<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Chicagoist: Chicagoist Smackdown: TV vs. Movies</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php</link>
<description>All comments for Chicagoist Smackdown: TV vs. Movies</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2008 Marcus Gilmer</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:00:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>marcusisabadass@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>marcusisabadass@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>mr. spock</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1021021</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1021021</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:34:15 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Enjoyed the debate.  One question for Rob.  You said:

But I think that what the TV vs. movies debate really comes down to is
distribution. Programming on TV is relatively easier to distribute to
millions of people at once, and it&apos;s cheaper to distribute. Therefore
you can have lots of lots of different stuff on the air all the time.
The result of that though is that most TV is incredibly disposable.

Then you later said:

The future is people doing it themselves, making movies all over the
world and beaming them anywhere.

Does that not imply that movies are going to go down the same shithole that television has gone down?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Andy</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019458</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019458</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:09:59 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;For me it&apos;s the business about films having a beginning, middle and end. Television (it&apos;s taken me years to figure out) is basically about getting you to watch next week. Films are about telling a story.

(Though Buffy *was* a good example of television that often managed to tell a complete story with each episode and also make you want to watch again next week.)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Andy</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019456</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019456</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:09:13 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;For me it&apos;s the business about films having a beginning, middle and end.  Television (it&apos;s taken me years to figure out) is basically about getting you to watch next week.  Films are about telling a story.

(Though Buffy *is* a good example of television that often managed to tell a complete story with each episode and also make you want to watch again next week.)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Andy</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019454</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019454</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:08:51 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;For me it&apos;s the business about films having a beginning, middle and end.  Television (it&apos;s taken me years to figure out) is basically about getting you to watch next week.  Films are about telling a story.

(Though Buffy *is* a good example of television that often managed to tell a complete story with each episode and also make you want to watch again next week.)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Justin</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019356</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019356</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:29:21 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;I think of movies as more of an event, TV as same old-same old.  I can still remember when single-screen theaters weren&apos;t rare, when blockbusters were actually cool (the first Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Spielberg in the 80s).  You have to look harder, but great film is out there, from all over the place. 

Foreign film may be dubbed or subtitled for US release, but is otherwise left alone.  Aside from popular BBC shows, foreign TV is typically reinvented &amp; watered down for American networks (US Coupling, anyone?).

Then again, neither&apos;s as cool as theater:

Theater is Life
Movies are Art
Television is Furniture&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Julene</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019314</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019314</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:27:14 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Hmmm... right now I believe both mediums are in such a lowest common denominator phase that I&apos;m not madly in love with either. I&apos;m disappointed in TV because with 200 (or whatever I have) channels - there is nothing that I watch Monday or Tuesday nights. I have until 9 pm on Wednesday (that&apos;s right - I still watch Lost) before there&apos;s anything that I must see. That being said, I rarely go to movies anymore due to the cost and the need to travel, and when I  rent movies I can only go about once a month or there just aren&apos;t enough &quot;new&quot; worthwhile selections for a whole day of movie watching. 

I guess I give both mediums a thumbs down. I think that with the number of channels and talent out there that the powers that be should be much more adventurous in what they allow the consumer to have access to - whether on TV or at the theatre. 
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Wood-Tang</title>
<link>http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019207</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://chicagoist.com/2007/02/22/chicagoist_smackdown_tv_vs_movies.php#comment-1019207</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:54 -0600</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Really, I&apos;m the first one?  Awesome.

For me, TV vs. movies is a matter of committment.  It&apos;s much eaiser to plop down and turn on the TV, skip around, and watch whatever for an hour than it is to say, &quot;I&quot;m going to watch this movie for two hours.&quot;  You turn on the TV and it&apos;s just there.  I know you can also turn on HBO and watch part of some old movie, but there&apos;s more of a conscious choice to it, whereas with TV I can tolerate more crap, because different crap will be on in 30 minutes.  That&apos;s why even though I would say I prefer movies because I think I have &quot;taste,&quot; I still watch TV more often.  It&apos;s the path of least resistance.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
