The Other Guys

[Pas]

Yeah I'm with Captain there. You can argue it's easier to get entertained by TV than by films (I'd agree with that I guess) but I don't know where you find all this ''artistically satisfying television''. There is some, of course, but it's damn hard to find.

Also I like new movies. I thought the 2000s was a pretty fucking awesome decade of cinema. Not as good as the 90s probably, but better than the 80s. And the best stuff of the 90s was in 1999 so most of that I saw in 2000 for all I know.

[©brad]

Who would have guessed we would reach a point where it would become easier to find smart, artistically satisfying television than to find smart, artistically satisfying movies?

While the artistry of television production has broadened over the years (why wouldn't it have?), I don't at all think it has supplanted or even surpassed the level of artistry in contemporary filmmaking.  This debate shouldn't be framed against the likes of The Other Guys, and not because it's a middlebrow comedy, but simply because it isn't an excellent example of visual storytelling.

Is there a television moment, for example, which can match the twelve minute sunrise which begins Silent Light?  Is there a television show which sustains an atmosphere comparable to 35 Shots of Rum?  How are elusive focal points manifesting themselves in contemporary television?  What show is matching the surreal sensuality of Weerasethakul's films?  And what television show is as regional, home-brewed, and idiosyncratic as contemporary American independent films (Jacobs, Bujalski, Katz, etc)?  Etc etc.

I wouldn't even agree with your assertion on a national level, but broadened to an international level, and with visual storytelling in mind, films are a world of difference.  The respective vanguards in each medium are admirably and invigoratingly exploring their own unique avenues of storytelling, but I don't see them doing the same things at all.  I don't see methods of visual storytelling being progressed in television, in comparison to what's happening in cinema.

I was speaking more from a mainstream perspective, but I would still argue that yes, there have been grand movements in visual storytelling in television that could go head to head with the indie fare you mentioned. If the 70s was the decade of movies, the oughts was the decade of TV, which experienced a true renaissance led by talented, artistically entitled auteurs who made a level of art that pushed more boundaries and was ultimately more exciting.

Name me a psychological thriller made in the last 10 years that could hold a candle to Lost, a modern sci-fi film as awesome as Battlestar Gallactic, a comedy as funny and smart as Arrested Development and 30 rock, satire as biting and hilarious as Weeds, a gangster film that rewrote the genre like The Sopranos did, dramas as transcendent and compelling as The Shield, 6 Feet Under, Mad Men, Breaking Bad. And don't even get me started on The Wire, which transcends TV, film, and books into it's own realm of badass that won't be topped for some time.

[polkablues]

My post was specifically referring to the difference between the television that's readily and easily available to us versus the movies that are readily and easily available (i.e., mainstream studio fare).  I'm wasn't trying to make a broader comparison between the art form of television and the art form of cinema, which is obviously still a battle in which cinema has the edge.

Also, what ©brad said.

[Captain of Industry]

Name me a psychological thriller made in the last 10 years that could hold a candle to Lost

I can name a psychological thriller from the past ten months, it's called Revanche and I'll loan you my copy.  You can watch it with Ghost Writer, Let the Right One In, Red Road, About Elly, Mother, and why don't you go ahead and watch There Will Be Blood too.  The board talks about it sometimes.

a modern sci-fi film as awesome as Battlestar Gallactica

Is there a moment of time travel as badass of Timecrimes?  If not, I'll simply pay for your Inception ticket.

a comedy as funny and smart as Arrested Development and 30 rock

Come on, man.

satire as biting and hilarious as Weeds

Since you've started digging the bottom of the barrel five titles in, I'd like to point out that I'm not a fan of a single one of the shows you've already mentioned, and although I'm greatly enjoying this as a game it's really a limp-dicked defense you're giving here.  I was trying to use specific movie moments as examples in my first post, and I apologize if you thought I meant to initiate some Entertainment Weekly type name listing.

a gangster film that rewrote the genre like The Sopranos did

A Prophet.  I'm using 2009 and 2010 here.

dramas as transcendent and compelling as The Shield

...

6 Feet Under

Five years old.  Get out of town with your Six Feet Under as an example.

Mad Men

I like Mad Men a lot actually.  

Breaking Bad

....

