I disagree, because I think there are certain things that TV does better than film, but more things that film does better than TV. But things are certainly better now on TV than anytime in the last 15-20 years.

That's really depressing.

"anyone with an original idea" that can be accomodated in a nonvisual medium reliant on two shots and endless exposition largely delivered between commercials, except on cable when you get more time for two shots and exposition.

talk about stacking the deck: defining cinema in 2007 as "big tent" when anyone with a brain knows that the exciting cinema is happening EVERYWHERE ELSE!

This is the dumbest thing I've read in the MSM since LA Grime's Goldstein and Horn decried the "elitism" of the Oscars.

Jeff: I take it all back! THANK YOU for the blogdom where even David Poland isn't this dumb. (I think...) Continue "taking down" Eddie Murphy, do whatever you want, but please don't tell me TV is better than film unless you can cite ANYTHING on the tube equal to the visual/emotional/intellectual experience of PAN, LIVES OF OTHERS, et al. I mean, we're all knocking THE QUEEN because it's

"anyone with an original idea" that can be accomodated in a nonvisual medium reliant on two shots and endless exposition largely delivered between commercials, except on cable when you get more time for two shots and exposition.

talk about stacking the deck: defining cinema in 2007 as "big tent" when anyone with a brain knows that the exciting cinema is happening EVERYWHERE ELSE!

This is the dumbest thing I've read in the MSM since LA Grime's Goldstein and Horn decried the "elitism" of the Oscars.

Jeff: I take it all back! THANK YOU for the blogdom where even David Poland isn't this dumb. (I think...) Continue "taking down" Eddie Murphy, do whatever you want, but please don't tell me TV is better than film unless you can cite ANYTHING on the tube equal to the visual/emotional/intellectual experience of PAN, LIVES OF OTHERS, et al. I mean, we're all knocking THE QUEEN because it's

Movies are terribly limited by the standard 2 hour window into which they must fit. TV, of course, can produce virtually any length drama desired. It reminds me of the problem of short stories versus novels. Short stories must fit a fairly narrow word count window--rarely more than 30 or 40 pages--while novels can range from 80 pages to 1600. And we all know what's happening to the short story as an art form.

Movies have more leeway to produce amazing visuals, but I bet that with the rise of home theaters and hdtv, TV shows may continue to encroach upon movies in that realm as well. I don't have a cable hook-up so I never watch television when shows are originally aired, and I only rarely get out to theaters these days (unfortunately) because I've got a young child. But I do watch a lot of DVD's, and the vast majority of what I rent are TV shows. Rarely, is there a movie available on DVD that draws my interest away from all the wonderful TV fare on offer.

sorry about the last broken posting, but even my computer upchucked. anyway, butter is butter and margarine is margarine. take your TV and spread it on the bread and if it tastes the same as cinema, congratulations....you will be the kind of culture consumer madison avenue has been dreaming of....

Struggling to find time for all those quality shows and a couple of guilty pleasures, for the first time in memory I have fallen way behind in my movie viewing habits. Even though Friday and Saturday evenings remain a TV wasteland, I now often find myself staying home on those nights to catch up on the enormous backlog of programs on my overloaded DVR.

In terms of mature content, mainstream TV programs are generally much more willing to push the envelope today than mainstream films. As the theatrical experience has become more and more limited to big-screen eye candy targetting teenagers, and as the number of homes with (now sometimes several) large HD setups grows at a breathtaking pace, and as the theatrical-to-DVD window continues to shrink, it's not illogical to anticipate a possibly sudden, seismic plunge in box-office revenues at some point in the not-too-distant future.

One note of interest to consider: TV shows evolved out of the mostly verbal medium of radio shows and before that theater. And movies evolved out of the mostly visual medium of silent film and before that photography.

Thus (at least in part) the emphasis on complexity of story and character in TV shows versus the emphasis on visceral beauty and emotional intensity in movies.

But TV seems to be moving more consistently in the direction of fulfilling the promise of pulling all these elements of story-telling together.

Six months ago I would have agreed with you.

