Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
Movies only have 2 hours to tell a story so they get to the good stuff. TV shows have the opposite problem in that they usually require a ton of filler to fill out 10+ episodes for multiple seasons.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Quentin Tarantino on why movies are better than TV
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
TheMan
Member
Doesn’t really make sense to say one is better than the other. There are fantastic movies and fantastic shows and they tell their stories in different ways. It’s just preference. Granted TV shows are more likely to outstay their welcome but that’s not necessarily a given. And being able to remember more from a 2 hour movie compared to tens of hour of TV is kind of a silly point to make
near
Gold Member
I really liked the first two seasons, then it got boring.
808mate
Neo Member
I pretty much agree with what he said.
Longform storytelling is quite difficult to commit to memory, even if the writing is very good.
I watched Mr Robot in it's entirety the beginning of this year, which I considered excellent. And even though there were certainly standout episodes, the majority of it I struggle to remember.
I was recently asked by a friend if it was worth a watch, and I struggled to sufficiently articulate why. I never have a problem with film recommendations, as every shot, scene and line of dialogue has to deliver it's purpose within a limited runtime.
Longform storytelling is quite difficult to commit to memory, even if the writing is very good.
I watched Mr Robot in it's entirety the beginning of this year, which I considered excellent. And even though there were certainly standout episodes, the majority of it I struggle to remember.
I was recently asked by a friend if it was worth a watch, and I struggled to sufficiently articulate why. I never have a problem with film recommendations, as every shot, scene and line of dialogue has to deliver it's purpose within a limited runtime.
EverythingsOverrated
Member
This is something I've been talking about for years. Over the last 3-4 years I've almost completely stopped watching serialized television for many of these reasons. Tired of getting into a show where the first couple seasons are good only for it to devolve into pointless exposure that often doesn't go anywhere or add anything of value to the story or characters. I used to just stick it through until the end, but I just can't do it anymore, it feels like completely wasted time. I've been reading a lot more novels the last few years and it's been way more satisfying.
Overall a very good show, but I think the same story could've been told in 3 seasons vs 4. After the first season, which I would say is about as good as modern TV gets, there was quite a bit of meandering, especially in seasons 3 and 4 with some reveals that fell flat and story lines that were just ok.
Gp1
Member
I get what he's talking about.
But at the same time he's comparing
Apple to oranges. It's "easy" to make a memorable movie in a closed and knited 2 hour's story and he knows that.
IMHO the comparison should be between the Pilot episode of a good tv series and movies. Take Yellowstone as an example, I remember almost everything that happens on the Pilot, because it was filmed like a movie (it has good set pieces, dialogues, etc.) and it sets the tone for the rest of the show. At the same time the second and third season you can't remember because:
1. It's a bigger arc
(Can't remember jack shit of the two brothers, one of then the band of brothers guy, that threats the ranch).
2. You can't maintain that pace every week or you risk some major overburn (plus the budget needed)
Tell Tarantino to do a Kill Bill tv series and it will probably look like a novela.
Ps. You can have a mini-series like the first season of Cobra Kai exactly like a "movie", but a full season ,10-14 episodes with 50 minutes each, you can't.
But at the same time he's comparing
Apple to oranges. It's "easy" to make a memorable movie in a closed and knited 2 hour's story and he knows that.
IMHO the comparison should be between the Pilot episode of a good tv series and movies. Take Yellowstone as an example, I remember almost everything that happens on the Pilot, because it was filmed like a movie (it has good set pieces, dialogues, etc.) and it sets the tone for the rest of the show. At the same time the second and third season you can't remember because:
1. It's a bigger arc
(Can't remember jack shit of the two brothers, one of then the band of brothers guy, that threats the ranch).
2. You can't maintain that pace every week or you risk some major overburn (plus the budget needed)
Tell Tarantino to do a Kill Bill tv series and it will probably look like a novela.
Ps. You can have a mini-series like the first season of Cobra Kai exactly like a "movie", but a full season ,10-14 episodes with 50 minutes each, you can't.
GymWolf
Member
They both have their pro and cons, every book adaptation must leave a shitload of things out to be a concise 2-2:30 hours, but you don't have this problem with serials, same for letting characters breath, you can't do that in most movies unless it's a story when almost nothing happen and you can waste time in introspection (i know some manage to do it but it's way harder compared to a way longer serial).
Mr Hyde
Member
He's 100% correct. Most tv shows are garbage and fillers. Even great ones like Stranger Things, The Wire and Better Call Saul I can't remember much what's happened. Only shows I do remember are Orange is the new Black, Breaking Bad and Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance. Movies is so much better in every way.
Donald mac Ronald
Member
I googled Yellowstone. The synopsis sounds boring.
DrFigs
Member
But why is being able to recall everything that happened a hallmark of good media. I really liked The Grapes of Wrath. I couldn’t tell you every scene in that book because it took me a few weeks to read it. I also think his solution that TV shows need a shocking or emotionally powerful ending every episode is a recipe for disaster. It’s how you end up with Game of Thrones seasons 7 and 8, where writers prioritize spectacle over good story telling. And it’s why Better Call Saul is a better show, despite being a slower burn.
Also in general Tarantino has terrible taste in movies. And apparently terrible taste in TV shows. So his critique here doesn’t hit.
Also in general Tarantino has terrible taste in movies. And apparently terrible taste in TV shows. So his critique here doesn’t hit.
Last edited:
Yoda
Member
I think I'm largely in agreement as well. A few exceptions where the interpersonal drama is the show (Breaking Bad) wouldn't work in a movie setting (maybe a trilogy?). But in general most TV shows aren't as deep as their writers think they are and at that point is mainly just filler.
NeverYouMind
Member
I am going to say it is situational. I watched Fargo Season 1 and the film version of Fargo. I preferred the tv show.
P.S. I also prefer the serialized version of The Godfather Part II as five hours is too long to sit through a movie.
P.S. I also prefer the serialized version of The Godfather Part II as five hours is too long to sit through a movie.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It depends on the show. I blame Lost but a lot of modern TV is free form writing where they have set-up that is really cool but don't know themselves really what the pay-off will be.
The blacklist really cemented it for me when they had two episodes building up to the reveal of a character called 'Berlin' who was the most insane villian of all time. Then the next season he did nothing for a couple of episodes then he was just shot and killed and it was on to a new mcguffin.
The blacklist really cemented it for me when they had two episodes building up to the reveal of a character called 'Berlin' who was the most insane villian of all time. Then the next season he did nothing for a couple of episodes then he was just shot and killed and it was on to a new mcguffin.