And don't even get me started on The Wire, which transcends TV, film, and books into it's own realm of badass that won't be topped for some time.

I wouldn't debate that The Wire is a great television show - but who talks like you?  "Transcends...it's own realm of badass" isn't an intelligent observation.  It's definitely not a point.  And it doesn't further your case.

I'm criticizing your post mainly, which was obviously bullshit.  If you'd like to discuss this topic I'd really like to.

[Stefen]

I hate half of those shows (and absolutely love the others), but I gotta agree with cbrad about the wire. It transcends everything.

[pete]

that argument was set up with good intentions, but all captain needs to do is to say he doesn't like the stuff cbrad mentioned - without really looking into their achievement in storytelling or filmmaking on television.
and the achievement really is too general a word - what's more interesting is how television has shaped and pushed the boundaries for popular entertainment, to the point where it's overtaken films in that respect.
otherwise, the tit for tat argument where one guy names one thing he likes that lasts 44 minutes and the other guy names something cool that's 3 hours long really goes nowhere.  the argument is ESPECIALLY tough for cbrad because all captain has to do is to just pick out ONE episode he doesn't like from an otherwise pretty solid show.  plus he starts cheating by naming any good movie that has mystery elements in there as "psychological thriller" and buries it amidst a whole slew of arguments and six hours later you have to sift through all of that for a movie-by-movie response.  not productive.  and then captain's gonna call cbrad limpdick.

lets continue the conversation by dropping the tit for tat strategy?
also lets drop "level of artistry" seeing how incredibly evocative and broad those three words are?  those arguments will get us nowhere, I promise you this.

aside from 30 rock and arrested development, I didn't like any of examples he's mentioned.  that being said, the film industry, with the overblown budget, the death of indie distributors, and the "leveled playing field" (via lower cost equipment and DIY self distribution) reflecting an even more uneven landscape of rich 20-somethings and their precious movements, really have lost a lot of balls.  the form still provides for better emotional depth and visual spectacles, but the experiment in pushing the envelopes in popular entertainment has been largely shouldered by television.  you really can't deny that.

and obviously I'm narrowing my argument down to a specific focus, mainly due to concerns with the format.  otherwise, film will win in every technical arena and television will win most scopes arenas - just because one is shorter and more expensive and the other one is vice versa.  though tv and film studios have now been crossing over quite a bit and setting up shops in each other's turfs.

tv used to be limited by the market, to play to the whims of the execs and advertisers who worship the "ratings" and those precious market research groups.  it hasn't gotten any better but unfortunately films, even indie ones, are increasingly bending over to the same whims.  and the great thing is that you now have channels and spots - not just paid cable channels - that are going after certain niches, that result in comedies that are allowed to do away with the same three plots, and can wind up much more offensive and zany than the movie counterparts.  though it seems like the rest of television are still bound to the self-perpetuating nature of the beast, and most of them will become needlessly serialized at one point or another.  but these are mainly problems inherent in the format.  in the areas where film and television overlap - mainly when they're both popular visual mediums aimed to entertain the masses - we are beginning to see the film industry lagging in that type of innovation, specifically when it comes to writing and development.

and it was ironic that captain countered tv comedies with judd apatow, himself a great television man way ahead of his time.

[Captain of Industry]

that argument was set up with good intentions, but all captain needs to do is to say he doesn't like the stuff cbrad mentioned - without really looking into their achievement in storytelling or filmmaking on television.
and the achievement really is too general a word - what's more interesting is how television has shaped and pushed the boundaries for popular entertainment, to the point where it's overtaken films in that respect.
otherwise, the tit for tat argument where one guy names one thing he likes that lasts 44 minutes and the other guy names something cool that's 3 hours long really goes nowhere.  the argument is ESPECIALLY tough for cbrad because all captain has to do is to just pick out ONE episode he doesn't like from an otherwise pretty solid show.  plus he starts cheating by naming any good movie that has mystery elements in there as "psychological thriller" and buries it amidst a whole slew of arguments and six hours later you have to sift through all of that for a movie-by-movie response.  not productive.  and then captain's gonna call cbrad limpdick.

