Séries ou Filmes?

[Odo]

Qual dos dois formatos vocês mais gostam?

 

Ah, alguém poderia achar alguns textos (pode ser em inglês) sobre o tema? Rodei uma pesquisa mas não encontrei nada a respeito.

 

[LeonardoBastos]

Eu sempre adorei o cinema. Mas os seriados estão se superando a cada dia. Alguns não perdem em NADA para os filmes, principalmente em se tratando de tramas, atores e efeitos especiais (vide o piloto de Lost, que custou nada menos que 40 milhões de dólares). Temos 24 horas que é recheado de cenas espetaculares; Prison Break que teve uma primeira temporada fodástica quando os personagens estavam confinados em Fox River; Two and a Half Men que é engraçadíssimo; House que tem o personagem mais bem construído e complexo da TV; Scrubs por sua receita fabulosa que mistura drama e comédia e por aí vai...

 

 

Pode parecer absurdo dizer que as séries estão alcançando o cinema, mas o nível (especialmente o nivel técnico), tem atingido uma qualidade espetacular. A verdade é que qualquer comparação pode ser injusta e perigosa, uma vez que as séries podem se "consertar", como Lost que consegue ser um seriado acima da média, mesmo tendo alguns episódios abaixo da crítica (principalmente NA terceira temporada e alguns da segunda). Na minha opinião, o ponto alto das séries  - embora minhas séries favoritas não façam muito uso disto - são os cliffhangers, que nos deixam quase em desespero de tanta ansiedade (que o diga os fãs de Lost, obrigados a aguentar um jejum de 8 meses pra TALVEZ entenderem quase 30% de tanto mistério ).

 

Mas é muito bom poder ver episódios inéditos das séries que você mais gosta por muitos e muitos anos. É quase como assistir aquele filme que você tanto adora como se fosse a primeira vez. Pode soar meio gay, mas eu não vivo sem uma dose semanal de Dr. Gregory House.    Essas séries médicas tem mesmo algo de especial (embora eu ainda não tenha caido na teia de Grey's Anatomy).

LeonardoBastos2007-05-30 18:53:58

[Jack_Bauer]

    Eu fiz uma enquete dessas uma vez, quase me encheram de porrada por aqui ...mas continuo com a mesma opinião, antes um bom seriado do que um bom filme 

 

[LeonardoBastos]

Que isso Jack!!   O pessoal tem que aceitar opiniões pessoais. Eu particularmente (tirando as idas ao cinema que sempre são MUITO divertidas), eu prefiro as séries

[Cavalca]

O piloto de Lost custou 10 milhões.

 

[Administrator]

Ultimamente to preferindo as séries... mesmo uma temporada regular de 24 horas como esta sexta dá de 10 a zero num filme como Spiderman 3, por exemplo...

[LeonardoBastos]

O piloto de Lost custou 10 milhões.

 

 

Whatever, pra uma série é muita grana...

[amelo]

Eu sou viciado em cinema. Sempre fui nos últimos 10 anos, numa média de 250 filmes por ano....

Mas do ano passado para este estou começando a descobrir os seriados, e realmente tem muita coisa boa por aí, viu!

Não acho que um seja melhor que o outro... são apenas diferentes

[Odo]

Achei um texto sobre o assunto, em inglês, mas lá vai:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200496/site/newsweek/page/0

Why TV Is Better Than the Movies

Film has always been the

Four Seasons to television's Motel 6. Not anymore. Here's how the small

screen ended up so much bigger—and bolder—than the big one.

 

By Devin Gordon

Newsweek

Feb.

26, 2007 issue - Denis Leary remembers the exact moment when all his

notions about what television could be got blown to smithereens. It

came during the first season of "The Sopranos." "It was the episode

where Tony Soprano is driving Meadow to visit colleges and he runs into

the snitch along the way," says Leary, the star and co-creator of FX's

firefighter dramedy "Rescue Me." Tony (James Gandolfini) happens upon

the turncoat, who'd been placed in witness protection, at a gas station

on some leafy country road.

 

The next day, after dropping off his

daughter for a campus interview, Tony tracks down the snitch and

brutally strangles him to death with a coil of wire. "I remember

watching that and thinking, 'Oh, my God ... '," Leary says.

"I don't think I blinked that entire episode. The show ended at 10

o'clock, and at 10:05 the phone in my apartment started ringing off the

hook. That's when I thought, 'If they can do this, you can do anything in this format'."

 

For other people, maybe it was another moment.

