to wait in order to watch at home, at one's convenience, for far less money.

I'm sure it wouldn't work for each and every show equally well, maybe it's also something that only really works in more urban areas. But given the hype around many of those series, especially around season starts and ends, I still think you could gather a considerable crowd.

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.

quote: Pietro Clarici
What? This makes no sense, they cannot possibly be cool with a show (even a free one) in a non-domestic setting, meaning that you could - theoretically - charge for concessions and/or other services.

They don't have a licensing model for this kind of settings, at least not around here. They seemingly license some content out for theatrical showings in the U.S., but that entire department is still non-existent in Europe. We didn't charge anything and we didn't sell concessions. They might have taken place in a place that's otherwise being used for commercial activities, but I guess a gathering of 12 people, being friends and family is still covered by "fair use", at least around here. You could also invite 12 of your friends, put a projector up in your living room and as long as you're not charging for the services you offer, it would still be fair use.

We would have paid for it (other than via my personal Netflix subscription), if they would've provided a better source than their on-line streaming. In the end it worked out well, but it pretty much dependents on the 4K stream holding up. If it falls back to small-band, due to bandwidth or server issues, it's pretty much the end of it.

quote: David Buckley
"That's just a software problem"

Primarily a DRM problem actually. Since there are bootlegged versions of everything on Netflix out there, I'm sure there are more "elegant" ways, but we didn't have the time or motivation to go "all hacker" on this.

quote: Martin McCaffery
I can't imagine running a tv show for a week.

I guess certain flexibility from the studios/content owners would be required for such a model to work, that includes not tying your theater up in showing the same two episodes exclusively, all week long. You probably even want to "aggregate" as much people as possible into the same show. That way, the possibility they meet the same people week after week increases. Part of the appeal is the social aspect. You're watching one of your favorite shows with other people with the same interests.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-25-2017, 05:02 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
DCP-o-matic is a powerful open source tool, you should check it out. I remember Mike using it too, as many others on this forum. The lead developer also sometimes comments on this very forum. It converts most common video and audio files into DCPs. So if you can produce a decent video, you should be able to make a DCP out of it.

Yep, that's what I use...it works well, is easy to use, and any question you have, you can get answered almost immediately, either right here on F-T or by emailing the mailing list.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-25-2017, 08:28 PM:

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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2017, 09:21 PM:

I don't know how anyone can stomach watching a feature movie on a basic cable channel, but apparently some people still do so. The basic cable networks literally turn a 2 hour movie into a 4 hour slog. It's enough of a slog just watching a one hour TV show during its original broadcast air time. And it even feels like work having to carefully fast-forward past the commercial breaks when recording shows onto the DVR.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-25-2017, 10:09 PM:

The worst part (for me) is the goofy times they cut to commercials. They cut with no rhyme or reason.

I never watch movies that way.... the only time I do is if "TiVo Suggestions" has tagged an old fave, or if I'm channel surfing and happen onto something...and in that case, I'm usually out to something else at the first commercial marathon.

Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 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.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 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.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by James Wyrembelski (Member # 9037) on 10-01-2017, 03:16 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
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.

Oh my God!! Thank you so much for saying this!! I thought I was the only one, especially when people give me this weird look when I complain about it.

I finally found one channel that doesn't do this with the weather. "Weather Nation" Unfortunately I don't receive this channel at home, only at work.

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 10-02-2017, 10:11 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I never really understood how Cable News actually could be a sustainable business.

Somebody has to be the platform for thugs and murderers.....I guess.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-02-2017, 03:18 PM:

50 years ago when I was in Vietnam we had movies on our compound. We had a screen made out of 4 sheets of painted plywood with a picture 16' wide.

Point is that once a week we'd get a package of of 16mm TV shows. Nothing compares to watching "Combat" on the big screen while the real war is happening around you. We'd also get "Gunsmoke" and both halves of "Batman".

Now to the cable TV crap. I love my remote control's mute button. I take a power nap every time they show those inane commercials. As to cable news; the only one worth watching is One America News Network. Unfortunately ComedyCast doesn't carry it, locking out a huge potential audience. Fortunately for me, Verizon fIos does.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-02-2017, 04:51 PM:

In light of what happened last night the only TV I think I'll be watching at all the next couple or so weeks is HBO/HBO-GO, other streaming services and maybe a Blu-ray rental or two. Just about every form of TV news is having its vigil-gasm over the tragedy. I'm sure lots of people are having political anger-gasms over it and venting on social media, likely getting trolled with all sorts of inaccurate/fake stories btw.

Pretty good excuse for getting outside and maybe even checking out a movie at a theater!

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 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.