• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

This thread is inspired by Jeremy Renner and David Caruso, is tv still seen as a step down from movies/kino?

Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,416
I think this question is avery interesting nowadays, cause it can be argued that getting a streaming deal trumps a movie deal. Maybe not in money but in prestige. Them Game of Throne boys and girls coasted hard off that series, but been largely flops, but that is a different conversation. Jeremy Renner has a new show from the makers of Yellowstone(who people say is popular but I never see any articles about it except for when a new season starts). He could probably get a movie or two just off of being a white man and being in the avengers.
 
OP
OP
Slayven

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,416
Something i just thought, seems like tv/streaming are launching all the stars. The guy from bridgerton, the girl from the chess show, Fleabag, etc
 
Patryn

Patryn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,836
Network TV, yes.

Cable? Depends on the channel.

Streaming? Nope, seen as equal or greater.

Lots of actors have mentioned in the past 10 years that all the really interesting stuff is on TV nowadays since movies went for pure blockbusters or Oscar bait. I wish I could remember the actor, but in a Q&A he basically said that movies are either $100 million+ or under $10 million in budget. Everything that was in between went to TV.
 
Forsaken82

Forsaken82

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,931
Slayven said:
Something i just thought, seems like tv/streaming are launching all the stars. The guy from bridgerton, the girl from the chess show, Fleabag, etc
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Assuming you mean Anya Taylor Joy, she was still growing in popularity well before Queen's Gambit. The VVitch and Glass shot her to stardom.
 
Javier23

Javier23

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,904
Slayven said:
I am talking more main stream and headlining. Unless you want to count New Mutants
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Anya Taylor-Joy was well-known and pretty mainstream before Queen's Gambit. This isn't so much a case of a show launching someone into stardom as it is of yet another well-known actor getting their own show on a streaming platform.
 

TCB

Member
Oct 19, 2019
726
Patryn said:
I wish I could remember the actor, but in a Q&A he basically said that movies are either $100 million+ or under $10 million in budget. Everything that was in between went to TV.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It was Stellan Skarsgård. I wonder if, in an attempt to crush competition, Disney will just recreate the same problem by pumping out huge budget TV shows like Marvel and Star Wars. Which in turn may cause the competition to do the same.

Television is a better medium to tell a story in my opinion. I've watched so many movies over the years and the simple 3-act structure and limited amount of time really limits the kinds of stories you can tell.

I love slow burns, setups that may not have a pay off until much later, and the extra time to dig into the characters. I think big emotional moments in TV can hit harder because they have the benefit of time. I also binge watch though, whereas I know a lot of people prefer the weekly release schedule. So my opinion is based on those experiences.
 
Gavalanche

Gavalanche

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 21, 2021
17,683
It used to be the case, but I don't think it is so anymore. Heaps of actors drift back and forth between tv and movies. Jason Bateman is a prime example. It is no longer the death knell it once was.
 
abellwillring

abellwillring

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,962
Austin, TX
There isn't much of a difference these days but TV shows require a lot more shooting so it probably depends on the level of time investment the actor wants. Movies have more press time surrounding their release.
 
Dabanton

Dabanton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,927
Doing a cable or streaming show hasn't been looked at as a "step down" since early 2000s

Network TV used to be seen as 'cheap' and too formatted crime of the week style shows like CSI, Law and Order etc. HBO kinda started the 'prestige' drama wave where a Hollywood actor could do a limited series and also garner awards attention.

Netflix/Prime took that idea to a next level. Some of the budgets for these streaming shows are phenomenal. And the talent and directors they are able to attract as well. As you can tell long form stories and not worry that it needs to be a box office hit

Now there isn't much difference. In fact a glance at the credits usually shows that a lot of stars usually have producer credits on these shows.
 
BLEEN

BLEEN

Member
Oct 27, 2017
21,921
TV shows are, on the whole, a better medium for story telling.

We're in the golden age of TV still.
 
Nappuccino

Nappuccino

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,058
A lot of TV is well written and well acted, but often misses a full use of the medium of film due to time/cost constraints.

I'd say it's a step down in terms of film-language, but not neccessarily a step down in terms of the value/product. It's just different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.