Then a bunch of really good movies came out, and HBO went and canceled Deadwood and became the sleazy-documentaries-about-prostitutes channels.

I'll take any episode of Dexter, The Shield, Rome, Sopranos, Spooks (aka MI:5 in the States), or Battlestar Galactic over 99% of all major film-release, and I'm a guy that runs a movie theatre for christ's sake!
Although a lot of TV sucks as well, the best TV is still better than most films. It's a shame really...

Movies and tv are drawing closer to each other, not farther apart. The ability to make technically hiqh quality product for a low price (HD, etc) is allowing tv shows to look better. Television has always been more likely to produce intellectually stimulating and complex material but until the emergence of cable was unable to express the material in an adult fashion. All this has now changed, and feature films are left behind because in order to attract mass audiences to pay for their overpriced product, movies must appeal to the lowest common denominator and offend no one. That is why films like COM and BABEL fail badly at the box office, and that is why filmmakers attempt to integrate "entertainment" into the mix. It will all be moot before too long when the studios discover the way to make money on features is to beam them directly into the home simultaneous with theatrical release.

This is why the studios are ONLY making event pictures - because channels like HBO, SHOWTIME, ABC etc and even LIFETIME have the monopoly on dramatic fare that doesn't require much more than some actors, scripts and basic sets...the movies only exist now to serve up the kind of expensive spectacles tv can't afford to make.

It's truly the golden age of television right now.

I don't really watch much tv, because I got bored with writers recycling material or inserting guest stars or tits and gore into certain shows to boost ratings. And of course, there are the reality shows as well as the price-gouging from cable companies which make the theatrical experience "cheap" by comparison. Plus, when you buy the shows on dvd, you run the risk of them removing and/or changing key musical cues, because of the parasitic record companies which refuse to believe that occasionally giving it away for free is good for sales. (See WKRP.)

D.Z.: I'm almost certain we've never agreed on a single issue or point. So let's try this one on - Do you like oxygen?

And by the way, a lot of theatrical films have also been had their musical cues changed for home video. It's certainly not limited to television (and when you have to recall "WKRP" to prove a point, it's best to move on to another issue.) Most of the John Hughes films and other music-heavy '80s flicks have only recently begun to emerge in their original, unaltered versions.

Josh: True, but the distributors of shows have the audacity to call them "complete", when it's clearly not the case.

I'm not a TV snob. There are a lot of shows I watch and enjoy, but TV offers sort of a shotgun approach to entertainment. With hundreds of hours on hundreds of channels, more stuff hits the mark, but none of it has the impact of my favorite movies every year. HBO and the BBC have consistently intersting stuff, but the US broadcast networks are too married to the idea of 100 episode syndication commitments and their product always ends up getting watered down even if they start strong. Gordon decides TV is getting better, but it's because the best TV is getting more movie-like. His real problem is he mostly sees bad movies. The only things on his radar for this weekend were Ghost Rider and Norbit!? Come on!

It is indeed a golden age for TV, similar to what the movies went through in the Sixties when the Production Code was finally demolished. Because the subscription cable channels are not held to most broadcast standards, there are many things on television, even on some competing non-subscription channels such as FX, that would receive an NC-17 rating if they were submitted for theatrical play, and yet no one seems to be complaining or holding Congressional hearings about it. It is this freedom from overly stringent content restrictions that has drawn artists to the medium and enabled this fantastically entertaining and rewarding creativity to flourish. The Shield may indeed be the best dramatic television series ever, at least during its first three seasons, specifically because it could use the sex and violence to hold a viewer's attention while it was constructing its incredibly dense moral web, something that yes, a film would never be given the time to accomplish. Widescreen TVs and DVDs have leveled the two mediums. Spectacle still plays a little bit better on the big screen, but as Alfred Hitchcock pointed out a long time ago, there are stories you can tell on TV that no one would have the patience for in the movies, and with the taboos lifted, artists are rushing in to explore territories that have never been explored outside of the art house circuit.

