TV shows that look and feel like a movie

L

L1N3ARX

Well-known member
What do you guys think are the most film-like TV shows... in that they are shot and look / feel like a first rate movie rather than your average television drama. Even though a lot of shows have massive budgets, the cinematography and general aesthetic feels second rate when compared to even a fairly low budget film. I guess what I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to spot what looks like it was made for tv and what was made for the Screen.

To me, the TV shows that actually feel like I'm watching a movie would be- American Horror Story and Breaking Bad. These 2 nail it in a way that's just so above and beyond other shows currently out there that it's worth noting I think.
 
L1N3ARX said:
What do you guys think are the most film-like TV shows... in that they are shot and look / feel like a first rate movie rather than your average television drama. Even though a lot of shows have massive budgets, the cinematography and general aesthetic feels second rate when compared to even a fairly low budget film. I guess what I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to spot what looks like it was made for tv and what was made for the Screen.

To me, the TV shows that actually feel like I'm watching a movie would be- American Horror Story and Breaking Bad. These 2 nail it in a way that's just so above and beyond other shows currently out there that it's worth noting I think.
Click to expand...

The Wire,
Game of Thrones,
Freaks and Geeks
Twin Peaks,
Boardwalk Empire, if it had more big sets.
The Tudors,
 
David Jimerson said:
I really don't agree with Twin Peaks. I think it looks VERY TV-like.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but i like the texture and feel. It feels like an indie-film from the late 70's or early 80's even though it was early 90's. By today's standards, yes it falls short of cinematic... but to me it feels like an old film, not a great old film, but an older film. I dunno. I get what you are saying
 
David Jimerson said:
I really don't agree with Twin Peaks. I think it looks VERY TV-like.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about this. Why does "TV" look like "TV", even when shot on film? Like the A-Team, or Mission: Impossible, or Twin Peaks. Was it because of the speed needed that lighting setups were basically just for exposure compared to the speed of film, and now we can do more film-like lighting setups much faster?
 
I don't think it's even that we can do lighting setups faster. Lighting is a tiny portion of it. Locations, set design, set dressing, art direction, wardrobe, acting and everything contribute. All of that comes down to budget, the biggest budget item as always being time. I believe that this trend comes from a mix of dropping costs and increasing audience. People today are always watching something, and not always in the theater. Feature films are no longer held up as the holy grail of production. The audience now has different expectations as well.

The other option I can think of, related to that last sentence, is marketing. Shows today have a tendency to be much more serious and gritty than the highly controlled, mass audience shows we used to have. Instead, TV shows were intended (obviously with exceptions) to be less in depth, light hearted or over the top. Something you could use to unwind at the end of the day without too much thought. The market wanted that specific concept to be met. By having two distinct styles you provide a visual cue that immediately tells someone if they're watching a light sitcom or a gritty drama. This is one aspect of other arguments that were meant to keep TV and features separated. And that's why sitcoms still look like that today, no matter how successful and big budget they become.

If I had to make a list of all cinematic shows on the air today it would be a formula: (every tv show) - (reality shows) - (sitcoms) - (cartoons) = cinematic productions.

Breaking bad is at the top of my list. The use of isolated and close up sound in a minimal way stands out to me as a unique method that really makes an impact. This is used a lot of times to juxtapose moods, and it works. I've also been fond of the shots in AMC's Hell on Wheels, at least when it started out.
 
one camera vs multicam productions. multicam lighting makes it look like tv. the use of more real locations and more outdoor shooting makes a one camera production more cinematic. not flat lighting everything and actually story-boarding and making artistic decisions makes more cinematic productions.
 
I think it all comes down, visually speaking only, to lens choice and lighting. Almost all the tv shows seem to use zooms, which gives everything that flat telephoto look even on wide shots, most of the time. You see, in movies, a lot more wide angle lenses and the resulting distortion the bring, even on closeups, in my opinion.

That all said, i would add the short-lived "Pushing Daises" to the list. That show was gorgeous. Some of the others you guys have listed, i would disagree with. I bet within five seconds of channel surfing i could ID them as shows and not movies based only on the visuals.
 
Cowboy Bebop
Charlie Jade
Breaking Bad
Treme
Spartacus

I would like to add Dexter to this list. It's production values are quite film-like but the score and incidental music is just too TV.

Anthology shows which are essentially collections of short films: Amazing Stories, Twilight Zone, Outer Limits etc

The isolated arc episodes of X-Files, Millenium, Fringe, True Blood and shows of that ilk.

Do you count mini-series? With the larger budgets and close-ended structure many bridge the gap.

I think the key element that makes tv present like tv is the situational element. To reuse resources tv must be locked to a situation and 'resets' every episode. For some that means a literal reset like sit-coms. For high concept tv it means a reset of the high concept (each episode addresses a self-contained variation on a theme), science fiction and paranormal shows in particular. It is for example the difference between Xena and the more movie-like Spartacus (besides the 300-style colour correction). Despite the episodic nature the drive of Spartacus is singular and each episode progresses towards it. TV that has a clear goal and each episode forms a chapter in the progression to that goal makes a show more like an extended movie. In the age of buying tv on dvd and watching a whole series back to back ad-free, tv shows that follow this format become more readily apparent. Shows like X-Files and Fringe that have an episodic structure interspersed with seasonal 'arc' episodes have one foot in either camp.
 
iunknown said:
revolution.
The glass they are using on that is pretty awesome. Love the cu shots.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree, and this time, quite strongly.

Revolution not only looks like TV, but bad TV. 'Coz, well, it IS bad TV.

And I say this knowing that a number of friends work on it. But it's not their fault.
 
Lost at the beginning and the end definitely had a cinematic feel and production value but when it got lost (sorry) in the middle while the writer's pumped out crap to pay the bills while they tried to figure out where they were going, it was most definitely tv. Films know what they are about and where they are going. TV fills time between the adverts.
 
Oh and i wanted to add, i think theyre even graded a little differently. Caught part of "Dr. Horrible something something" with Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion the other day. By all accounts a very low budget looking (that is not to say incompentent) movie. Flat cam angles, just okay ighting, surely originating on a digital format, etc. But it had a "look" to it that was down to the grade. Just different somehow than tv shows. Im guessing they have more time to spend on grading movies than with tv, breakneck schedules and all.
 
One thing to consider is viewing size.

I love The Bridge for example, and watching a lot or 'classic' movies on my monitor I feel somewhat underwhelmed, often the camera is slow ponderous and too loosley framed.

I watched Tinker Taylor on a huge screen front row - too close - it was actually fairly horrible experience - had I watched The Bridge or Spiral (another one to check out) on close up to a huge screen the experience would have no doubt been not horrible but actually vomit inducing - but those things look great on my TV

S
 
L1N3ARX said:
What do you guys think are the most film-like TV shows... in that they are shot and look / feel like a first rate movie rather than your average television drama.
Click to expand...

I'd go with Castle. It's shot with one camera, lighting is good, sets and set decoration quite nice (Castle's apartment sets make you want to live there). The first few seasons at least where shot on 35mm film. Sound is a little iffy at times. But even the exteriors look good. They do some good work with night shots.

Downton Abbey is also good, but the entire production is treated almost exactly like making a movie so that's not too surprising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top