Image Credit: Cliff Lipson/CBS; DisneyTV shows are better than movies. The stories are more intricate. The actors are unencumbered by digital effects. Once you watch The Wire, cop movies look stupid. Once you watch Battlestar Galactica, Avatar plays like a billion-dollar screensaver. Or at least, so goes the great argument in favor of the new Golden Age of Television: In a decade that saw the big screen become dominated by superpowered boy-men and Heigl-bots desperately seeking male validation, TV created Mad Men, Lost, The Wire, 30 Rock, etc.
Steven Zeitchik of the L.A. Times has put his own stamp on the Great Debate, in an evenhanded essay that comes down politely but firmly on the side of the silver screen. “Are there two hours of television in the last few years,” he writes, “that achieved, on the screen and in our minds, what The Hurt Locker or Slumdog Millionaire did?” That’s a good question, and my answer is “Yes, The Pacific episodes 7 & 8, and any two episodes of Breaking Bad.” But to me, it’s irrelevant to compare greatness to greatness. Doesn’t it make more sense to compare the two mediums’ mediocrities? By which I mean, would you rather watch CSI: Miami or Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland?
The cop show and the Disney CGI romp have quite a bit in common. CSI: Miami is spin-off of CSI (and a spiritual sequel to Miami Vice), while the new Alice in Wonderland is a remake/homage/sequel/whatever of the original Lewis Carroll classic. Both the TV show and the movie feature great actors (David Caruso and Johnny Depp) in truly awful acting roles…and I think you could argue that, in both cases, the awfulness is kind of the point. Both TV show and movie are so gorgeous to look at that it’s possible to completely avoid paying attention to the nonsensically overwritten plots. CSI: Miami is successful, but lives in the shadow of CSI: Original Blend, while Alice in Wonderland is arguably the most forgettable movie to ever gross $1 billion.
What I’m trying to get at is that both projects are utterly middling. They are professionally made. They will not aggravate your brain more than a low-key tension headache. Alice in Wonderland is not Jonah Hex. CSI: Miami is not CSI: New York. They are perfectly mediocre examples of contemporary cinema and television. Having watched plenty of CSI: Miami and sat through Alice in Wonderland more than a few times (it’s a good in-flight movie), I’d pick the bad movie over the bad TV show any day.
Put it this way: Bad TV is merely annoying, like a machine that has broken down. Bad movies are like machines that have gone insane, and sometimes, that insanity is a good thing. I can’t think of that many examples of TV that is literally so bad it’s good (except John From Cincinnati, which regularly rises below awfulness into transcendence.) Whereas movies simply overflow with splendid terribleness: Wicker Man, anybody?
Again, I’m not trying to argue that Mad Men is worse than There Will Be Blood, or that Inception is decisively better than Lost. I’m just saying that the worst TV shows have none of the redeeming qualities of the worst movies. Agree? Disagree? Think Alice in Wonderland is a masterpiece and David Caruso is our greatest living actor? Sound off below!
Apples and oranges…
Of these 3 shows, Mad Men is the least interesting and the most boring. Breaking Bad is better than Mad Men without a doubt, but LOST is in a different league. Some of the best episodes of LOST deserve to be presented in theaters because of the beautiful cinematography and scenery, amazing stunts and incredible characters of the show. Even the series finale was like a big movie, regardless of what you think about the final message of the show.
And the Wire is better than Breaking Bad. I love Breaking Bad and Cranston but that’s what’s starting to bug me about this show. It’s not even the best show of the Top 10 years the Wire is. And it got zero Emmy nods. At some point, no matter how good Breaking Bad is, the praise is just going overboard. And yes to all of the author’s original questions: spans of Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Dexter, Breaking Bad, and the Wire were better than anything in movie theaters this decade. There Will Be Blood might come close, but it’s a sad commentary that there’s only one movie that can even come close.
TWBB and Mad Men are both great but incomparable. Inception>>>Lost, though, because it could actually follow through with its intriguing concept.
Inception = not better than LOST.
Bad TV = way better than a bad movie since you’re not stuck watching it for 90+ minutes
Agree 100% (although I did love Inception)
I loved Inception too, but I don’t think ANY movie is capable of achieving what Lost did with its final episode, and even more than a few before that.
Exactly.
I envy you. You’re so easily pleased.
What lost did with it’s last episode? You mean preached the jesus gospel and did practically nothing to resolve 6 years of “mystery” storylines? Yea you’re right movies tend to at least attempt to tie up loose ends.
Darren, you CHANGED YOUR ARGUMENT half way through the article! You set out to compare mediocre TV and movies, and ended your conclusion comparing the worst TV and movies!
If we stick to your *original* premise, mediocre TV is better than a mediocre movie. Why? TV is necessarily better paced. A mediocre romantic comedy like Accidentally on Purpose is soooo much better than a mediocre Rom-com like The Ugly Truth or The Bounty Hunter — at 22 minutes versus 2 hours, it’s less harm on the brain, and less minutes to naked male torso, which is kind of the point, no? (Plus, Jon Foster > Gerard Butler) Also, Bradley Cooper Alias > Bradley Cooper A-Team.
