Television Vs Film/Trilogy

What can a television series do for a storyline that a feature film, or a film trilogy can't?

What stories have been more successful as TV series than films?

The advantage television has to film is that depending on the length of the show, you can actually gauge the audience reactions and adapt it to your story. Best example of this I can think of is Breaking Bad; Jesse Pinkman was originally supposed to get Killed Off for Real in the first season but the writers strike forced them to hold off. After realizing how popular the character was with the audience they fleshed him out accordingly.

Now, in the wrong hands, Pandering to the Base can also ruin a series. I tend to see Glee as the golden standard of that.

TV they have a lot more time to present the story, which can allow for a better build up with more information. Movies have far less time. Look at Stargate: Ark of Truth. Straight to DVD movie, but it was the wrap up for Stargate SG 1's Ori story arc. How they found out about the Ark in the film was left to a short (~<5 minutes) scene of exposition that said Dr. Jackson saw it in a dream. If they had a full season of the TV show the writers probably would have spent at least a whole episode on finding out the Ark was a thing and that they should find it.

edited 12th Nov '14 12:17:18 PM by stingerbrg

I definiteley prefer TV Shows over Movies, simply because they have more time to develop their stories. This is especially obvious with adaptions. I still maintain that Harry Potter for example, would have worked way better as a TV Series. (Perhaps 8 to 10 episodes per season?). On the other hand imagine trying to make Game Of Thrones into movies. I have not read the books, but from what i heard they had to leave a lot out already.

I think the best TV shows that have ongoing stories are the ones that have a different story each season. If your story is supposed to continue till the end of the show, well, fans are going to argue about the quality of each season combined, and why go back to watch lower-quality episodes to understand what's going on now?

George R. R. Martin had been getting movie offers for years but turned them all down for that reason.

The benefit of shows over movies is having time to build up the characters so they feel more well-rounded. The plot can be more developed, too, so it has the potential to be more engaging. And things like Chekhov's Gun are easier to implement when every second isn't totally precious like it is in a movie. In general, television is a more intimate process than movies, which are more about getting the end product done.

The downside of television is the much more likely possibility of it dropping in quality towards the end, which for shows with overarching stories is really unsatisfying. They also require much more time dedicated to them from viewers, which can be really off-putting for some people. This is sort of a sillier reason, but movies typically have bigger budgets and so can do some spectacular things TV would never be able to do. Movies also tend to be more focused and have a much better idea of where the plot is going.

I prefer TV because of the character development.

Obviously, this isn't always true. There are lots of movies with great character development and many shows with really tight overarching plots. But just in general.