Carnivale should be added to the list, by the way, and while technically television did come from radio, by the time it got off the ground beyond the few cities where it started, its primary talent and content resource was the serial and B movie studios, so it was a true progeny of both mediums (or three if you count the New York stage), not an extension of the one

Spectacle still works better on the big screen, sure. However, with the rapidly declining theatrical experience, I'll sacrifice the big screen if it means no babies crying, cell phones ringing, obnoxious talking or subpar presentation.

And you're overstating what they show on channels like FX. I've seen every episode of "The Shield" and "Rescue Me," but they still don't use the F-word or show graphic nudity such as pubic hair or areolas. Most episodes would be a light R, while many would be PG-13.

i disagree.

all these beloved shows share excess in sex & violence usually with anti-hero characters and shows striving too hard to be "adult" -- and of course people get hooked and justify the hours spent watching elevated soap operas. not all, but most.

tv still sucks.

Doug: "that would receive an NC-17 rating if they were submitted for theatrical play, and yet no one seems to be complaining or holding Congressional hearings about it."

Actually, there are calls to regulate cable for indecency in the same way as network tv.

I think Pratt's overstating just how good The Shield is. It's got a great pulp, almost comic book thing going on, but in terms of maturity, complexity, and restraint on preposterous plot twists, it's definitely swimming in the shallow end of the pool.

Now, you want a show that's got kick ass action, Dynasty level bitchfights and juicy political intrigue, try Rome. That show is the shiznit.

In my opinion, overall, TV has been consistantly better than movies since about 1994. Since then we've had steady streams of high quality comedies (Friends, Fraiser, Newsradio, Scrubs, Raymond, Arrested Development, Simpsons, South Park, Animaniacs, Pinky & The Brain, Seinfeld, 30 Rock, etc) and dramas (X-Files, Homicide, Law And Order(s), CSI(s), West Wing, Shield, Sopranos, Murder One, Six Feat Under, Now And Again, 24, Alias, Ally McBeal, The Practice, Boston Public, Boston Legal, etc) that have matched, if not exceeded the best that cinema has had to offer each year. Even in arenas that Hollywood does best, there has been no better, tenser thriller in the last 20 years than the first season of 24 or the first and second seasons of Alias. In fantasy and superhero fiction, only Batman Begins, Star Wars III, and The Lord Of The Rings comes close to the quality offered up almost casually by Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Lost, and the 14 year run of Bruce Timm/Paul Dini DC cartoons (Batman, Justice League, etc). Hell, even mediocre genre fare like Smallville manages to be better and more emotionally honest than the allegedly high-brow Superman Returns, to say nothing of the intentional crap like Ghost Rider. Name any two courtroom dramas half as good as any given episode of the first ten or eleven seasons Law and Order or the two years of Murder One? Over all, every film genre is almost consistantly outmatched by the equivelent television product.

The reason (again in my opinion) is simple. In television, they cannot do $100 million worth of production values and $20 million stars. The only card they have to play is the stuff that really matters: writing, acting, storytelling, character development, the very things that 90% of studio product seems to seriously lack. Television has to entertain without the razzle dazzle, so they do it the old fashioned way: by being good.

Scott Mendelson

OddDuck: Fuck that. I do love Rome. But to relate The Shield to a comic book made me cringe. The Shield is magnificent television. Sure it's in your face, it's supposed to be gritty and ugly(the style alone is amazing and extremely unique when compared to other shows on right now). I don't know if you've seen the recent season, but as far as maturity and complexity goes, it's got it in spades. I also don't see why you would call anything on the show preposterous, every shocking "twist" has been great and has lead to interesting character development. Ultimately, it's a show about the grey area; nothing is in black and white. I have not seen The Wire, but as far as gritty cop shows go, The Shield is unmatched.

Good point, Scott. That connects with part of the point I raised before--about movies descending from silent film and photography while TV shows came from radio and theater: There's more emphasis in movie making on the development of film-making technique and technology--special effects, cinematography, sound design, costumes, etc. The incredible no-cut sequences in Children of Men would never have happened in a TV show, nor would have the fight sequences in The Matrix.

