yourlibrarian (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yourlibrarian) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
tv_talk2025-10-16 04:09 pm
yourlibrarian) wrote in tv_talk2025-10-16 04:09 pm
Entry tags:
How Much Will TV Shows Matter?
There was a recent article in the Hollywood Reporter about how movies are the lifeblood of streaming services. Though I find this disappointing, I don't find it surprising. Movies are (often) a one-shot sort of story, quick to get through, and usually getting a lot of expensive publicity before their release date, thus raising awareness in a big part of the potential viewing public. And people rewatch a good bit because, again, it's short and doesn't require a big commitment.
The other two reasons are, I think, more recent in nature. One is that movie attendance has been declining for some time, but I never thought this was because people were less interested in them. It's just that it's expensive and inconvenient to go see them away from home. I mean, HBO was created in 1972 primarily as a home movie viewing option, as well as for some sports, which was also entertainment you had to go out for. And people were so interested in being able to watch movies (I won't even say "recent' because the theatrical run used to be pretty long), not even on demand, but on a convenient schedule, that HBO was a viable business for decades even as video rental became common. I'd add that it was common that, whether or not a hotel had cable, HBO was almost expected to be available as well.
But these numbers seem to indicate something besides the eternal popularity of movies and increasing desire to skip the theater and see them at home:
"In 2022, movies represented roughly 27 percent of total streaming revenues — By 2024, that share had climbed to nearly 50 percent."
What's more, movies are worth more after they're out of the theaters than when they're in them, with 2/3 of revenue coming later.
I think it has a lot to do with (a) viewer attention spans, and (b) the uncertainty of TV show runs. There's been plenty of research done on narrowing attention spans in the population, which has also affected books (though as reading ability and interest been declining for nearly 50 years, this is less surprising). But I think that the possibility of a show being cancelled after 1 season (in itself only 6-10 episodes) or just not coming back for a year or more, has a lot to do with people's disinterest in investing time in TV shows.
I find this unfortunate because, however well done a movie, stories and characters will never get the development they could if we spent more time with them. In some ways, I consider movies to be a fleshed out concept whereas TV is a saga.
Mind you, this has a lot to do with how much effort is put into making a TV show a well written and produced one. The very fact that TV shows are open ended often makes them worse, because the pacing is bad or storylines are dragged out to produce more content at a later date. It also depends on what's seen as the market for a show. One that relies mostly on plotting or thrills can be pretty disposable as an overall story because we either literally lose characters who are swapped out like game pieces, or else we just don't get any development for them no matter how long they're around.
As a result I think that what used to be considered a mini-series (and is now called a Limited series) is often the best for storytelling. There is a finite story to be told (which could possibly be expanded on in a sequel, but is self-contained) but there are many hours to do it in. I recently watched Full Circle, a TV show by Steven Soderbergh, that was just such a series. It had a LOT of moving pieces, it would have been impossible as a movie. And it could have been stretched out to a 2 season show (or just a full broadcast season) with us getting more time with all the characters and some more flashbacks into things told but not shown. (For example, the son Jared was just a prop for the story that we never got to know in any way).
But it's the sort of show I think should be made more often -- something viewers can watch in a predictable fashion, that tells the sort of story they can't get in movies, and that provides a story that can take place over a longer span of time. Especially with book reading on the decline, I think that adaptations are (usually) best suited to TV series, and in a way that can have a determined ending and steady movement towards it. And that's something that will help both books and shows.
On the flip side of things, I've found it interesting how Marvel has recently been doing the opposite -- taking stories that could have been movies and breaking them down into short TV episodes. The recent Eyes of Wakanda makes more sense, because it's more of a stealth anthology series. But What If...? began as something similar yet developed into a story with a more cohesive throughline. And now Marvel Zombies is a spinoff of a S1 episode of What If...? and along with that episode could have been released as its own film.
The fact that it wasn't no doubt had to do with a combination of budget, potential confusion of Marvel theatrical releases, and the limited audience for animation in many markets. (Personally I find Zombies to be anything but kid fare, but this prejudice persists in the U.S.) But there is definitely a move towards more bite-size entertainment and I am not sure this is for the better in terms of the stories we'll get.
The other two reasons are, I think, more recent in nature. One is that movie attendance has been declining for some time, but I never thought this was because people were less interested in them. It's just that it's expensive and inconvenient to go see them away from home. I mean, HBO was created in 1972 primarily as a home movie viewing option, as well as for some sports, which was also entertainment you had to go out for. And people were so interested in being able to watch movies (I won't even say "recent' because the theatrical run used to be pretty long), not even on demand, but on a convenient schedule, that HBO was a viable business for decades even as video rental became common. I'd add that it was common that, whether or not a hotel had cable, HBO was almost expected to be available as well.
