• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Golden age of TV series instead of Cinema - true?

You may ask how is this connected to screenwriting, but read on and you'll see.

I hear many times people saying, - "The golden age of movies passed long ago. Now it's the golden age of TV series".
In Israel it has come to the point that there are more TV series than movies you can find. But even if I look at the whole world, I see more and more TV/Web series appear on the horizon, while many of the known movies made today are remakes of the old ones. I hear of many cinema directors go to direct TV series.
So, is this statement that TV series replaces Cinema - true?

Now, what does it have to do with screenwriting? Obviously, if the industry wants TV series, maybe this is what one should write?
 
I believe television is a tricky situation. I personally could NEVER go into making a tv series (other than being like a colorist) The amount of time in production is so high... and if I was a writer it would push me over the edge.

Each season you are basically creating between 3-5 MOVIES. That's insane. I look at the current Universe television series and I think, WOW, these people are completely and unrelentlessly insane.

Not only do television shows have intensely crazy amounts of story, but they are not INTERTWINING tv series! And sometimes not even on the same network, as we know they plan to have a crossover event between Arrow, Flash, and Supergirl!

That must be the most stressful experience in the world.

So yea... it might be big right now... but I'd never attempt going into it.
 
Kind of... I mean certain TV series have this epic cinematic feel to them and they have such a large following. It just seems like they're putting more effort into TV shows now and the technology we have today allows them to do more
 
Not only do television shows have intensely crazy amounts of story, but they are not INTERTWINING tv series! And sometimes not even on the same network, as we know they plan to have a crossover event between Arrow, Flash, and Supergirl!.

But it's not a sole writer that works on TV series screenplay. There is that guy that runs a group of writers. The work divides. I tried to develop an idea that someone else has brought - a setting of crime, drugs and corrupted cops and politicians... Within 3 hours I've developed nearly 12 characters and a detailed synopsis for a 20 chapters/series season. (It was a homework, lol :D). Well, maybe because it's an easy setting to connect to (crime, drugs, whores, cops). And yet I can't think of an idea for 5 min short film...

Is the difficulty of writing screenplays really in amounts of story?
 
You may ask how is this connected to screenwriting, but read on and you'll see.

I hear many times people saying, - "The golden age of movies passed long ago. Now it's the golden age of TV series".
In Israel it has come to the point that there are more TV series than movies you can find. But even if I look at the whole world, I see more and more TV/Web series appear on the horizon, while many of the known movies made today are remakes of the old ones. I hear of many cinema directors go to direct TV series.
So, is this statement that TV series replaces Cinema - true?

Now, what does it have to do with screenwriting? Obviously, if the industry wants TV series, maybe this is what one should write?


I would say that the potential for storytelling and character development is so much greater in TV than it ever has been in movies, and now the format is finally getting the money, backing and audience it deserves. In my view, TV has the best screenwriters and actors, and is also attracting the best cinematographers and directors.

With cinema increasingly dominated by sequels, dumb action films and 50 shades of crap, it's not surprising that the talent exodus is to TV :)

What it doesn't change so much is indie filmmaking - it is expensive and time consuming to produce series that do justice to the long form of storytelling, so it is unlikely to ever be an indie pursuit.
 
There are so many new and growing channels for distributing series now compared a few decades ago. I am actually trying to get my feet wet in that format of screenwriting now. If one wants to start a career in writing "TV"(including thins beyond television like netflix, amazon, etc) seems to have more opportunities. So as I build my portfolio, I am working to incude some series writing. I am so far from an industry professional but I have also heard several times over that films are a director's mediun whereas series are a writer's medium. I believe this has a lot to do with the idea that writers are so commonly re-written/replaced/absent from production in film whereas in TV it's more often the director's that come and writers are often more active in on set production. So yes, I think this topic has everything to do with screenwriting and definitely something to consider while pursuing your dreams.
 
I am so far from an industry professional but I have also heard several times over that films are a director's mediun whereas series are a writer's medium. I believe this has a lot to do with the idea that writers are so commonly re-written/replaced/absent from production in film whereas in TV it's more often the director's that come and writers are often more active in on set production. So yes, I think this topic has everything to do with screenwriting and definitely something to consider while pursuing your dreams.

That's a good point. In TV generally the showrunner/EP is also the head writer, and it is his/her choice of writers and directors to take the vision/'spirit' of the series on. In many ways this is the polar opposite of the movie approach, where things like 'Nottingham' happen...
 
Writing for television (or a series) is much more demanding and structured. It's excellent training for writing features. As for 'golden age' it depends on how you define 'golden'.

There are a lot of cheap-to-make reality shows and inexpensive documentaries that litter TV. Other than that, there are mostly cookie cutter programming. There are some innovative shows, but certainly not the diversity that were in the 60s, 70s and 80s. While there are more avenues to mount series and the cost of independent production has dropped, there are still significant obstacles for independent producers. These outlets are still not as well known as larger cable networks. And with concerns about net neutrality, some start-ups have been cautious launching into the market.