Meanwhile, innovations in story-telling style and character development are more the province of TV.

Geoff, The Wire makes The Shield look like The District.

Sorry, had to say it, and trust me, it's much much more a comment on The Wire than The Shield.

I really like Shield, and saw and very much enjoyed last season (the one with Forest Whitaker), but yeah, I definitely think some of the plot twists are silly and strain credulity. That said, there definitely is some great character work. Mackey is one of the great TV cop anti-heroes out there. But I just wish the show were a little, well, smarter. But please don't get me wrong, The Shield is definitely top-notch fun engrossing television, it's just not something I'm able to take too seriously.

But I highly, highly, highly recommend The Wire. No single episode will make you a fan, but the cumulative effect of any of its seasons will simply take your breath away. Many smart critical minds out there agree that it's simply the best tv show made in the past twenty years, perhaps ever.

boston legal equitable to films? no. kelly's smart-ass glib writing is perfectly suited for tv. and makes me glad for film.

I truly believe that "The Wire" will be considered one of the great pieces of art in all of history centuries from now. It is just so far ahead of everything currently out there, TV or Film.

That's what they say about The Wire. People I talk to seem to have tunnel vision when watching that show because they all say it's utterly genius and no other show can match it. But they seem to be very different shows. That fact that you said "no single episode will make you a fan, but the cumulative effect..." is very telling to me. Not every show can be that sprawling and complex, especially when comparing The Shield, which really, is actually a small time chracter drama and there are single episodes that can win you over. I get it, I really do, The Wire is smart smart smart. I will check it out someday.

Wow, 29 comments, and you haven't even touched "Heroes," yet, I think. Two smart fanboys at work go at it, but it doesn't even get me close to wanting to watch it. The Sarah Silverman Program last night was all right, kind of Curb Your Enthusiasm-ish. How's my syntax, jeffmcm?

I was entertained by the potential of Heroes but have never gone back to it after the December hiatus. Good idea. Weak execution.

"Heroes" is a good show, not a great one. I keep watching it, but there's a reason I didn't list it in my first post.

"Smart" has almost been sort of a knock on The Wire, along the lines of "Oh, it's that smart show that the critics say is really complicated and challenging. I think I'll go watch something else that's more fun." Based on the condescending and somewhat obnoxious praise it's gotten, I could easily see myself being turned off by it (I lucked into it in season 1 and stuck with it since).

But here's the thing about The Wire -- it's hilarious. Really truly funny shit. Of course it's dark humor, humor about corruption and stacked odds and human ignorance, but it's really funny all the same. And beyond the humor you've got some great bad guys and rogue characters that will go down as some of the greatest ever on TV. Stringer Bell. Omar. Those who watch it know what I'm talking about. And then on another level, it's just a really cool police procedural - you get to see smart (and dumb) detective work from a perspective that hasn't really shown up on TV before.

And what I should have elaborated on earlier with the "cumulative effect" comment wasn't so much aimed at complexity although that is there. It's just that each season is like a novel, and unlike a season long plot on the Wire, there really aren't secondary episode-length mini-stories -- it's just one long novel. It definitely requires more attention from the viewer, but it's not like I'm some brain surgeon.

I've heard of the "fuck" scene. It does sound funny. But for now....THIRTEEN!

Except for a handful of programs like The Sopranos, television evaporates minutes after we watch it. While there are tons of forgettable films out there, every year there are 20-40 that have depth and style and linger in our consciousnesses. We often begin watching a TV episode uncertain whether we've already seen it. The difference between the two is still fast food vs. a solid meal.

Scott: Friends is NOT a "high quality" comedy. And Ally McBeal is not really a drama. Also, if Buffy's that great, why couldn't Whedon branch out with Serenity?

TV vs Film circa 21st century Steelcage Deathmatch:

In the TV corner, Joss Whedon, JJ Abrams, David Kelley, David Chase, Aaron Sorkin, Alan Ball, Darren Star, Marc Cherry, David Milch, Larry David, Simon Fuller, Mark Burnett, Sean Ryan, David Simon, Dick Wolf, Matt Groening, et al.

