[ SECRET POST #6466 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6466 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #924.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

03. https://i.imgur.com/ISXEhAX.png

[iff_and_xor]

Strongly disagree.

As counter examples, both “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” and “State of Play” are great miniseries but poorly paced movies.

And I’m struggling to think of any specific miniseries that I think should have been movies instead.

[(Anonymous)]

I think The Thorn Birds could have been a movie.

I agree on your two examples.

[(Anonymous)]

I’m not OP but I think there is a big difference between a tv show that has 10 episodes or less per season and miniseries. Both of your examples are miniseries. I think OP is probably also talking about American shows because not only do they have the widest distribution but it’s the medium most notable for drastically changing format in recent years. 24-36 episodes was standard for decades and now they’re 8-10.

[iff_and_xor]

I get the distinction, but I would have thought that miniseries were more likely to condense into a film well than an 8-episode TV season.

So I was trying to give the best reading of the hypothetical.

Do you have examples of TV shows that you think fit what OP is talking about?

[(Anonymous)]

Hard disagree.

I can't get into movies because so much has to happen so fast. Miniseries gets to have the character development and the plot without meandering endlessly. Best of both worlds.

[(Anonymous)]

Chernobyl would have been a horrible movie. It's a great series, though.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I don't see how that could have been squeezed into a single film. It needs all its episodes to delve into all the relevant information.

[(Anonymous)]

This only works for TV shows that are shallow and padded to hell and back, any decently paced show would never work as a 2 hour movie as too much would have to be stripped to fit the run-time.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

the problem we generally have with the current state of tv series on streaming is that no one is calling a 10-episode run what it is: a miniseries. Some could have been better movies, some could have been better tv series if they were 15-20 episodes, but the miniseries is a valid form. Just, no one is calling a short-ass season of a show that gets cancelled by Netflix a miniseries. It might be better if it was, especially if Netflix knew before putting it up that they weren't going to renew it.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Short seasons isn’t a miniseries.

[(Anonymous)]

le sigh. I’m not OP but it’s frustrating reading this thread and seeing how many people in fandom don’t know the difference between a TV show and a miniseries.

[iff_and_xor]

You don’t consider miniseries to be a type of TV show?

[(Anonymous)]

It is. But what makes something a miniseries, as opposed to the type of show OP is talking about, is that it's limited to a single string of episodes, rather than continuing over two or more seasons.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
Previous anon already said it best. Miniseries or limited series are obviously a type of TV show but they’ve never been called that, they’re called miniseries or limited series events. TV shows has always been used to describe long running, multi season programs (even if they’re cancelled before additional seasons; they were produced with the intent of continuing).

[(Anonymous)]

Thinking about it, and reading the comments below, it's probably because OP's secret makes less sense if they're not talking about a miniseries. A TV show with several short seasons would have to be several movies, wouldn't it?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm confused by this secret. Are you talking solely about TV shows where the main plot is a romance? Because your second sentence suggests that.

In any case, I disagree. In most cases, this would make for either poorly paced or overly long films. People in general don't want most movies to be the length of 'Oppenheimer' or 'Killers of the Flower Moon,' but that's the length that would be necessary to do what you're suggesting.

[(Anonymous)]

Oppenheimer shouldn't have been the length of Oppenheimer either.

[meadowphoenix]

your secret misunderstands either or both the production and capabilities of movies v. tv productions in a way that is wild. i think that's because you've seen tv shows which don't use their full capabilities but that's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

here's the thing: what movies tend to do in exposition or implication, smaller series can do in scenes and in pauses, which provides a sense of richness or full-bodied flavor to either characters or world or pacing. you don't have to have this, and some stories don't need it and the movies are great! but some stories are better, more coherent, and more fascinating for it.

[(Anonymous)]

RE your second paragraph: yes that’s possible but it isn’t happening. Most TV shows coming out of America have a very thin plot, little character development if any, and spend a lot time showing the characters stare off into space for no reason. The little pauses are frequent and serve no purpose but to fill time because they’re trying to stretch maybe 90-120 minutes of story over 8-10 hours.

[(Anonymous)]

I think there are almost certainly TV series for which this is true.

It's probably not true for all TV series of that length, but like. There are probably quite a few where it is true. I know there are some that I've said it about even though I can't remember any fucking examples right now.

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly can't think of any TV show with shorter seasons that I like that I'd be okay with them cutting seventy to eighty-five percent of the content. (Stanger Things season 1 with 8 episodes = 398 minutes and Stanger Things season 4 with 9 episodes = 778 minutes, for reference).

[(Anonymous)]

And Stranger Things season 4 had a couple of episodes that were movie length all on their own. Had they all been the traditional length, it would have been a 13- or 14-episode season.

[(Anonymous)]

Same. If I get bored in the middle of a season, I'm outta there. If I need to know how the season ends, I'll just read recaps and put it out my mind.

[(Anonymous)]

I mostly agree with OP but do think there are exceptions, like Stranger Things. The issue I have is that most shows suck now. Like, really suck. They have an interesting premise but fail in every other way, usually because that premise isn’t fleshed out enough to cover 10 hours let alone 30, the characters aren’t fleshed out enough to hold audience interest over that same time, and the shows lack a direction or goal. Making those into movies instead would result in more interesting things to watch.