Monday, 6 April 2015 12:05 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineNot for the first time, I disagree with an assessment in Entertainment Weekly -- and not on a matter of personal preference, or I wouldn't bother posting about it. I would quote the article directly, but I can't seem to find it online and didn't hold onto the hardcopy.
The first paragraph of an article about the upcoming "Daredevil" TV series asks why it's cool to talk about Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier but nerdy to talk about "Marvel's Agents of SHIELD" and "Arrow." The provided answer: TV shows based on comic books, for whatever reason, have been relatively juvenile. ("Daredevil" allegedly will buck the trend.)
I'll take their word for it on what's cool and nerdy these days, but I've seen enough to declare that the movies in question are every bit as juvenile as the shows in question. They were made for the same demographics, at least with regard to age, and involve about equally shallow thoughts and presentations.
My alternative theory: TV is more inherently nerdy than cinema. That may sound rich when you consider all the unintellectual programs (and my nerdy film blog), but just think of the inevitable differences between one medium and the other. If you want an informed conversation about a given movie, you need only sit down for a few hours; if you want to discuss a TV show that's been on for months or years, especially one as big on continuity as a soap opera, you need to invest a lot more time. And if your friends like to chat about key episodes the next day, you'd better be pretty punctual. Hulu and TiVo allow only so much leeway. If you wait as long as you might wait to see a promising but not super-anticipated movie, the next episode will supplant the previous as the main topic.
The other factor is that most TV shows do not start with a definite ending or total length in mind, eventually meandering. More often than not, when the network doesn't cancel them prematurely, it's rather like the Peter Principle: They continue until they suck too much to continue. By the time of the finale, many people question whether it's still cool to watch. This doesn't happen quite as badly with movie series, if only because those tend to make each entry present a viable stopping point, even as they try to whet your appetite for more. And if a sequel bombs, there's still the possibility of a refreshing reboot.
We'll see whether "Daredevil" lives up to the hype of maturity. But I guarantee it'll still be regarded as nerdier than a summer blockbuster.
The first paragraph of an article about the upcoming "Daredevil" TV series asks why it's cool to talk about Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier but nerdy to talk about "Marvel's Agents of SHIELD" and "Arrow." The provided answer: TV shows based on comic books, for whatever reason, have been relatively juvenile. ("Daredevil" allegedly will buck the trend.)
I'll take their word for it on what's cool and nerdy these days, but I've seen enough to declare that the movies in question are every bit as juvenile as the shows in question. They were made for the same demographics, at least with regard to age, and involve about equally shallow thoughts and presentations.
My alternative theory: TV is more inherently nerdy than cinema. That may sound rich when you consider all the unintellectual programs (and my nerdy film blog), but just think of the inevitable differences between one medium and the other. If you want an informed conversation about a given movie, you need only sit down for a few hours; if you want to discuss a TV show that's been on for months or years, especially one as big on continuity as a soap opera, you need to invest a lot more time. And if your friends like to chat about key episodes the next day, you'd better be pretty punctual. Hulu and TiVo allow only so much leeway. If you wait as long as you might wait to see a promising but not super-anticipated movie, the next episode will supplant the previous as the main topic.
The other factor is that most TV shows do not start with a definite ending or total length in mind, eventually meandering. More often than not, when the network doesn't cancel them prematurely, it's rather like the Peter Principle: They continue until they suck too much to continue. By the time of the finale, many people question whether it's still cool to watch. This doesn't happen quite as badly with movie series, if only because those tend to make each entry present a viable stopping point, even as they try to whet your appetite for more. And if a sequel bombs, there's still the possibility of a refreshing reboot.
We'll see whether "Daredevil" lives up to the hype of maturity. But I guarantee it'll still be regarded as nerdier than a summer blockbuster.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject