# Is TV an artistic medium?



## Violanthe (Nov 21, 2005)

It used to be that television production and acting had a poor reputation among Hollywood professionals. But in the last ten years more quality actors, writers and producers are finding a home on television. Many people who once worked in film have found both success and acclaim on television. Small screen cult classics with unknown faces draw as much attention from critics as their silver screen counterparts. What do you think? Do television productions deserve a literary and artistic respect, just as films have gained?


----------



## e.Blackstar (Nov 21, 2005)

Emphatically yes. Serious TV productions required just as much (or more) acting and screentime as do movies.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 21, 2005)

Ditto. Television has no less potential than the big screen. In fact, I think it's becoming more easy to find a quality program or series on TV than it is at your local theater.


----------



## Violanthe (Dec 8, 2005)

What TV shows do you find of particularly good quality?


----------



## e.Blackstar (Dec 8, 2005)

"Prison Break", for sure. "Lost" is good filming and acting but the plot twists and turns without ever getting anywhere. "CSI" is a favourite of mine, but not the spin-offs. "Numb3rs" is good stuff, with superb acting. "Stargate SG-1" is without a doubt the best show ever, but the last season or two have really 'jumped the shark' as it were. Still some gems, though.


I don't watch a lot of TV, so that's all I can think of for now.


----------



## Corvis (Dec 8, 2005)

What!? Someone badmouthing _Lost_. The plot twists and turns are suppose to keep you questioning, wondering, and wanting more. All the mystery is why people tune in each week. They want to know what will happen next. I definitely think that _Lost_ might be the best show on television right now and the best I've seen in a while. The acting is incredbile and so is the writing. A lot of stuff that happens in it is better than in a lot of movies. And don't forget that some of the greatest actors alive today like Tom Hanks and Jim Carrey got their starts on TV.


----------



## e.Blackstar (Dec 9, 2005)

Corvis said:


> What!? Someone badmouthing _Lost_. The plot twists and turns are suppose to keep you questioning, wondering, and wanting more. All the mystery is why people tune in each week. They want to know what will happen next. I definitely think that _Lost_ might be the best show on television right now and the best I've seen in a while.



Suspense is a wonderful thing, but all too often it seems like the writers themselves don't know where the show will end up.


----------



## Corvis (Dec 9, 2005)

True. I mean how many times have you heard people say that about the _Lost_ writers. They write the scripts week by week, so it must be difficult for them. There should be a thread for _Lost_ on the forum. I mean it's probably got a big enough fan base.


----------



## Hammersmith (Dec 9, 2005)

Lost is a soap opera, and so needs 1) to be simple, 2) to be easy to 'jump into' without knowing what's going on, 3) have a cliffhanger every episode. It's not a particularly engaging soap opera either. But then I don't like soaps in general. Television is becoming one huge soapfest. It's horrid. Also, if television wants to take itself seriously as artistic media it needs to drop about a thousand adverts an hour. It's truly becoming unwatchable. I'd rather splash out and buy a film than watch a two hour film over three and a half hours packed with adverts. Bah! Grumble!


----------



## Corvis (Dec 9, 2005)

What!?! _Lost_ isn't a soap opera. It's got action, humor, and drama. And I've never seen a soap opera on a tropical island before either. Plus, I think the acting in soaps aren't that good and the acting in _Lost_ is incredible. There's flashbacks and really creative directing techniques. Soaps are done very poorly, and the storylines are always the same. It's always a love story and nothing else, but _Lost_ has something new and fresh with each episode.


----------



## Hammersmith (Dec 9, 2005)

I'm afraid that Lost has all the characteristics of a soap opera. The line between drama and soap is very thin anyway, so call it a drama if it makes you feel better. A shiny gold rouble to anyone who can prove that Lost isn't a soap.


----------



## Corvis (Dec 9, 2005)

Hammersmith if you wish to discuss more about Lost I just made a thread for it in Stuff and Bother so go there if you want to. I posted a reply to yours there. And what's with the "call it a drama if it makes you feel better"? I don't want to seem sensitive but that seemed a bit like an insult.