Maybe it was the two-hour pilot episode of "Lost," which opened with

the nightmarish aftermath of a plane crash on a deserted, and deeply

peculiar, tropical island. It cost ABC a small fortune—reportedly $12

million—but it proved that network TV could match the scope and

storytelling electricity of a feature film.

 

For me, my "moment" is

every single episode of "The Wire," the astounding HBO series that's

been labeled a crime drama but is actually a sprawling, visual novel

about the decline and fall of an American city. "Our model when we

started doing 'The Wire' wasn't other television shows," says David

Simon, the Baltimore Sun crime reporter turned TV scribe who co-created

the series. "The standard we were looking at was Balzac's Paris, or

Dickens's London, or Tolstoy's Moscow. In TV, you can actually say that

out loud, and then go do it."

It's

dangerous to make broad generalizations about TV versus film without

sounding as though you're comparing apples and tubas, but let's do it

anyway: television is running circles around the movies. The Internet

age has put both industries into a state of high anxiety, with everyone

scrambling to figure out how money will be made in a digital future

where people watch movies on their phones and surf the Web on their

TVs.

 

But while the major film studios have responded by taking shelter

beneath big-tent franchises, the TV industry has gone the opposite

route, welcoming anyone with an original idea. The roster of channels

has ballooned into the hundreds, creating a niche universe where shows

don't need to be dumbed down in order to survive (because the dummies

have their own channels).

 

DVDs, meanwhile, have upended how we watch

television, transforming shows from disposable weekly units into 8-,

12-, sometimes 22-hour movies. "We get a lot of people who tell us they

don't even watch the show when it airs," says Joel Surnow, co-creator

of "24." "They wait for the DVD and watch it all at once."

Sure,

TV still makes plenty of crap. And, yes, film is peerless when it comes

to grand spectacles like "Lord of the Rings." But how many recent

Hollywood comedies have been as lacerating as NBC's "The Office" or

Comedy Central's taboo-blasting "Sarah Silverman Program"? (OK,

"Borat"—a movie based on a character created for ... television.) The

film industry is in love with serial-killer stories, but it took

Showtime's "Dexter" to breathe new life into the genre. And roll your

eyes if you want, but nothing out of Hollywood generates anything close

to the hysteria of a single episode of "American Idol."

This

is supposed to be Hollywood's biggest moment of the year. It's Oscar

time, in case you forgot. But anyone who actually wants to go see a

movie this week will have a choice between Paramount's

Eddie-Murphy-in-a-fat-suit comedy "Norbit" and Sony's comic-book

adaptation "Ghost Rider," starring Nicolas Cage, which wasn't screened

for critics—industry code for a movie so lousy that the best review it

can hope for is no review at all. Soon it'll be summertime, and the

annual march of the sequels will resume. "Spider-Man 3." "Shrek 3." The

third "Pirates of the Caribbean." The fourth "Die Hard." The fifth

"Harry Potter."

If

that list excites you, there's probably a simple explanation: you're

12. But for everyone else, it's hard to shake the feeling that

Hollywood has lost interest in us. "Whenever I see a movie that

impresses me, I always wonder how it occurred. Like, how did they

thread that one through the needle?" says Simon. "And

inevitably, you find out it was made quietly, and for very little

money."

 

Consider this year's Oscar nominees for best picture. Only two

are the products of major studios, Martin Scorsese's "The Departed" and

Clint Eastwood's "Letters From Iwo Jima," and both men are legends

who've earned the right to tell their studio bosses to butt out. The

other three came out of "specialty" satellites to the big studios, such

as Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage. In essence, the job of

quality moviemaking has been outsourced.

For

decades, if film was the Four Seasons, TV was a Motel 6. You worked in

television for the money, or to reboot your career, or just to hang on.

Now actors like Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell and Salma Hayek go from hit

movies to network-TV gigs, and no one thinks they're nuts. Paul Haggis

and Bobby Moresco ("Crash") went straight from the best-picture Oscar

to creating "The Black Donnellys" for NBC. Steven Spielberg is doing a

reality show for Fox.

 

David Mamet—David Mamet!—created a drama

for CBS. "The people working in television right now are the

Shakespeares of the medium," says Ira Glass, host of the public-radio

program "This American Life," which has been turned into a jewel of a

TV series on Showtime and will start airing on March 22. "That's

probably a pretentious thing to say, but I also think it's true. It's

true in the same way that Leonard Bernstein was figuring out what you

could do with a Broadway show when he wrote 'West Side Story,' or in

music when Sinatra recorded his Capitol albums."

