PCF Shows (5 Viewers)

[jbutler]

That the amount of good movies today outweighs the amount of good television.

I understand that's your opinion, but you continually shift the goalposts as to what that even means. And given the fact that you've seen 3 or 4 movies over more than 3 months, I don't know how you could pretend to have any reasoned opinion on the subject.

 

[manamongkids]

That the amount of good movies today outweighs the amount of good television.

Lets flip the situation of where you live your life. Lets say your home was a movie theater and you had permanent access to every single movie put out. Literally every single one.

And the only time you got to see TV shows was when you went somewhere else to watch it.

So you're seeing 100% of movies released, and like .00001% of TV shows released. If the .00001% you happened to catch were poor you would be making the same exact argument the other way

Mind blown
/thread

 

[ohio3302016]

I understand that's your opinion, but you continually shift the goalposts as to what that even means. And given the fact that you've seen 3 or 4 movies over more than 3 months, I don't know how you could pretend to have any reasoned opinion on the subject.

It means that I believe good television outweighs good movies right now (and has for awhile, really).

Like I said, I agree to disagree.

 

[ohio3302016]

Lets flip the situation of where you live your life. Lets say your home was a movie theater and you had permanent access to every single movie put out. Literally every single one.

And the only time you got to see TV shows was when you went somewhere else to watch it.

So you're seeing 100% of movies released, and like .00001% of TV shows released. If the .00001% you happened to catch were poor you would be making the same exact argument the other way

Mind blown
/thread

I agree that quality television is much more accessible.

If you kept getting horrible meal after horrible meal at a restaurant would you continue to go back?

 

[jbutler]

It means that I believe good television outweighs good movies right now (and has for awhile, really).

But when we try to nail down what you're trying to say in that vague sentence, you try to change the terms of the discussion.

First I tried to compare the best movies to the best tv and you said now, you meant to refer to the tv and movies "collectively". Then when it was argued that there's a much lower ratio of good to bad in television than movies, you said that doesn't matter because no one would watch bad tv. And now you're back to the beginning, saying broadly that "good television outweighs good movies right now".

So which is it? Is the best television better than the best movies? Is television as a medium more reliably good in your opinion than movies?

 

[ohio3302016]

But when we try to nail down what you're trying to say in that vague sentence, you try to change the terms of the discussion.

First I tried to compare the best movies to the best tv and you said now, you meant to refer to the tv and movies "collectively". Then when it was argued that there's a much lower ratio of good to bad in television than movies, you said that doesn't matter because no one would watch bad tv. And now you're back to the beginning, saying broadly that "good television outweighs good movies right now".

So which is it? Is the best television better than the best movies? Is television as a medium more reliably good in your opinion than movies?

The latter.

 

[jbutler]

So which is it? Is the best television better than the best movies? Is television as a medium more reliably good in your opinion than movies?

The latter.

So it's your honest opinion that if you rated every piece of programming that appears on the hundreds of network and 24-hour cable channels and every movie that is released that the television programs would have a higher average rating than the movies?

 

[Chicken Rob]

I'm watching s01e01 of The Seventies right now, and it's about TV. This was probably the first golden age of TV. It's pretty impressive the amount of social commentary that flooded TV back then.

 

[ohio3302016]

So it's your honest opinion that if you rated every piece of programming that appears on the hundreds of network and 24-hour cable channels and every movie that is released that the television programs would have a higher average rating than the movies?

Again, the amount of bad TV is irrelevant.

The amount of good television outweighs the amount of good movies.

 

[Chicken Rob]

So it's your honest opinion that if you rated every piece of programming that appears on the hundreds of network and 24-hour cable channels and every movie that is released that the television programs would have a higher average rating than the movies?

This is the part that seems crazy to me.

Any mass market entertainment is going to be garbage more likely than not, and there is so much more of it on the hundreds of TV channels than the movies.

I can't name 5 truly great TV shows on right now, but there are literally hundreds of shows. I'm not sure how many movies get made annually, but I have to believe that more than 3% of them are great or very good. I may be wrong.

 

[jbutler]

So which is it? Is the best television better than the best movies? Is television as a medium more reliably good in your opinion than movies?

The latter.

So it's your honest opinion that if you rated every piece of programming that appears on the hundreds of network and 24-hour cable channels and every movie that is released that the television programs would have a higher average rating than the movies?

