[tayo42]

Tv is a better format for visual story telling then movies could ever be. now that we have streaming its not bound to time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing. The stories are longer and can be more in depth.

Does TV get the best talent though? For some reason I thought they get paid less despite doing alot more work. All those actors from got went on to try movies afterwards.

[lotsofpulp]

More likely, in my opinion, is the the stories can also be too long and all over the place.

[lmm]

Compare the size of the story to another medium with different constraints. A 13- or 26-episode TV series can usually make a decent adaptation of a novel. A movie always has to cut a lot of stuff out.

[lotsofpulp]

The pendulum swings both ways. Unfortunately, I have seen far to many instances of episodic products that are excessively drawn out and waste my time.

[tayo42]

That's true, the potential is higher with TV I think think though. Story telling is a skill that anyone can screw up independent of the medium

[theshrike79]

> now that we have streaming its not bound to time limits or irrelevant commercial pacing

The Mandalorian is a perfect example of this. The episodes varied from 25 minutes(!) to 47 minutes. Just take the time the plot needs, no more.

[cronix]

> For some reason I thought they get paid less despite doing alot more work.

Are American TV shows as big of money makers globally as the movie industry? How much do American TV shows make in China vs Hollywood? Are they even shown? I don't know, but have never heard of it but have heard quite a bit about how much Hollywood makes in China.

I don't think it's the amount of work that dictates lower salaries for TV acting, but more likely the size of the market that the respective products are sold in and where that market is located (locally vs globally).