>tfw too patrician to watch the walking dead or game of thrones

>>87299541
No one watches walking dead

>>87299541
Who the fuck watches The Walking Dead?

>walking dead

Are they still on namek?

File: 85e.jpg (263KB, 764x551px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 764x551px

>tfw too patrician to watch any TV shows at all because why waste my time on such an inferior form of a visual medium when you have film

>>87299688
Television is objectively better though. A film will never tell a long-term story as well as books or television.

File: s7.png (34KB, 382x629px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 382x629px

normies are getting sick of TWD to, just a shame its so popular with foreigners who eat this shit up

File: 1466120840998.png (401KB, 1631x1571px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1631x1571px

>tfw to inteligent for sneed seed and feed

>>87299852
Television doesn't tell a good story though. A lot of character arcs are uninteresting filler and usually the longer a TV show runs for the more inconsistencies there are.

>>87299852
You're objectively wrong.
The primary focus in TV shows is on the written narrative and nothing else, the repetitive structure, countless establishing shots and shots of a car entering a location, countless "let's go to a bar for a beer" like exposition dialogues, every episode has to end with a cliffhanger, every episode has one big moment which is executed well while the rest is mostly filler, countless twists and turns etc

All the other filmmaking elements like cinematography, editing, sound design don't matter at all in the long run, the only thing you are left with is the characters and nothing else .

Most of the time you don't even have to look at the screen, the back to back camerawork in dialogues get's so overused that you can basically just listen to the conversation without even watching the screen and grasp all the information you need because the written narrative is the main thing here, while in film it's the visual narrative.
(Actual) films are made by directors, while tv shows are made mainly by producers. And film, every single second of runtime is there for a reason and there isn't a single frame of "filler" in them, while in the vast majority of tv shows there are entire scenes or even episodes that are simply unnecesary and not of much artistic value, but you still sit through it just to see what happens with "the characters" at the end because nothing else really doesn’t even matter.

>>87299948
>>87300121
I am correct and you are wrong.

File: smart.png (87KB, 1160x759px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1160x759px

>tfw too patrician to watch anything but still argue about it on /tv/ anyway

File: 73a[1].png (94KB, 680x788px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 680x788px

>>87299688
>tfw too patrician to waste my time on such an inferior form of art when I got literature

>>87300424
Film is unironically the highest form of art.
It actually contains all the other art forms in all the filmmaking elements, from fashion, architecture, design to music, photography, the writing and performances.

With film, you can express your idea in just one single frame through framing and composition, the performance, production design, sound
etc, while in books you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the viewer to grasp what's happening. Reading linear words is not efficient and it relies too much on the readers imagination, film is just much more efficient. Also with film you get an exact fixed artistic expression that can’t be changed, while in books half of the narrative is in every readers imagination and it's entirely different with every single person.

Now that doesn't mean everyone uses the medium to it's maximum potential, but it has a far greater potential than any other art form.