It seems pretty obvious to me and will probably never change. TV is a passive experience, you have constant distractions and most of the time you are watching while doing half a dozen other things. So to engage your audience you need to be both visual and auditory. When you watch a movie for the first time you're in a dark theatre with few distractions (hopefully) and are completely focused on the story.
Film is a visual medium and television is not... but why?
- Thread starter Jon Starr
- Start date
Jon Starr
Veteran
That's a great point. Though I think it's what you mentioned, and some of the other theories here combined. It's true, in a movie if people talk you get distracted and may miss a key point. No one will blab about it and remind people of this situation.
I feel as though your theory is a great one, but it's cyclical. Perhaps we've gotten used to TV being a passive experience due to it's origins, and now because it's a passive experience there's a lot of content created to be passive.
But there are some shows, the ones that are more visual and trying to change things (like mad men, bsg, etc.), that are far less passive. I know I would never watch battlestar galactica while doing anything else. I was glued to the TV and told people to shut up.
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Well, film is a passive experience too, you're just locked in a room in the dark. But it's the same in that it's someone else's images entering your mind, rather than your mind engaging the art and adding to the creation ( like reading a book, or looking at a painting ). Some good movies do this by not showing you everything. But most movies force you to watch some jack-ass's CGI monster in full frame, or s**tty digital ghost, because they don't trust the audience to bring its imagination along. This is bad, bad, bad filmmaking.
In fact, I would suggest that most films made today are far more passive than the best TV has to offer. I was far more actively engaged in Don Draper's life than anything the poo pooing Blue Cat people had to offer.
In fact, I would suggest that most films made today are far more passive than the best TV has to offer. I was far more actively engaged in Don Draper's life than anything the poo pooing Blue Cat people had to offer.
capitalP
Veteran
I luv it.
Jon Starr
Veteran
Very interesting take on it. I never thought of it that way.
I find it interesting because I LOOOOVE when films leave things out. Take cloverfield for example (even if you think it's an aweful film), I loved the fact that they didn't explain where the monster came from. You piece it together. But that's also one of the biggest complaints I heard. "They never explained where that thing came from!" I'm just dissapointed that they had to show the monster in the end... which was another complaint. "They hardly showed the monster, I wanted to see what he looked like really well."
Is this what it's really come down to? People are so used to being spoon fed. I wondered why I always loved when something wasn't explained, while others hated it, and now your post makes sense of it.
I feel like this could be a whole discussion on it's own...