Significant risks were taken by studio execs to create programming like Star Trek, Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, All in the Family, Murphy Brown, Dynasty, St. Elsewhere, Beverly Hillbillies, Quincy, X-Files, Man from UNCLE, etc. There were rewards. Programs broke ground and established models for many future programs. "Quincy" set the stage for "Diagnosis Murder", "Bones", "Crossing Jordan", etc. Similarly, "Dr. Kildare" set the ground work for "Marcus Welby", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", etc. The latter pioneering the female doctor roles. "Room 222" led to "Fame" which led to "Glee". "Trapper John" was a gentler version of "House". "Dragnet" set the foundation for police procedurals like "Law and Order". "Adam-12" and "Emergency" laid groundwork for "Miami Vice", "Starsky & Hutch" and the later "Chicago Fire", "NYPD", etc. Recycling the old into the new. Taking the buddy drama in a new direction was "Cagney & Lacey". "Red Skelton", "Lucille Ball", "Jonathon Winters" and myriad sketch comedies set the stage for "Saturday Night Live" and "New Kids in the Hall". Some programming has no modern equivalent and serve only as a reminder of who we once were "Waltons", "Andy Griffith Show", "Gunsmoke", "Rifleman", "McHale's Navy", "Laugh-in", etc.

Today, we have mostly copycat programming and documentaries. There are very few risk takers in major broadcast networks. And since they are owned by Microsoft (NBC), Disney (ABC) and other large corporations, it's not surprising given their vast libraries of older materials that the interest is in profitability rather than innovation.

For me, "golden" means when creativity and originality was greatest. In my opinion, the golden age of television is over. It is now the golden age of the cable series. Original programming by HBO, Showtime and Netflix are more original and bigger draws than the standard broadcast companies. Which is why a Comcast merger with Time Warner could be a game changer for start-ups and major broadcasters.
 
For me, "golden" means when creativity and originality was greatest. In my opinion, the golden age of television is over. It is now the golden age of the cable series. Original programming by HBO, Showtime and Netflix are more original and bigger draws than the standard broadcast companies. Which is why a Comcast merger with Time Warner could be a game changer for start-ups and major broadcasters.

Cable or television, the result is the same - we see series. Many talents (especially writers) prefer series over cinema. Maybe, as some said above, it's because writers have more power there, than in cinema.

Yeah. Have you read the story behind how that movie came about?

I've heard it from someone and found something about that on the internet, but it was like 2 years ago, I don't remember. But it doesn't surprise me so much. I've heard what was done with Matrix Revolution - it wasn't supposed to have a happy ending: Neo was supposed to find out that his victory over the machines was another illusion made by Matrix - the machines foresaw it coming, so they created multi-dimensional illusions. Not that the current ending was bad, but the writer wanted to say something different. The same is with Robin Hood: not that the movie was bad, but the original story was about a different character, and could probably be more interesting.
 
Writing for television (or a series) is much more demanding and structured. It's excellent training for writing features. As for 'golden age' it depends on how you define 'golden'.

There are a lot of cheap-to-make reality shows and inexpensive documentaries that litter TV. Other than that, there are mostly cookie cutter programming. There are some innovative shows, but certainly not the diversity that were in the 60s, 70s and 80s. While there are more avenues to mount series and the cost of independent production has dropped, there are still significant obstacles for independent producers. These outlets are still not as well known as larger cable networks. And with concerns about net neutrality, some start-ups have been cautious launching into the market.

Significant risks were taken by studio execs to create programming like Star Trek, Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, All in the Family, Murphy Brown, Dynasty, St. Elsewhere, Beverly Hillbillies, Quincy, X-Files, Man from UNCLE, etc. There were rewards. Programs broke ground and established models for many future programs. "Quincy" set the stage for "Diagnosis Murder", "Bones", "Crossing Jordan", etc. Similarly, "Dr. Kildare" set the ground work for "Marcus Welby", "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman", etc. The latter pioneering the female doctor roles. "Room 222" led to "Fame" which led to "Glee". "Trapper John" was a gentler version of "House". "Dragnet" set the foundation for police procedurals like "Law and Order". "Adam-12" and "Emergency" laid groundwork for "Miami Vice", "Starsky & Hutch" and the later "Chicago Fire", "NYPD", etc. Recycling the old into the new. Taking the buddy drama in a new direction was "Cagney & Lacey". "Red Skelton", "Lucille Ball", "Jonathon Winters" and myriad sketch comedies set the stage for "Saturday Night Live" and "New Kids in the Hall". Some programming has no modern equivalent and serve only as a reminder of who we once were "Waltons", "Andy Griffith Show", "Gunsmoke", "Rifleman", "McHale's Navy", "Laugh-in", etc.

Today, we have mostly copycat programming and documentaries. There are very few risk takers in major broadcast networks. And since they are owned by Microsoft (NBC), Disney (ABC) and other large corporations, it's not surprising given their vast libraries of older materials that the interest is in profitability rather than innovation.