Again, the amount of bad TV is irrelevant.

The amount of good television outweighs the amount of good movies.

Do you know what "reliably good" means? It takes into account the bad TV. So the amount of bad TV is directly relevant to the position you've taken and yet somehow seem not to understand.

 

[jbutler]

This is the part that seems crazy to me.

Any mass market entertainment is going to be garbage more likely than not, and there is so much more of it on the hundreds of TV channels than the movies.

I can't name 5 truly great TV shows on right now, but there are literally hundreds of shows. I'm not sure how many movies get made annually, but I have to believe that more than 3% of them are great or very good. I may be wrong.

For "great" TV I would say definitely Better Call Saul and The Leftovers and probably (tie goes to the runner) Game of Thrones. There are a several in the "very good" category to me. Probably 5 or 6 currently airing that I would say are very good. And then a ton in the "watchable" category. But the watchable category includes shows that I think are horrible, but which are manipulative enough that I haven't yet stopped watching.

For me the difference is really at the top tier of the quality. I've never seen anything on television nearly as good as my all time favorite movies. Even if limiting TV and movies to the last 5 years, the best movies just annihilate the best tv shows. It's not even close. But again, that's because of what I prioritize in these experiences. I can still remember sitting in the theater multiple times watching movies like Spring Breakers and Upstream Color and Under the Skin and Mistress America and Fury Road and Crimson Peak. They just wash over you like television simply cannot (yet) do.

For someone who prioritizes plot and story, I can understand why something like The Wire or Breaking Bad (both among literally the best television has to offer) is more satisfying that a visceral movie-going experience. But as much as I enjoy the creativity in the writing and the sustainability of the characters and the stories, the visceral nature of film takes me beyond what television is capable of providing.

This is why I said earlier it's like the Beatles versus the Stones. Because you can't intellectualize your way into ranking one over the other. All you can say is, "I prefer this experience."

 

[manamongkids]

How I think @jbutler thinks when going into a thread

Lawyered!

 

[Chicken Rob]

For "great" TV I would say definitely Better Call Saul and The Leftovers and probably (tie goes to the runner) Game of Thrones. There are a several in the "very good" category to me. Probably 5 or 6 currently airing that I would say are very good. And then a ton in the "watchable" category. But the watchable category includes shows that I think are horrible, but which are manipulative enough that I haven't yet stopped watching.

For me the difference is really at the top tier of the quality. I've never seen anything on television nearly as good as my all time favorite movies. Even if limiting TV and movies to the last 5 years, the best movies just annihilate the best tv shows. It's not even close. But again, that's because of what I prioritize in these experiences. I can still remember sitting in the theater multiple times watching movies like Spring Breakers and Upstream Color and Under the Skin and Mistress America and Fury Road and Crimson Peak. They just wash over you like television simply cannot (yet) do.

For someone who prioritizes plot and story, I can understand why something like The Wire or Breaking Bad (both among literally the best television has to offer) is more satisfying that a visceral movie-going experience. But as much as I enjoy the creativity in the writing and the sustainability of the characters and the stories, the visceral nature of film takes me beyond what television is capable of providing.

This is why I said earlier it's like the Beatles versus the Stones. Because you can't intellectualize your way into ranking one over the other. All you can say is, "I prefer this experience."

Yup. I agree with you more than I do with Ohio despite the fact that he and I share the same preference. I think it is a brain wiring issue.

I recently heard an interesting interview with a neuro-scientist that talked about the difference in how we process images vs. language. Different parts of the brain. I think this may be why I prefer the writing/story telling that a great season TV can provide.

I will agree that TV does not have the same visceral depth of movies, but movies lack the depth and nuance of character development and story arcs that a longer format allows. Like you said, Beatles vs. Stones.

I was originally a Beatles fan, still am. I used to be a big movie fan, and now I prefer TV.

But from a more objective view, when I consider the proportion of great productions vs garbage, it appears from my vantage point that there is a better ratio with film despite my preferences.

Anyway, Halt and Catch Fire was my favorite show on TV over the past couple years, and I don't think it's quite up to the wire or breaking bad, but it's strong. Just wanted to plug a great show in this thread that has gone unmentioned.

 

[manamongkids]

Simple math - they have to greenlight a larger percentage of tv shows to literally fill tv timeslots.

