Movies vs. Television

Moves versus television — which is better? It is a debate that has raged for many years. You can find those who say that a movie just isn't a movie unless it is viewed in a movie theater on the big screen, preferably while munching a bag of movie theater popcorn. These folks say that something is lost when movies that were filmed with the intent of being shown on wide screens in movie theaters are reduced and shown on small home television screens.

Then there are those who will swear that a movie that was shown in a movie theater on a wide screen is more intimate and therefore more enjoyable when viewed on a television screen in a private home.

I suppose it all really boils down to a simple matter of personal preference. The fact is that when moving pictures were new, the adaptation of stage actors and actresses to the "new" moving picture medium was almost anything but graceful. In the early days, stage actors and actresses used the large movements that they used on stage when filming movies. The result, when viewed through the eyes of the 21st century, is nothing short of hilarious and awkward.

There is a great deal of difference between production techniques between the filming of motion pictures and the filming of programming intended for television viewing. A movie is filmed with nearly two hours of continuous action, with no allowances made for commercial breaks. When a movie is shown on television and commercial breaks are mandatory, the action can seem a bit disjointed. On the other hand, if you tried to show made-for-television programming in a movie theater, it would look disjointed as well.

This really is not much of a questing, nor should there be much controversy. Movies and television are two completely different mediums, can both be enjoyed equally and in some cases they even complement each other.