For me, "golden" means when creativity and originality was greatest. In my opinion, the golden age of television is over. It is now the golden age of the cable series. Original programming by HBO, Showtime and Netflix are more original and bigger draws than the standard broadcast companies. Which is why a Comcast merger with Time Warner could be a game changer for start-ups and major broadcasters.


From outside the USA, TV and cable are the same thing from my point of view - but I'd agree it's mainly cable channels - HBO, FX, AMC and (to a lesser extent) Showtime are home to some of the best series around. And it's probably true to say I watch more Netflix original series (which have cable sensibilities rather than network) than I do US network shows.

Alarmingly, this is also increasingly true of comedies, with HBO and Showtime also running some of the best offerings in that genre.

It seems to me that the decline of mainstream network TV and the decline of mainstream cinema is down to the commercial realities of those industries, and the resulting constraints on creative people to truly explore their visions. Who can blame the most talented people from wanting to work in a setting with much less interference?

But yeah from my point of view, any long form narrative fiction not designed for cinema release is "TV" - and it is truly a golden age of TV.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate both of your points. I come from a time when cable and broadcast were distinct. The ubiquity of cable and satellite television as device independent makes the medium available on phones, tablets and computers. There are some subtle distinctions.

When writing hour episodes for broadcast television, you expect to write 42-48 pages to accommodate ads. Writing for cable, you can write up to 55 pages. Writing for broadcast, you have restrictions on language and content. Cable often has much looser restrictions. Broadcast often uses teams of writers and you're adjusting content frequently based on notes sent down by producers and studios. Cable usually has smaller writing teams with more direct reporting and collaboration with the director and producer. With broadcast television, you often have specific style guides provided that must be followed. With cable, there are style guides but there is also more flexibility.

As a writer, I think writing a cable series provides more latitude to be creative. That's not to say that writing for broadcast "TV" is bad. It teaches discipline and pacing. However, the turnover of series is so sensitive to the viewership not the quality of the writing. If it's put in the wrong time slot or marketed to the wrong audience, it doesn't matter how well written or acted, the show is doomed. With on demand or "cable" assets, the viewership has already paid for access to changes in viewership more accurately reflect quality.

If only viewed from the access view, you are correct. When viewed from the industry and writing perspective, they tend to be two different beasts. It's like saying books (TV) and graphic novels (cable) are the same because they're both printed and sold in bookstores.

The 'golden age' of network television is past. The 'golden age' of on-demand content ("cable") is coming. I believe that "on demand" can accommodate both series and narrative content.
 
I appreciate both of your points. I come from a time when cable and broadcast were distinct. The ubiquity of cable and satellite television as device independent makes the medium available on phones, tablets and computers. There are some subtle distinctions.

When writing hour episodes for broadcast television, you expect to write 42-48 pages to accommodate ads. Writing for cable, you can write up to 55 pages. Writing for broadcast, you have restrictions on language and content. Cable often has much looser restrictions. Broadcast often uses teams of writers and you're adjusting content frequently based on notes sent down by producers and studios. Cable usually has smaller writing teams with more direct reporting and collaboration with the director and producer. With broadcast television, you often have specific style guides provided that must be followed. With cable, there are style guides but there is also more flexibility.

As a writer, I think writing a cable series provides more latitude to be creative. That's not to say that writing for broadcast "TV" is bad. It teaches discipline and pacing. However, the turnover of series is so sensitive to the viewership not the quality of the writing. If it's put in the wrong time slot or marketed to the wrong audience, it doesn't matter how well written or acted, the show is doomed. With on demand or "cable" assets, the viewership has already paid for access to changes in viewership more accurately reflect quality.

If only viewed from the access view, you are correct. When viewed from the industry and writing perspective, they tend to be two different beasts. It's like saying books (TV) and graphic novels (cable) are the same because they're both printed and sold in bookstores.

The 'golden age' of network television is past. The 'golden age' of on-demand content ("cable") is coming. I believe that "on demand" can accommodate both series and narrative content.


It doesn't break down quite as simply as that though, as some 'basic cable' channels carry adverts, I think? I know AMC do, and that channel is home to possibly the greatest ever TV drama (Breaking Bad) and the most successful ever cable drama (The Walking Dead - although 'drama' is used in its loosest possible sense there!). Interestingly, as it carries adverts, AMC is arguably closer to a network than a cable channel - content restrictions on AMC are absurd (e.g. the complete lack of swearing beyond 'shit' in a show filled with drug abuse and violence, and the famously pixellated breasts in s01e01 of Breaking Bad).

I think your analogy (books vs graphic novels) is flawed though. There is no way a casual observer would ever mistake one for the other - they are different in terms of content even at the most obvious level. By contrast, there is no reason whatsoever why mainstream broadcast TV couldn't be indistinguishable from cable content other than the content restrictions and commercial interventions that prevent it. The writers, stars and crew are often the same - there is just a different outlook. But yes, they are different beasts.

And I wish I could agree that a network show's lifespan is dependent on viewership - but sometimes it is even more randon than that!

As a writer, my greatest creative ambition is not to write a successful movie, but to write a HBO cable drama :) Or one on the BBC would do fine as well :)
 
Back
Top