No one is forced to greenlight a movie to fill a timeslot.

 

[jbutler]

Yup. I agree with you more than I do with Ohio despite the fact that he and I share the same preference. I think it is a brain wiring issue.

I recently heard an interesting interview with a neuro-scientist that talked about the difference in how we process images vs. language. Different parts of the brain. I think this may be why I prefer the writing/story telling that a great season TV can provide.

I will agree that TV does not have the same visceral depth of movies, but movies lack the depth and nuance of character development and story arcs that a longer format allows. Like you said, Beatles vs. Stones.

I was originally a Beatles fan, still am. I used to be a big movie fan, and now I prefer TV.

But from a more objective view, when I consider the proportion of great productions vs garbage, it appears from my vantage point that there is a better ratio with film despite my preferences.

Anyway, Halt and Catch Fire was my favorite show on TV over the past couple years, and I don't think it's quite up to the wire or breaking bad, but it's strong. Just wanted to plug a great show in this thread that has gone unmentioned.

I'll have to give Halt and Catch Fire a shot. I haven't seen a single episode.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I'll have to give Halt and Catch Fire a shot. I haven't seen a single episode.

Definitely check it out. I just learned tonight season 3 will be coming. It's renewal status was uncertain in the fall. I was afraid it was over.

I shall be interested in seeing how you react to it. I was a budding young hacker in the era portrayed, so totally predisposed to liking it. You're both younger and less hacker, so you might be a more objective viewer.

 

[ohio3302016]

Mr. Robot
Halt and Catch Fire
Sense8

(3 more)

If you are struggling with the concept that the amount of "bad" television is irrelevant to the point that there is currently more quality television right now than quality movies then I'm not sure how to continue. It isn't a complicated concept imo.

 

[ohio3302016]

It's also important to note that a person can like both the Stones AND the Beatles. This is perfectly fine.

 

[ohio3302016]

Still interested in seeing all of these amazing movies I'm apparently missing.

 

[ohio3302016]

How I think @jbutler thinks when going into a thread

Lawyered!

Lawyers are exfremely wordy. I'll give them that.

 

[ohio3302016]

Do you know what "reliably good" means? It takes into account the bad TV. So the amount of bad TV is directly relevant to the position you've taken and yet somehow seem not to understand.

No, it doesn't.

 

[jbutler]

No, it doesn't.

So when you say it's reliably good do you mean the good shows are reliably good not accounting for the bad shows?

 

[jbutler]

There is absolutey no reason (given today's technology) to watch any bad TV. Again, I barely have enough time to watch the quality television that is available (which is greater than the amount of quality movies currently available).

IMO

I can only think that you're just straight up trolling me with your refusal to use even your own logic in this discussion.

 

[ohio3302016]

The Big Short was a good movie as well.

 

[ohio3302016]

I can only think that you're just straight up trolling me with your refusal to use even your own logic in this discussion.

I'm not.

Let's say 1% of television is quality. That amount would still be greater than the amount of quality movies. The 99% of bad television (which no one has any reason to watch) is irrelevant.

 

[jbutler]

I'm not.

Let's say 1% of television is quality. That amount would still be greater than the amount of quality movies. The 99% of bad television (which no one has any reason to watch) is irrelevant.

I asked you point blank if we were discussing the best tv versus the best movies or the all of television versus all of movies and you said "the latter". Now you're backtracking yet again to change the terms of your argument. You're either trolling or an idiot and at this point I don't really care which.

 

[ohio3302016]

I asked you point blank if we were discussing the best tv versus the best movies or the all of television versus all of movies and you said "the latter". Now you're backtracking yet again to change the terms of your argument. You're either trolling or an idiot and at this point I don't really care which.

Taking all of television into account and all movies into account; television is better at the present time. EVEN if you deem 99% of television to be bad.

(hint: there is a hell of a lot more television produced than movies)

 

[jbutler]

Taking all of television into account and all movies into account; television is better at the present time. EVEN if you deem 99% of television to be bad.

(hint: there is a hell of a lot more television produced than movies)

Hint: take your bipolar medication so you use similar logic from one day to the next or else it makes little sense for anyone to discuss anything with you.

 

[ohio3302016]

Hint: take your bipolar medication so you use similar logic from one day to the next or else it makes little sense for anyone to discuss anything with you.

It's a nuanced point, I admit.