----------



## Talierin (Dec 10, 2005)

I agree with Corvis, Lost is not a soap opera. If you've ever seen J.J. Adams' other work, he does eventually get someplace, but the suspense must be dragged out first  And the show is using some inventive storytelling techniques, I think that's Adams' strong points, his shows are almost experiments in filming and storytelling.

As for other TV shows, Alias is a favorite, but it's started to lose its touch now that Adams isn't involved with it anymore. CSI as always is really good, and I really like CSI: NY too (CSI: Miami is rubbish however). NCIS is hilarious, but I wouldn't really call it art, it's more of a sitcom wrapped in a not-quite-so-realistic bubble of a crime show.

MST3K, now there's art! 

Band of Brothers - tv special, but amazingly good and basically just a 6 hour long movie


----------



## Corvis (Dec 10, 2005)

Ahh!!! I agree with you Talierin. _Band of Brothers_ was amazing and it truly was a masterpiece. You should be excited to know that Tom Hanks is working on another WWII tv series about the Pacific war during WWII. It's due out sometime in 2007.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 10, 2005)

Violanthe said:


> ...Do television productions deserve a literary and artistic respect, just as films have gained?



The ones that do do, the ones that don't, don't. The dismaying thing is that television — an invention of stellar brilliance — like movies, like recordings — is the victim of the almighty dollar, and so I'd say that 95% of what's on TV is just plain cr*p, especially on the commercial stations. Most all the good stuff comes on the premium channels.

As in all things, you get what you pay for.

Barley


----------



## Corvis (Dec 10, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> The ones that do do, the ones that don't, don't. The dismaying thing is that television — an invention of stellar brilliance — like movies, like recordings — is the victim of the almighty dollar, and so I'd say that 95% of what's on TV is just plain cr*p, especially on the commercial stations. Most all the good stuff comes on the premium channels.
> 
> As in all things, you get what you pay for.
> 
> Barley


 
As Ellen Degeneres said at the 2005 Emmy's "the reason we love the paying channels is because they can curse and show naked people". 

And I'm glad to see that you found the thread Barley.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 11, 2005)

Corvis said:


> As Ellen Degeneres said at the 2005 Emmys: "the reason we love the paying channels is because they can curse and show naked people".



I guess that's another reason.  It just supports what I said before: You get what you pay for. Human entertainment — as with all human behavior — runs the entire gamut from the transcendentally uplifting to the transcendentally depraved...

Barley


----------



## HLGStrider (Jun 4, 2006)

I don't watch a ton of TV because I can't get it where I live. You can, for a price, hook up a satalite on top of your house in my neighborhood, but the most ridiculous attena hook up won't get you real TV and cable is out of the question way-way-out.

That said, my family watches a ton of "movies." We also have netflix and with our schedules find it is easier to get TV episodes which are now readily available on DVD and shorter than full fledged movies, so I see a lot of TV without the commercials. Mu ha ha (That said, I find commercials fascinating when I do see them. . . ).

Mostly, though, this is old television, stuff my parents remember. We watched EVERY episode of _The **** Van Dyke_ show. We watched a lot of MASH, some Taxi, some Cheers, and right now my parents are going through every last episode of Gun Smoke it feels like. 

Also, our "town friends" occasionally take pity upon us. Lizybet used to record Star Trek episodes for us. 

Josh-Josh loaned us the ENTIRE FIRST SEASON OF HOUSE!!!

Which comes to my point, the acting in House, I think, is as good as any movie and it has the advantage of an on-going plot device that A. Stays constant (ie every week they cure disease) B. Always changes (every week a new disease!). The writing is also excellent. I think that is definitely artistic.


----------



## Varokhâr (Jun 4, 2006)

HLGStrider said:


> Which comes to my point, the acting in House, I think, is as good as any movie and it has the advantage of an on-going plot device that A. Stays constant (ie every week they cure disease) B. Always changes (every week a new disease!). The writing is also excellent. I think that is definitely artistic.