In the film corner: Martin Scorsese, Sidney Lumet, Paul Greengrass, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillerno del Toro, Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, Florian Henckel von Dennersmarck, Clint Eastwood, Pedro Almodovar, Claude Miller, Alain Resnais, Claude Miller, Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan, Ang Lee, et al.

Let's get ready to RRRRRRRUMMMMMBBBBBBLE!!!!!!!!!!

whoops, two claude millers. Unfair! His "Classe de neige," whipsaws Marc Cherry while "Alias Betty" clotheslines David Kelly, then "That Sweet Sickness" delivers a punishing haymaker to Alan Ball!

So... Miller goes out and tags a lethal teammate, wearing Vatican colors and a cape the Pope gave him, Ermanno "The Sacred Italian" Olmi! "Singing Behind Screens" bodyslams JJ Abrams to the canvas and "Profession of Arms" pins Joss Whedon for the three count!

This is getting ugly!!!!!!!

"While there are tons of forgettable films out there, every year there are 20-40 that have depth and style and linger in our consciousnesses."

20-40?

I was thinking 2006 looked really good because there were maybe 5 or 6.

TS: I don't know which pics you are thinking of in your "20-40 that have depth and style and linger in our consciousnesses," but I'll submit these 25 from my list, with this slight modifier - "depth and/or style":

Apocalypto, Lives of Others, Volver, Flags/Letters, Departed, The Queen, Notes on a Scandal, Venus, Little Children, Borat, Happy Feet, Cars, Talladega, Reprise, Days of Glory, Pan, Casino Royale, Prestige, Half Nelson, Blindsight, Tideland, United 93, Devil Wears Prada.

That leaves off two best pic nominated films that seem to have reached a lot of people, as well as COM and Dreamgirls which also reached a lot of folks and I guarantee that there's at least five of the films from the foreign language submissions that are first-rate and memorable but we never get our ojos on them.

I can't remember a year when I felt it was so easy so often to say to someone, "watch these films, they're worth your time."

TS: I don't know which pics you are thinking of in your "20-40 that have depth and style and linger in our consciousnesses," but I'll submit these 25 from my list, with this slight modifier - "depth and/or style":

Apocalypto, Lives of Others, Volver, Flags/Letters, Departed, The Queen, Notes on a Scandal, Venus, Little Children, Borat, Happy Feet, Cars, Talladega, Reprise, Days of Glory, Pan, Casino Royale, Prestige, Half Nelson, Blindsight, Tideland, United 93, Devil Wears Prada.

That leaves off two best pic nominated films that seem to have reached a lot of people, as well as COM and Dreamgirls which also reached a lot of folks and I guarantee that there's at least five of the films from the foreign language submissions that are first-rate and memorable but we never get our ojos on them.

I can't remember a year when I felt it was so easy so often to say to someone, "watch these films, they're worth your time."

Agreed, Mgmax. I've seen over 60 movies released last year (probably low for this site, but still), and there are a grand total of five that I would consider anywhere close to "great."

I think that TV is by and large just as enjoyable as the movies. I probably have spent more time in the past couple of years watching more TV than movies - whether it be on DVD or stuff I catch online. The list over the past three years includes: Battlestar Galactica, Deadwood, 24, Arrested Development, Veronica Mars, Lost and The Office.
At this point, I'm willing to say that the TV version of Friday Night Lights is better than the movie - and I love the movie.
Still, you're not going to get something like The Fountain on TV. I was going to say that I haven't been totally blown away by TV like I have some films, but there have been episodes of Lost and BSG and Deadwood that just surpass my expectations for those shows and TV in general.
And everyone keeps on going on about The Wire. I'm definitely checking it out.

I would take Homicide: Life on the Street over any film drama.

And, of course, I would take certain seasons of The Simpsons over anything. Books, movies, music, whatever.

I'd forgotten about Homicide. That was a fantastic show!

