Movies always seem to have higher quality for some reason? Is it because the TV format is just too long to have a coherent/concise story?

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Films can have the same problem.

    Notably the 4th film in the “Divergent” series was never made, although we got the first 3. The 3rd was a rushed failure.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_(film)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divergent_Series:_Insurgent
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Divergent_Series:_Allegiant

    Similarly, the film adaptation of the “His Dark Materials” series sputtered out after one film, Golden Compass:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Compass_(film)

    It would take TWELVE YEARS to reboot the franchise as series television for HBO.

    Percy Jackson and the Olympians was another notable failure which somehow got 2 films out of a 7 book series:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Jackson_%26_the_Olympians:_The_Lightning_Thief

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Jackson:_Sea_of_Monsters

    It also would see a streaming reboot, this time 10 years later on Disney+

    Even the perennial classic Narnia books had trouble in the film space, getting quite good adaptations of the first three books of seven before vanishing:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_Prince_Caspian

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia:_The_Voyage_of_the_Dawn_Treader

    • healthetank@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      FYI they made the Narnia movies from the most interesting and least convoluted boos. Lion witch and wardrobe is book 2, prince Caspian is book 4, and Voyage is book 5. I don’t believe they ever planned on doing the rest of the books. Book 1 and 7 both are some heavy allegorical books that probably wouldn’t translate well, book 3 has some serious questionable bits that would be seen as pretty racist these days. Book 6 could be decent, but doesn’t include the main siblings, so probably less interest from fans of the main actors.

      • tuck182@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        They adapted the first three books if you go by the original order and not the updated order that numbered the books chronologically.

  • Andrew@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 days ago

    Season 3 of a TV show comes with a significant wage increase for everyone involved, so 3 seasons (at least) is something that the sellers of a show always want, but the buyers are trying to avoid.

    On Netflix, it’s become a pattern of all shows only getting 1 or 2 seasons, unless they’re mega-hits, or dirt-cheap to produce in the first place.

    How well a show wraps up after 2 seasons often depends on how much the writers want to do the streamer’s job for them. Tokyo Vice was a (rare) example of a good, self-contained, 2-season show.

  • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Different financial goals. Movie series are designed around a hype cycle to put out a major blockbuster every few years or whatever and produce massive ROI at the box office. Word of mouth and reviews matter; if it isn’t widely liked, it’ll get less revenue.

    Series are produced by streaming providers primarily to entice new customers on to their platform and rake in subscription fees. Once they have the customers from season one, there’s less incentive to keep pumping money into the series. They rely on customer inertia and make it difficult to cancel a subscription to keep you around.

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    As an example of the opposite, there’s Warcraft. I personally loved the movie but not enough people did, so it never got a 2nd movie.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Money.

    TV is like making cheap movies. As an investor you can calculate your return on investment every time an episode goes to air. If you’re on a winning streak, you’ll make more, if not, you’ll pull out and the show is cancelled. Many TV shows never get past the first pilot episode.

    Making movies gives you potentially a bigger payout, but only if it’s a hit, so an investor will do everything to maximise the chance of success. Massive budgets, known stars, etc.

    In the end it’s all legalised gambling. If you’re lucky, something interesting comes from it, more often than not it’s Waterworld … yes, there are worse movies, but you won’t recognise them … and yes, it made a profit … eventually.

    Worst performing movies of all time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Series start with a concept for 2-3 seasons at most, nowadays often just one. If it’s successful, writers need to come up with an extension fast, since nobody wants to wait for the next one for 5 years. Sometimes they are greenlit halfway through the screening of S1 and they want to start filming half a year later, so there’s not enough time for due process with proofreaders, test audiences etc. as you do with movies, where sequels often come several years later.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The success of a TV show can be gathered in real time. A movie needs to be complete before anyone knows about it.

    So, they are going to make sure that movie is as sellable as it possibly can, because they only have one chance. The TV show can get tweaked as it goes, and sometimes milking a cash cow doesn’t result in quality. I think of Family Matters back in the 90s. It was a decent family sitcom, but EVERYBODY loved Urkel. So much so, that the last few seasons were essentially the Steve Urkel show. That’s who everybody wanted to see, but the show was complete trash. None of the storylines made sense anymore, and they had Urkel playing Urkel clones because MORE URKEL, MORE MONEY!

    Or, of course, it loses popularity and then it gets canned.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m still salty about whatever the bullshit was Two and Half Men after Charlie was left from the show. It was the funniest sitcom I’ve ever seen which somehow managed to also be the cringiest one in the latter seasons.

  • Doubleohdonut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Consider, if you will, the rambling, incoherant Star Wars franchise. That series has been too long for its own good for years. So its possible for movie series to ramble. James Bond, Alien, Avatar. Where movies are based on a book/comic they tend to be richer stories due to the increased volume of detail in the source material.

    Personally I prefer a movie though, because of the consistent ability to tell a story with a guaranteed begining/middle/end.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because STOP WATCHING TV!!!

    You’re clearly cursing all the good shows, and all we’re left with is crap like “the bachlor”, and “who wants to shoot a billionaire?”