This

obviously isn't the first "golden age of television." In the 1950s,

Milton Berle and "I Love Lucy" reinvented comedy. In the 1970s, Norman

Lear did it again with socially conscious shows like "All in the

Family." The difference now is TV is challenging movies on their own

turf—narratively and visually—and winning.

 

The best shows tell their

stories slowly, carefully and with exquisite detail, putting viewers

inside the experience of another person with unparalleled intimacy.

This is the grand achievement of "The Sopranos," and it's why the

show's final season, which begins on April 8, is a safe bet to be the

cultural happening of the year. In television "the writer is king,"

says Carlton Cuse, an executive producer on "Lost." "We're at the top

of the food chain." In the film world, the director is in charge, or

the star. "It's almost impossible to write a movie with a big star and

not have that person put his or her thumbprint on top of it," Cuse says.

To some, the notion of TV as a writer's Eden is more of a recruiting poster than a reality. "Nobody ever really feels all that in

charge," says Jon Turtletaub, who directed Disney's hit movie "National

Treasure" and created "Jericho" for CBS. "If you want control, write a

book."

 

Others believe that Hollywood's failing isn't creative, but

technological. "The movie business is still caught up in how it's

always been done," says Todd Wagner, co-president of 2929 Entertainment

("Good Night, and Good Luck"), which has been leaning on studios to

release films on several platforms—in theaters, online and on DVD—at

once. "Film is still built around a business model where they're trying

to get as many people as possible to see something on the very first

weekend, at very select locations, for months before it's available any

other way. Television isn't doing that. The realization they've come to

is, why wouldn't you put it out there?"

One

reason is piracy. The studios don't make many films, so they need to

wring out every last penny. But there's another reason they're so

reluctant to sell "Shrek 3" DVDs at Wal-Mart on opening day: image.

Hollywood is determined to protect the "specialness" of movies, and if

you can get them any time, anywhere, how special can they be?

 

"There's

always going to be that excitement where you think, 'Oh, I made a

movie! And it's gonna be at a theater! And people will be eating

popcorn!' " says Tina Fey, who wrote the 2004 hit "Mean Girls" and

created the NBC sitcom "30 Rock."

 

"It's just different." Hollywood

wants to be consumer friendly, but not too friendly, because that arm's

length exclusivity is the essence of glamour. And without glamour, what

is Hollywood? Yup—television. Last year, when Larry McMurtry and Diana

Ossana shared a screenwriting Oscar for "Brokeback Mountain," McMurtry

thanked his typewriter.

 

During an interview, he grumbled while Ossana

sang the praises of modern TV. "It's not a question of quality,"

McMurtry responded. "It just means the prestige is still with film, and

I suspect it always will be. Put it this way: I'd rather have an Oscar

than an Emmy." The man's got a point.

Then

again, it's possible to win an Oscar only if your film actually gets

made, and good luck with that. The economics of the movie business have

created a climate of "paranoia" in Hollywood, says megamovie producer

Brian Grazer, an Oscar winner for "A Beautiful Mind" whose company,

Imagine Entertainment, also co-owns "24."

 

The average film budget,

according to the latest Nielsen figures, is about $60 million, with an

additional $36 million in marketing costs. That means the typical

Hollywood film is a $100 million bet—with the money paid upfront,

before anyone sees a penny in return. That kind of environment has a

stultifying effect on artists.

 

"They begin to worry that their movie

will never get made, that they'll never hear 'yes' again," Grazer says,

"so they end up being much more accommodating to an executive's

opinions." Increasingly, Hollywood is making only two types of films:

lavish blockbusters ("Superman Returns" cost $204 million) or thrifty,

$15 million genre bets like horror flicks and lowbrow comedies. The

midrange $60 million drama has all but vanished—at least from theaters.

With

all those channels and all those hours to fill, television has charged

into the void. In five years, according to Adams Media Research, the

number of digital-cable subscribers in the United States tripled, from

10 million in 2000 to 30 million in 2005.

 

In such a crowded market, you

either evolve or die. "Desperation breeds inspiration," says NBC

president Kevin Reilly. And thanks to iTunes and TiVo, networks can

afford to be patient with a quality show, knowing an audience has

multiple ways to find it.