T. Holly: acceptable. But stick with it because most of the time, you're f___ing annoying. (I've been out drinking, hence my boldness.)

I've only read part of this thread so forgive me if I'm being redundant, but I would just like to say THE SIMPSONS at its absolute prime (roughly Seasons 3-7) are as good (and continue to hold up) as just about any feature film comedy I've seen in the last two decades. Of course that show has stretched its credibility with a decade of at best mediocore work (I don't watch anymore) but that doesn't change those past seasons. The same can also be said of the Mike Judge show KING OF THE HILL, its past its prime now, but at its best, its a very funny, shockingly humane comedy.

I do think this comparing apples and oranges. that said I agree the tentpole mentality is not great for film. I would rather re-watch episodes of ROME than most of the films I saw last year. The films I love have some kind of emotional pull, whether they are comedies, dramas, action films etc. I like to watch movies about interesting characters. CGI without emotion bores me after 10 minutes. I go where the stories are and right now many of the best ones are on TV or foriegn flicks where there are actual grown ups.

Well, if JJ Abrams, David Kelly or Larry David are such excellent storytellers, why when they woek for the silver screen they deliver such horrors as Mission Impossible 3, To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday or Sour Grapes?

Lets not forget maybe the greatest inovation in TV over the last five years: TIVO!

I've been saying for years that what we're lacking in quality movies (and boy are we lacking) we're getting in quality TV shows. Series like The Sopranois and The Wire, which are really like 65 hour movies, are the towering acheivments in fiction over the last 5-10 years, IMO. I don't know if I'd trade them for a great run of movies (and I miss movies), that's how spectatcular they are.

The first season of The Sopranos is brilliant and seasons 2 and 3 were able to maintain a considerable bit of that charge, but the show has been spinning its wheels for quite some time, and the "suprise" deaths have become more of a gimmick than born out of any dramatic necessity.

I'm curious what Jeff thinks of this thread. As a loyal HE reader, and--as I've indicated on this thread--more and more a watcher of great television on DVD, and less and less a watcher of movies, I've been wanting Jeff to branch out a little and report/comment upon the world of great/aspiring-to-be-great series television. Jeff comments on the Sopranos when new seasons come out, but that's it. I'd love to know more about the creative juices behind The Wire, Deadwood, The Shield, Curb, 24, House (not mentioned yet, I don't think, but fantastic in my opinion). And I'd love to hear Jeff's acerbic opinions on all of the above, including how those currently running shows compare to older fare, like Homicide, Oz, etc.

And I'd be curious to know about how Hollywood types view the TV and movie industries respectively. Is it interesting for instance that someone like Alan Ball wins an Oscar for screenplay and rather than writing more screenplays creates a very ambitious (but I'd argue flawed and over-rated) TV show? Are guys like Abrams and Whedon ultimately aspiring to be movie makers or does TV inspire them/free them more? What's the deal with David Milch, seemingly the Michael Mann of TV? What's the deal with David Chase? What is David Mamet doing in series television--as creator, exec director, head-writer and director of The Unit (another awfully good show) and with his guest directing and writing gigs on The Shield? How hard is it for the writers and directors of 24 to produce those ridiculous plots? How can the best comedy I've seen anywhere ever (Curb) not have scripts and depend entirely on improvisation and exquisite editing?

I admire Jeff's work for its focus primarily upon those moving-picture artists who truly aspire to produce enduring and innovative art, not merely commercial fare. And I'd argue that more and more of those sorts of artists are working in TV.

D.Z. I completely agree with you about the problem with watching TV shows on DVD is the lack of proper music. Two more recent examples that I can think of are "Scrubs" and "My Name Is Earl," two shows with soundtracks integral to their success.

Agreed Movie Man. This is why I'm actually not sad they cancelled Deadwood. The're giving it a chance to go out with pride before it runs out of steam. Most shows don't know the concept of "leave them wanting more". They've got 2 maybe 3 good years in them and the rest is just taking advantage of the good will built up when the show was firing on all cylinders.

