[thewopr]

But what's interesting is that TV is having such a different trajectory (TV as in video packaged as episodes, the lines have blurred). Netflix and the like.

I often wonder if TV is winning because it has built-in sequels. If a series doesn't stick, whatever, money lost. If a new series does well, you can milk it for many many more seasons. TV vs Movies, the risk in cost is the same but the upside is much higher for TV.

[tw04]

That's because instead of trying to fill 3 movies, TV can just flow naturally until it's done. Yes, for some shows they end up with filler either because they want to drag it out, or they don't have quite enough to fill an entire last season... but for the most part it feels like TV shows don't have that pressure to fit into a very tight box.

[sirclueless]

    for the most part it feels like TV shows don't have
    that pressure to fit into a very tight box.

Don't they? I feel like TV is a lot more constrained than movies. The forced "last time on XYZ" cadence means that it's very difficult to have natural story-lines when things need to be wrapped up in a suitable emotional resolution and/or cliffhanger every 22 or 45 minutes. Especially when the writers are working with 25% of the screen time being commercials (thankfully much less of a problem with Digital-first TV from Netflix, HBO etc.).

I think it's a lot easier to write and produce a quality movie about just about anything. Yes the mass-produced sequel machines look pretty cookie cutter, but you also get some extremely well-told stories like In Bruges or Wes Anderson's stuff. There's anything-goes stuff like Swiss Army Man. I feel like this kind of thing couldn't realistically be produced for TV. The acting, writing, and production value falls off a cliff very quickly as soon as you leave the mainstream. Even a single season of a TV show means 6-10x as much content as a movie, and consistently conforming to the structure of a serial TV show means the content feels inevitably more repetitious.

[manarth]

> TV can just flow naturally until it's done

If only it stopped when it really was done: Firefly, The 4400, Terra Nova, SGU…

[maxerickson]

Firefly+Serenity could be a pretty great ~20 episode series.

If it followed TV success, it would have 50-100 forgettable episodes to go with 20 good ones.

I think this applies to an awful lot of stuff on TV. The economics of it mean that buying season 5 is a better choice than taking a risk on something new. I think better stories would get told if series were generally shorter.

[bing_dai]

I disagree with the opinion that "TV vs Movies, the risk in cost is the same but the upside is much higher for TV". Popular movies are almost always made into sequels/reboots/remakes.

Out of the top 20 movies of domestic grosses[0], only 4 are not sequels or reboots(Zootopia, Secrete Life of Pets, Central Intelligence, The Angry Birds Movie).

[0] http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2016

[thewopr]

Yeah, that's actually kinda my point. A sequel is kinda the same as additional seasons (or episodes) of a TV show. With a TV show, additional seasons are basically assumed unless it doesn't do well with the target market. But movies are sometimes prepared for sequels, and sometimes not. But apparently, sequels (or additional seasons of a show) are the best way to make money. So movie studios have an inherent handicap in that they tend to create episodes (movies) that have to stand alone, whereas TV, if good, will just gain viewership as they create more seasons.

I'm curious too with your number. How often does it take a series until the second or third season to gain notoriety and a large following. I feel like "Breaking Bad" took into the second season to really get a following. There must be other examples.

[GBond]

Agile (Netflix OS) vs Waterfall (Hollywood blockbuster), perhaps?