I agree with this (I said it in fewer, less comprehensive worse), except I was pretty rigid with my criteria for  psychological thriller:  films which use the psychology of the protagonist to propel the narrative.  That's a fair boundary, and one I stuck to.  I also apologize for the use of combative and antagonistic words in my reply.  Hypocrisy is the word.

aside from 30 rock and arrested development, I didn't like any of examples he's mentioned.  that being said, the film industry, with the overblown budget, the death of indie distributors, and the "leveled playing field" (via lower cost equipment and DIY self distribution) reflecting an even more uneven landscape of rich 20-somethings and their precious movements, really have lost a lot of balls.  the form still provides for better emotional depth and visual spectacles, but the experiment in pushing the envelopes in popular entertainment has been largely shouldered by television.  you really can't deny that.

Envelope pushing is a relative concept, and what we're seeing in contemporary television is certainly, as cbrad stated, a true renaissance.  I can't deny that the artistic models for television have been reshaped for the better, though I think it was beginning at a much lower standard, and I simply disagree that popular fare is more efficacious and adventurous on television.

I also don't know why both you and cbrad want to pigeonhole awesome international and independent films into some obscure, esoteric void.  The reputations of films can grow through the years, and what level of popularity they have in their first releases is for me a secondary consideration to the intrinsic value of the film, leading into:

tv used to be limited by the market, to play to the whims of the execs and advertisers who worship the "ratings" and those precious market research groups.  it hasn't gotten any better but unfortunately films, even indie ones, are increasingly bending over to the same whims.  and the great thing is that you now have channels and spots - not just paid cable channels - that are going after certain niches, that result in comedies that are allowed to do away with the same three plots, and can wind up much more offensive and zany than the movie counterparts.  though it seems like the rest of television are still bound to the self-perpetuating nature of the beast, and most of them will become needlessly serialized at one point or another.  but these are mainly problems inherent in the format.  in the areas where film and television overlap - mainly when they're both popular visual mediums aimed to entertain the masses - we are beginning to see the film industry lagging in that type of innovation, specifically when it comes to writing and development.

It's weird that you dismiss my inclusions of artistic films, but aim to judge populist television by its artistic aspirations.  Isn't that a double standard?  In terms of popular entertainment, Avatar just broke the b.o. records.  Star Wars just had another trilogy.  Lord of the Rings.  The Dark Knight.  Comic book movies.  People still love the movies, and they still go to the movies like crazy.  The box office is up.[/Quote]

and it was ironic that captain countered tv comedies with judd apatow, himself a great television man way ahead of his time.

Ironic's not the word, because I was being intentional.  Here's a man whose voice couldn't reach an audience on television and now practically overwhelms the theaters.  Is his best work his movies?  I don't know.  I like Freaks and Geeks as much as the next guy.  But becoming an active and popular filmmaker sure blew open the doors for the man, and I've seen you in your posts, pete, compliment the level of craftsmanship, sincerity, and humor in his films and those of his friend-filmmakers.

[pete]

I'm hesitant to include foreign films because I haven't seen enough foreign television to aptly compare the two - though there are some great Korean dramas and BBC series out there and The Best of Youth was one of the greatest things to happen this past decade.
I also try to not have a "double standard" about the artistic merits of television by, as you can see in my previous post, shying away from the words "artistry" altogether.  I don't think I'll ever find anything like Last Life in the Universe in a television series; the form just won't allow it.  So I'm not so interested in pitting what movies are good at vs. what tvs are good at, except in criteria that is comparable.  otherwise, it's gonna go the way it started - with you listing your favorite films and someone else listing great tv episodes and you disagree with each other solely based on how much you like or dislike either.  I don't wish to push non-mainstream films into a void; I just don't think it's a useful comparison.

an aside for your boundary for psychological thriller - it may not be as rigid as you think, as any good movie will hint at the protagonist' psychology, are they all psychological thrillers?

[Captain of Industry]

I'm hesitant to include foreign films because I haven't seen enough foreign television to aptly compare the two - though there are some great Korean dramas and BBC series out there and The Best of Youth was one of the greatest things to happen this past decade.
I also try to not have a "double standard" about the artistic merits of television by, as you can see in my previous post, shying away from the words "artistry" altogether.  I don't think I'll ever find anything like Last Life in the Universe in a television series; the form just won't allow it.  So I'm not so interested in pitting what movies are good at vs. what tvs are good at, except in criteria that is comparable.  otherwise, it's gonna go the way it started - with you listing your favorite films and someone else listing great tv episodes and you disagree with each other solely based on how much you like or dislike either.  I don't wish to push non-mainstream films into a void; I just don't think it's a useful comparison.