"Apocalypto, Lives of Others, Volver, Flags/Letters, Departed, The Queen, Notes on a Scandal, Venus, Little Children, Borat, Happy Feet, Cars, Talladega, Reprise, Days of Glory, Pan, Casino Royale, Prestige, Half Nelson, Blindsight, Tideland, United 93, Devil Wears Prada. "

One problem for film is that when most people (not film critics going to free screenings) go to the movies or decide what to rent, they don't choose subject matter like that of "Little Children", "Lives of Others", "Tideland", "Half Nelson" or "Notes on a Scandal". And they do not usually rent foreign movies either.

This because they are looking for an experience. Usually an uplifting one, but they might settle for "exhilarating" or, even less often, "stimulating". But they do usually not want gamble their money and/or time on something edgy.

But tv is different. It's cheap, usually free. And even if it's viewed on cable or dvd, it offers much more quantity for your money. And best part is that you can usually sample it for free in some sense, as well as sample it at convenient times in your home.

So unlike movies, you usually don't have to fear losing your investment - going to the cinema that could be either a saturday night out or your hard earned dollars/euros - by trying something edgy.

Also; tv does not have the need to compress storylines and character development in the same way as movies. This problem creates many awkwardly artful premises as filmmakers try to innovate.

So my point is: People that might have enjoyed these 20-40 films with substance won't and instead probably end up seeing lesser tv-versions on the same subject matter or with similar characters.

As of right now, movies look like one of the most poorly positioned forms of storytelling among the choices available to the consumer. Novels have their place, tv as well, even comics. But movies seem almost superfluous. It's unfortunate since I write about film and really hold it as my favourite art form, but that's how it looks (at least from Europe).

"D.Z. I completely agree with you about the problem with watching TV shows on DVD is the lack of proper music. Two more recent examples that I can think of are "Scrubs" and "My Name Is Earl," two shows with soundtracks integral to their success."

Yes, but it's not a problem anymore as TV shows are writing music contracts with DVD in mind. This is primarily a problem with older shows that didn't consider any sort of home video market when buying certain music.

Movie Man: Oh, yeah, I forgot. The Simpsons haven't been funny in 10 years. That movie looks like an abomination, too. What the hell was Murdoch thinking? South Park and Family Guy are where it's at nowadays.

The "Golden Age" of TV transition actually started with a trickle back in the early 1980s, with St. Elsewhere, Hill Street Blues, Cheers and others leading the way. ... St. Elsewhere was so ground-breaking and ahead of its time, it's not funny. Today's medical shows are still playing catch-up.

I'm one of those that just a few years ago would have been saying how much better movies are and can be than television. Although, even then I would take a good Northern Exposure episode over most movies. But now, while there are some really great movies that come out, you'd have to be blind to not see that the current has changed. Are there some movies that come out that blow most television out of the water? Certainly. And vice versa. When each are at their best, they do different things in different ways. Movies can be brilliant specifically because of their very conciseness. And television can be great for it's ability to expand, linger, and build to a slow burn. I'm not here to say one is better than the other, heck, i want them both, but each in terms of their own histories and in terms of the current surrounding them in our culture and at our water coolers, i do feel television has the juice.

For me personally? I absolutely loved and had a great experience with Pan's, but i much more often find myself wondering what Vorenus is gonna do next.

The ratio of worthless to worthy is still the same in either category. Any given network or cable channel (outside of HBO maybe) has at best two shows very much worth watching - and dozens that just make the medium worse.

But the fourth season of "The Wire" last year was the best work of art in any format.

The Wire is a great series and if you projected the 12 hours in an arthouse, it would be raved about as cinema like certain Euro TV shows that became "art" since they came to us in art houses rather than a TV network like Das Boot, the Decalogue or Berlin Alexanderplatz.

And I enjoy HBO's Cathouse. More real hookers need to be shown instead of Hollywood's Pretty Woman and Klute fantasies.

Also did I miss anyone talking about "Oz?" Cause that series showed what you can really do with a prison drama. Vern Schillinger still scares me when he puts on a wig and goes after Spiderman.