But these numbers seem to indicate something besides the eternal popularity of movies and increasing desire to skip the theater and see them at home:
"In 2022, movies represented roughly 27 percent of total streaming revenues — By 2024, that share had climbed to nearly 50 percent."
What's more, movies are worth more after they're out of the theaters than when they're in them, with 2/3 of revenue coming later.
I think it has a lot to do with (a) viewer attention spans, and (b) the uncertainty of TV show runs. There's been plenty of research done on narrowing attention spans in the population, which has also affected books (though as reading ability and interest been declining for nearly 50 years, this is less surprising). But I think that the possibility of a show being cancelled after 1 season (in itself only 6-10 episodes) or just not coming back for a year or more, has a lot to do with people's disinterest in investing time in TV shows.
I find this unfortunate because, however well done a movie, stories and characters will never get the development they could if we spent more time with them. In some ways, I consider movies to be a fleshed out concept whereas TV is a saga.
Mind you, this has a lot to do with how much effort is put into making a TV show a well written and produced one. The very fact that TV shows are open ended often makes them worse, because the pacing is bad or storylines are dragged out to produce more content at a later date. It also depends on what's seen as the market for a show. One that relies mostly on plotting or thrills can be pretty disposable as an overall story because we either literally lose characters who are swapped out like game pieces, or else we just don't get any development for them no matter how long they're around.
As a result I think that what used to be considered a mini-series (and is now called a Limited series) is often the best for storytelling. There is a finite story to be told (which could possibly be expanded on in a sequel, but is self-contained) but there are many hours to do it in. I recently watched Full Circle, a TV show by Steven Soderbergh, that was just such a series. It had a LOT of moving pieces, it would have been impossible as a movie. And it could have been stretched out to a 2 season show (or just a full broadcast season) with us getting more time with all the characters and some more flashbacks into things told but not shown. (For example, the son Jared was just a prop for the story that we never got to know in any way).
But it's the sort of show I think should be made more often -- something viewers can watch in a predictable fashion, that tells the sort of story they can't get in movies, and that provides a story that can take place over a longer span of time. Especially with book reading on the decline, I think that adaptations are (usually) best suited to TV series, and in a way that can have a determined ending and steady movement towards it. And that's something that will help both books and shows.
On the flip side of things, I've found it interesting how Marvel has recently been doing the opposite -- taking stories that could have been movies and breaking them down into short TV episodes. The recent Eyes of Wakanda makes more sense, because it's more of a stealth anthology series. But What If...? began as something similar yet developed into a story with a more cohesive throughline. And now Marvel Zombies is a spinoff of a S1 episode of What If...? and along with that episode could have been released as its own film.
The fact that it wasn't no doubt had to do with a combination of budget, potential confusion of Marvel theatrical releases, and the limited audience for animation in many markets. (Personally I find Zombies to be anything but kid fare, but this prejudice persists in the U.S.) But there is definitely a move towards more bite-size entertainment and I am not sure this is for the better in terms of the stories we'll get.
no subject
I do mask anytime I'm indoors somewhere so that also adds to the inconvenience of theaters. As it happens, I've just been to the first event I've gone to post-2020 and while I didn't mind masking, it was because the whole point of it was to be at a live performance. In watching a movie, all I thought about was how much nicer it would be to watch at home. Frankly, I'd like to watch a lot of theater from home too.
However I don't think this accounts for the increase in movie viewing. If anything, there should have been much higher movie viewing in 2022. A whole bunch of movies delayed by the pandemic were being released and it was the first year a lot of people discontinued precautions. Instead the viewing percentage has almost doubled since.
The economic pinch is part of it, but if people are already paying for streaming, TV show viewing provides many more hours of available entertainment (and in a great variety for all ages) than movies do. So why are people watching less when there's so much to see?
no subject
So why are people watching less when there's so much to see?
I will say that sometimes the sheer amount of available things is overwhelming. In the past, I'd just tune in to the CW during prime time and see what's available, but now there's no way to filter TV like that - except by actor, I suppose.
no subject
In fact, the biggest turnoff I've seen in complaints about the MCU is that there's become too much to keep up with and people don't want to feel like they have to see all the parts. And I've heard some of the same in terms of the increasing seriality of TV shows.
As you mention, there's also the idea of too much choice in TV programming. I personally prefer more to less but equally there are many people who prefer the reverse. I think that's especially true depending on the habits one brought to the streaming era. I always watched specific things and tended to watch them all the way through. But I think that viewers like me are a very small part of the overall viewing public.
no subject
no subject
At least for Star Wars they stopped movie production entirely for a while. They could have delayed a number of their TV productions until they had better scripts though.