Please don't grind an axe over the unintentional tangent into film listing.  I didn't intend to start it and let's not regress.

When I think of formally aggressive and daring filmmaking in our contemporary times, I think of independent and foreign films, mostly.  I think if we're unable to compare these with television shows it testifies to the lack of innovation in the medium, and I think that's fair.  Films operate on a global market, their rights are ideally sold on a global market, and I have access to films of all types.  That still exists.  Netflix exists.  Get the foreign t.v. shows over here, allow me access, allow you access, and we'll probably have a much more brilliant conversation.  As it is, the criteria here is acceptable:  films I can see vs. television shows I can see.  What I'm seeing happening in television versus what I'm seeing happening in filmmaking.  That's a strength films have.  It's essential to the conversation.

I don't see new narratives being birthed in television.  I see new models for traditional storytelling being pushed by the strengths of the television format, and I think that's great.  I think tv is kicking ass.  I certainly don't see anywhere NEAR the level of visual innovation currently occurring in contemporary filmmaking happening in television.  TV is just beginning to learn the cinematic language.

an aside for your boundary for psychological thriller - it may not be as rigid as you think, as any good movie will hint at the protagonist' psychology, are they all psychological thrillers?

Well no, they also have to be thrilling.

[pete]

alright, lets list.  why not.

if you really wanna compare the films you see vs the tv shows you see that's fine, I just won't be able to keep up with you much longer because really, I don't see that much television.  though BBC has consistently put out amazing work in terms of comedy and noir.  HBO has some amazing dramas and miniseries as well.  some of herzog's greatest docs were commissioned by tv actually.  in particular, land of silence and darkness and the white diamond.  

but I'm interested in how the medium is pushed and how television people - especially writers - cut the edge all the while having to work in a very overtly commercial structure and please thousands of bosses and suits.  you're right about television just beginning to learn its cinematic language, though its openness to improv comedy via innovative camerawork and editing is a bit ahead of the more clumsy approaches in film (see: the comedies of judd apatow, david gordon green, and adam mckay).  and in general I feel like this documentary-influenced approach to convey maximum visual information packs more punch when TV does it.  
about narratives birthed in television, I'm not sure what you mean and I'd like a birthed narrative in film as an example.  but one thing I've seen done well way better in TV than any film medium is narratives about a certain subject.  in film - sports films, culinary films, dance films, spy films, films about writers...etc., are still mostly about these very accessible characters delving not very deeply into their worlds.  Japan had a few hits like Tempopo and Shall Way Dance (or my favorite film of all time Ping Pong) that were more immersive in terms of the subjects, but they also had tv shows, comic books, and novels, that delve into the subjects a lot more heavily.  In the West these films are sorely missing - though documentaries in the last 20 years have begun making headways.  But TV shows like ER, Homicide, Friday Night Lights or reality programs like Top Chef and Project Runaway, are able to create narratives that are not driven by the five or six basic desires virtually every sports, cooking, or writer films are bound by.

and tv is also much better about mixing tones in many respects.  

again, it would be hard-pressed to find anything lyrical in TV, though I do find those epic Richard Attelborough miniseries quite poetic and powerful.  also if you wanna talk about technical innovation - programs like Planet Earth are kicking the asses of similarly themed docs like Wings of Migration.  top gear too.  I've only seen a snippet of that show, but wow that show knows how to capture speed and machinery.

and back to thrillers - I don't think a film like Mother, one of my favorites from last year - is any better than State of Play (the BBC version) or Edge of Darkness (again the BBC version) and both are certainly much, much better than Ghost Writer, or even episodes of Homicide when at its best.  as for other genres - I love the TV shows out there that are absolutely ambiguous about the tone of the show - such as Cowboy Bebop or The Singing Detective (both were made into terrible movies) - and I have rarely seen films that can combine superficial spectacles such as a spaceship chase or a full-blown musical sequence with the deep melancholy these shows have afforded.  films are either really good at one or the other, seldom both.  

as for technical innovations - it feels like all the time new cameras and equipments are being tested on music videos and commercials first, and now slowly you have these huge budget TV docs that are also embracing new technology.  I don't really see the film medium as heads and shoulders in this arena - unless we're talking specifically in terms of special effects.  James Cameron in a recent interview was talking about if 3D screens was to gain any real traction - TV would have to produce a major bulk of the contents since films can't catch up.

and now this is a great little clip from Top Gear:

[Captain of Industry]

His post just above mine.