 

NBC hopes that will happen with its Texas

high-school football drama "Friday Night Lights," a superb show that's

only incidentally about football. The series actually surpasses the

2004 film because the long form of TV has given its writers leeway to

explore an entire small-town orbit. Freed from the need to sell

tickets, the TV show doesn't have to swell to a crowd-pleasing gridiron

drive.

It's not just the stories on TV that are improving; they look

better, too. "Some of the action that 'Lost' and '24' are doing

compares to almost any feature out there," says ABC president Steve

McPherson. "We're making the investment in these shows. They're not

cheap. But the production gap is closing."

 

TV is spending more money on

us—and we're spending more money on TV. Gradually, homes are filling

with high-definition sets that rival the cinema experience, only

without the nasty carpets sticky with spilled Coke. "I still

occasionally hear someone say that they don't watch television," Leary

says, "and I always tell them, 'Look, I don't care what book you're

reading—put it down and watch these five shows, because you really,

truly don't know what you're missing'." He's right, except for one

thing: only five?

 

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

[Th@t@_patty]

Ultimamente eu estou preferindo séries a filmes. 

 

[Locke]

Séries

[carol_ss]

Depende muito da serie e do filme

 

[jujuba]

 Eta perguntinha difícil...Afff!

 

 Eu sempre fui vidrada em séries.

 Mãsss, um mala começou a falar de filmes e diretores, produtores e fotografias...afff!  Nunca entendi nada.

 

 Anyway, comecei a assistir os filmes com olhares mais críticos.

 Sei lá, agora tô viciada em filmes tb.

[Administrator]

Filmes. Atualmente de séries que valham a pena apenas Lost, The Sopranos, Dexter, The Office e 30 Rock. Se continuar pelos próximos 50 anos, perfeito, caso contrário...

[jujuba]

 No momento prefiro filmes. Tenho gasto muito com DVDs.  Estou aprendendo abaixar filmes tb (aff! como é difícil  ).

 Mãsss, no começo do ano eu assitia fielmente a umas  4 séries e muitas outras com menos frequência.

[suellenpareico]

Acho que as séries de hoje em dia estão dando um show: Lost, House, Heroes e a mais recente Traveler têm tanta qualidade qto os longa-metragens. 

 

[jujuba]

  Afff! Vc citou  algumas das minha preferidas!

 

 Excessão p/  "Traveler" que ainda não vi.

 

 Acrescente aí "Boston Legal" , "Messiah" e "The Office"... (versão inglesa, tá ?! )

 

 

[Administrator]

Filmes. Não tenho saco para acompanhar séries. Só algumas, hehe.

[Bob Harris]

Filmes. Não tenho saco para acompanhar séries. Só algumas' date=' hehe.[/quote']

Idem aqui. Só que no meu caso substituo 'algumas' por 'nenhuma'.

[Administrator]

Filmes, óbvio, são obras fechadas. Séries podem começar uma maravilha e terminar uma merda, decepcionando aqueles que acompanharam desde o início. Filmes não, justamente por serem obras fechadas.

[Cavalca]

Ainda bem que filmes nunca têm sequencias.

 

[Administrator]

Ainda bem que filmes nunca têm sequencias.

 

Talvez fosse ótimo mesmo se não existissem hehe... Mas algumas são boas, até melhores que a primeira obra. E quando não são, simplesmente as ignoro, afinal um filme, quando não é feito já se pensando na obra como uma trilogia, por exemplo (como Sr. dos Anéis, citando a que ilustra melhor esse caso) se vale por si só, não é como as séries, que tem uma continuidade, que se você deixar de ver o próximo capítulo (a sequencia, no caso dos filmes), fica sem saber o desfecho do que foi apresentado no capítulo anterior. Enfim...

 

Filmes são melhores, por serem obras fechadas.

Enxak2007-08-24 00:11:37

[Cavalca]

Os cliffhangers de CSI e House são os melhores. 

 

[ShyCold]

Eu prefiro séries também, justamente por ter essa sequência. Nem todas as séries têm episódios que dependem um do outro para a composição final. E os filmes as vezes trazem um mal que é fazer você se envolver de tal forma com um personagem e depois de algumas horas ele desaparece da sua vida, só restando esperar por uma continuação (que as vezes pode mudar até o ator), ou rever, fazendo perder o brilho da descoberta que é insuperável. Nas séries, mesmo que tenha uma queda de qualidade, você tem sempre a esperança de um novo episódio, a dúvida de um final inesperado e etc. O fator tempo que é o problema de alguns, pra mim, é a melhor coisa.

 

[walber05]

Sem dúvida, prefiro séries.