I noticed this too! It made me confused which argument he was making. Bad tv is bad, but im of the opinion that because tv episodes are shorter, you get out of your pain quicker. But that said, good tv shows certainly outdo movies. Shows like Breaking Bad, Dexter, The Sopranos and Sons of Anarchy etc are far better than most movies ive seen this decade.
I don’t even understand the argument in the first place. Comparing great TV to great movies is irrelevant?? Why? Personally, I don’t bother watching TV or movies that I find mediocre, I’ve got better things to do with my time. So comparing mediocre vs. mediocre is completely irrelevant to me.
Amen Strepsi. I was intrigued by the premise of this article/column. It reminded me of the thought-provoking journalism that EW used to practice many years ago. Then I got halfway thought this diatribe and realized it was just the latest in a long line of mediocrity on this website whose sole purpose was to lead up to the inevitable “tell us what you think” tagline. Just another waste of electronic ink by the once-proud journalistic entity formerly known as Entertainment Weekly.
Not to be bitchy, but perhaps the author does not have a full grasp of the meaning of the word “mediocre”?
interesting article, i never thought of it that way.
“Alice” is a masterpiece, a “green-screen” masterpiece that is , I think that CSI: Miami is the best Drama (and Action, before you guys attack me for The Good Wife) on CBS, and Caruso is awesome , but I want to see more variety/versatility from him
haha, nice satire.
Great is great and terrible is terrible, no matter the medium. Movies don’t have Kardashians, so that’s a plus for them. But TVs have a remote control, which is a plus for them.
CSI: Miami is one of the very worst shows on TV. I would rather watch almost anything.
This is true, UNLESS you turn it into a drinking game and watch it with other people. Suddenly one of the worst shows on tv will seem like the most genius comedy/procedural you’ve ever laid eyes on.
And if I was Johnny Depp reading this article and saw myself and Caruso lumped together as equally great actors, my heart would break a little bit. C’mon! Him??? Looks like someone…(puts on sunglasses) has extremely low standards. Yeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!
old meme is old
snarky hispter is snarky? For the record, when one is discussing both the quality of CSI:Miami and the acting ability of one David Caruso, this joke, no matter how old, is both on point and completely appropriate. So there.
Gotta go with the tv. Barely mediocre movies often make me feel gypped. Barely mediocre tv can be like comfort food (something to relax with and keep mildly entertained – while not being emotionally invested – til bedtime). There are definitely shows that I watch despite knowing they’re pretty bad because they’re a way to turn my mind off and unwind. Can’t stick CSI: Miami in that category though. I hate David Caruso with a fiery passion that makes it impossible for me to watch.
Anne, I don’t generally agree with you, but I am so with you on despising Caruso. I can’t even stand to look at a photo of him in a magazine. The only other person I have such an aversion to is Kenny Chesney and now that I think about it they kind of resemble one another.
I believe that there is nothing worse than a mediocre movie because its really just feels like they half tried. But i feel like really terrible movies are a lot of fun to watch, like The Room or any SyFy original movie, which i guess is technically tv, but really bad tv is just for some reason really irritating, like Two and a Half Men, which literally makes me ill.
I think that Alice in wonderland was a good movie. But I mean Glee can do better music than most musicals yes I said that. But there some movies that are better than tv could ever do. LOTR is so much better than legend of seeker but legend of the seeker was better than Xenia.
Real musicals don’t use auto-tune.
Word. i hate when people talk about how much better Glee sounds than real musicals. In a real musical it’s all the singers voice it’s all on them, they don’t get do overs if they mess up and they don’t get their songs doctored.
bad tv is better, because you didn’t have to pay to watch it.
Bingo! At least if I’m watching a lousy TV show, I can change the channel. But after plunking down $10 for a movie, I feel like I want to get my money’s worth, even if it’s awful, so I have to sit there and suffer.
I have to say I strongly disagree. A truly BAD movie feels like a total waste of 2 hours to me. I sat through Watchmen a few months back and looked at my watch when it was over thinking “there’s 3 hours of my life I’ll never get back.” While there are plenty of bad TV shows that are entertaining to me (90210, Gossip Girl, Vampire Diaries anyone?) I can’t think of many bad movies that I watch for entertainment value.
I will take the bad movie over the bad tv show any day because they retain their entertainment value over time while the tv show just becomes cringe-worthy. In other words, I would watch Troll 2 over The Secret Life of the American Teenager every time.
The better question is, why would you watch a bad TV show?
Mediocre TV. Hands down. If not for the time commitment alone!
After sitting through mediocre films at the theatre, I feel like I have completely wasted my time (not to mention dollars.) After sitting through a wretched hour of NCIS (seriously, I don’t get it) I’m still far better off.
As for artistic merit, yeah, movies are in development for months and years before they are ever made… and the mediocre ones have to rise to the top in order to achieve a wide release. Mediocre films as an art form are absolutely more interesting than mediocre television (which are really produced just to fill airtime.)
Two different arguments. Two different answers.