I'll admit I was becoming frustrated and thinking like 'these people don't even want to have a real conversation' and so I really appreciate your replies including this last one and they do allow me to see more clearly what the television side of this argument is.

I see now the arena of debate you feared would be generated by becoming specific.  Being consistent, my logical reply would be to pick through your post and counter each point.  I really like your post though and I think your points are well-thought out and solid.  I only want to lament the call-out out on Ghost Writer, a perfectly good film that I chose to name because I thought it was well received on the board.  It's certainly not a high point in cinema right now, but it's a charming film.

But anyway, again I think you've articulated what is really admirable about contemporary television.  I'd like not to refute your claims, but offer my perspective on contemporary cinema, which I'll owe you.

[©brad]

Totally not trying to regress here but just for the record, I want to have "real conversations" too. I didn't mean for my admittedly half-assed, hungover post to be a contentious one. Not sure why you felt the need to jump on my ass over it but you apologized so it's fine. Pete said everything I was trying to say but couldn't.

So then, carry on.

[Reinhold]

 i think that we're largely ignoring that the TV and cinema are both computer-based anyway... the access point for the audience and the potential for inspired work is the same for both, and in both arenas there's drama and comedy and sex and violence and documentary, lots of content that is arguably worth people's time. [the wire and last life in the universe, i'll agree, are just amazing.] where there's a good people, funding, and buzz, there's good content to be made. so what's left to talk about is production value, creative license, and profit expectations.

it's not news that virtually all of cinema and tv is also available online, especially with apatow & co comedies and other films marketed to 20-somethings. what a lot of global cinema, for lack of a better word, lacks is legitimate distribution online, or more specifically less preparation for this kind of market. american "indy" cinema has obviously caught on to the web thing.  as for the major players in the west, who cares if movies are downloaded? studios just say it's a bad thing so that they can raise ticket prices. i'm sure they aren't slow to quote headlines that 900 million people a year watch blah blah blah illegally when they are selling product placement in movies.

budgets for big network tv shows are a few million dollars per hour of content, on a tight schedule with producers and lawyers groping every part of the script. budgets for HBO's stuff is in the tens of millions per season of a series, and that's only because they hire more freelancers than most shows, use cinema equipment, and get/make any location they want.  they hire extremely talented writers and develop ideas that are appropriate for the market while still engaging the artists producing the shows. HBO in particular also extremely strict post production standards for their content, and the contracts/capital to ensure technical quality, unlike most independent cinema productions in the west and elsewhere.

i conclude that in terms of appreciation, everything in every arena suffers probably as much as it gains by being instantly available for ever with everything else online, and once everybody in the smaller markets figures out how to adapt we'll see plenty of growth everywhere.

we've been close for a while, but the technology is almost "that cheap" and soon it will be. the next generation of HDSLR's will put 1990's studio cinema quality within reach to students and <$10,000 filmmakers. don't mistake this for general optimism, but since i love to consume art cinema but WANT to make tv commercials, i see reasons to be excited about both.

-------------------------------------

so, about those other guys...

[john]

This was sporadically terrific. The parts that work completely justify the more tedious sections.

What is constantly impressive about these McKay/Ferrell collaborations is how they seem equally pleased to include jokes that will appeal to 3% of the audience as they are jokes that will be widely received.

Because of that, I think a film like this is just as ambitious as something like Inception, but will never be acknowledged as such. It's a shame, too, because McKay is a pretty competent and daring filmmaker.

Two complaints:

I don't think Mark Wahlberg is as successful of a confidant to Ferrell as John C. Reilly has been - all of Wahlberg's natural charm is pretty much invisible throughout the film.

It's also a bit long, or at least feels like it is.

Other than that, a solid and commendably absurd summer comedy.

[Pozer]

this movie is butt mud.