Has TV Surpassed Film In Creative Quality?

>>79990714
>The Sopranos
It's a very good show, on par with Scorcese's films.
>Deadwood, to Breaking Bad
Watchable, fun shows. After season 2 BB went into full retard mode.
>Game of Thrones
Kek.
>Has TV Surpassed Film In Creative Quality?
No, it's a stupid meme invented by modern entertainment "journalists".

TV hasn't surpassed cinema for the simple fact that every landmark of the medium's quality always boils down to the same limited number of shows, you can count them with one hand actually. It's as if every discussion about cinema never went beyond Citizen Kane and Casablanca.

>>79990714
>Mentions commercialized garbage like game of thrones before wire and mad men
Kys faggot

I think the issue is one of false perspective (and the title of this thread proves the point).
There's a generation that fundamentally believes this ridiculous meme that TV is somehow vastly better "now" then it was "back then".

>>79990714
tv was awlays better in terms of quality. but recently with these groundbreaking shows+streaming+hollywood's decline as well as the massive film quality drop is leading to more money and better staff going to tv.
even 5 years ago you wouldnt see movie actors touch a tv role yet now they're doing it all the time.

>>79991654
>tv was awlays better in terms of quality.

No

I wouldn't say surpassed it, good films are still made but the bad ones make the most at the box office. However, shows like Breaking Bad and Deadwood sure make it an argument. And The Wire is probably the best thing ever made in tv or film.

>>79991028
There are plenty of great shows that aren't discussed regularly.

Generally, TV as a serious medium is still very much in its infancy; so the Citizen Kane comparison might indeed be apt, only that television has much more to offer now than movies at that stage.

>>79990714
the last season of GOT was absolute shit

>>79990714
Cinematography in film is far superior.

TV has the potential to surpass film on a screenwriting level, but very few shows do. There's two major flaws industry wide that I see. First is content. There are way too many shows that are content to just be the nth retread of The Sopranos without any of the the thematic or emotional depth. Crime stories, antiheroes, dark and moody tone, lurid sex and violence, period dramas. TV drama is so painfully limited in it's stories compared to all film has to offer.


But the biggest wasted potential is time. A show has the freedom to be 6-60 hours long if it needs too, "needs to" being the operative word. But too many shows think more = more, dragging out scenes and plots to fit runtimes, so half a season could be edited away and the story would stay the same. Most shows have such arbitrarily spacey pacing that it ruins the stories being told for me. If you wouldn't fight to keep a scene in with an editors knife hovering over it than it shouldn't be there at all. All shows have filler like this, but the great ones mask it with episodic plots and large supporting casts. The worst ones indulge it and just let scenes run 3X the length they need too