Yes, _House_ restored my faith in TV to actually come out with something watchable. I haven't been this appreciative of a series since _Star Trek: Voyager_ came out, way back when.

TV has the potential to be an artistic medium, though usually, to me, it's just bread and circuses. Just mindless distractions to keep the citizens happy while Rome burns. That, and the overall low, low quality of most TV programming just makes the whole entity laughable. Aside from a show here and there, most TV is just worthless garbage, appealing to whichever trend the masses seem to want.

Such as _American Idol_. Now there's a dancing competition show (two, actually), an ice-skating competition show, and all of this came from _Survivor_ and competition-ish survival shows. It's all just variations of a theme. And nothing anyone does is unique, just rehashing the same old stuff. Absolutely no creativity or artistic merit, especially in week after week of listening to zombies get in front of judges and groan for brains.

TV has potential, of course, but most shows are just geared to appeal to the lowest common denominator of society. Very little of it aspires to anything of greater quality than that which came before. Personally, I'm content with DVDs and a few shows here and there. I really can't be bothered with the rest.


----------



## Talierin (Jun 4, 2006)

The new Doctor Who is really really good - it's actually quite refreshing to watch a BBC show on american television, you brits use the medium differently than we do over here. Better drama, better acting, better writing, and in the case of sci fi, less special effects to take over the episode. Also it seems like there's less commercials. I'm quite enjoying it - ok, so maybe I'm addicted to doctor who *looks around sheepishly*

American television right now pretty much sucks. CSI the original is a pretty good show, but after awhile it gets a little old, and the format for every episode is the same. I mean, I can look at the clock and tell you exactly what plot point we're at. For example, at 9:50pm is when they'll accuse a person of the crime, but then suddenly realize based on something they said or some tiny piece of overlooked evidence, that it was someone entirely different, in which they now have to track that person down and force a confession out of them. Forget their right to silence, they always get a confession, and, under as much pressure as possible, cause, you know, that's better tension in the episode.

As for other shows, Firefly rocked, if there was any show that should have stayed on tv longer it was Firefly. I like Lost, but it is a teensy bit soap opera and sometimes I want to throw things at the tv because the people on the island are so gosh darn stupid, and they pretty much have no survival skills to speak of, nor seem to need them. It's rather annoying.

I do like some reality tv shows *ashamed* but only the good ones, like The Amazing Race (I like seeing the different countries, and it's just fun to watch and make bets on who's getting kicked off - my sister and I get very loud watching this show when our favorite teams are behind, hehehe), America's Next Top Model (I like the clothes, and the interesting photography shoots), and Project: Runway (the clothes, and the fact it's all about design)

Worst reality show I've ever watched was American Inventor. Talk about lame, ugh.


----------



## Violanthe (Jun 12, 2006)

I agree with Firefly. TV is poorer for not having Joss Whedon shows on anymore.


----------



## cardanas (Jun 13, 2006)

Television has the potential to be an artistic medium and is recognised as such; unfortunately this potential is rarely utilised.


----------



## Mike (Jul 1, 2006)

Ecxept in "Bonanza". That was an excellent show!


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jul 2, 2006)

Mike, are you sure you're only 17?


----------



## Mike (Jul 2, 2006)

Yes, indeed, I am 17.

I was quite skeptical when my dad bought the boxed set of this show about a year ago, but afterwards I was hooked. Great stuff. A classic.


----------



## Alcuin (Jul 3, 2006)

Yes. TV is an artistic medium. 

Twinkies are nourishing food. 

Varda Elbereth Gilthoniel is really Tinkerbelle in disguise. Folks call her “VEG” for short. Only Manwë gets to call her “Veggie.” 

The Witch-king of Angmar is just that old prankster, Isildur, with a paper bag over his head, trying to see if he can scare Sam bad enough to make him change his lederhosen.


----------

