“The-Walking-Dead-Season-5-Trailer-Walker-v2-560” by Jorge Figueroa is licensed under CC BY 2.0

We’re living in the golden age of television. Or at least that’s what most people say when asked about the state of current TV shows. Whether it’s the edginess and hard edges of AMC’s original programming (Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Walking Dead, etc.), the popularity of comic book based properties (Arrow, The Flash, Daredevil, etc.), or the epic adult storytelling of HBO (Game of Thrones, True Detective, The Newsroom, etc.), television is often hailed as the best place to tell complex stories. Ask the same people about the state of film and you’ll often hear the exact opposite. Everything is based on something else whether it’s the latest superhero blockbuster, a remake or reboot of something from the 1980s, or sequels to either of those two characteristics. And while it is true that the movie going world is not at the heights it once was, this outright dismissal of film and concurrent embrace of television is a lot more complicated than many make it out to be.

Previously, critique of film and television hasn’t been like this. In fact, up until recently, film was often seen as the better format for storytelling, as early TV often devolved into episodic case-of-the-week cliches, often copying aspects of film-making that movies could pull of better. It was only recently that writers and producers figured out that TV can do certain things that films can’t. It is much easier to create a complex character or story arc within TV given the fact that these aspects are allowed to develop over multiple episodes and multiple seasons. Something like Game of Thrones is hailed as being able to develop multiple complex characters over its five (soon to be six) season run. Breaking Bad received praise for its portrayal of the complex antihero Walter White as the series went from strength to strength, evolving from a dark comedy about a chemist suffering from cancer to a story about a drug kingpin. Daredevil was warmly received for its look at the darker side of the more light hearted Marvel Cinematic Universe (the Avengers can drop a city from the sky without a single casualty while Wilson Fisk can decapitate a Russian gangster with a car door). Aspects like these lead to the summation that this is the best time to be on TV, as opposed to more cut and dry films.

“Fearless | Daredevil: Episodes 1-3 Review” by BagoGames is licensed under CC BY 2.0

That being said, while TV can do things that film can’t, film can do things that TV can’t. While the stories may not always be the best or most complex, film is still the medium of choice for jaw dropping spectacles that are rarely seen on TV outside of Game of Thrones. Given the size of films these days, this is not a surprising development. While we may ultimately end up caring more about Kara Zor-El in the new Supergirl TV show, it is highly unlikely that any of the action set pieces will be at the same level of the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Some people might say that that is the whole idea when it comes to TV, as we’re more drawn to who the character is and what they’re up against. However, that notion forgets that there are some truly spectacular set pieces in films that are almost impossible to recreate on TV. Any number of action scenes from films like The Dark Knight to Mad Max: Fury Road are just too big and complex for TV to copy without having a huge budget (something that Game of Thrones is actually struggling with as their budget continues to swell with each new season).

These differences hint at something much bigger than confirmation that one format is better than the other. Instead, we need to think about the fact that film and television have become separate entities in and of themselves; something that has evolved since the days of theater. Stage theater is an actor’s medium. While directors and writers do have a big say in how the show is staged and performed, actors are ultimately the ones who have to be out on stage night after night, reacting to the audience as well as any unforeseen slip ups. Film, on the other hand, has become a director’s medium. Yes, writers and actors are part of the equation that makes films work, but the director is the person in charge of how the story develops on screen, and how the writer and actor interact with each other and succeed (directors are also given the greatest praise when films succeed, as well as the harshest criticism when they fail). That leaves television, which has become a writer’s medium. While big named directors do often have a part in the making of these shows (David Fincher with House of Cards, Steven Soderbergh with The Knick, or the numerous shows produced by Steven Spielberg), the writer is the one that is put in charge of how the story develops. Instead of hot shot directors earning praise for the way a show is made, a show runner (usually one of the head writers) is put in charge of how the show evolves and moves forward from week to week, leading to a rotating circle of directors coming and going from show to show and episode to episode. So while the argument for television being superior to film is easily argued and defended, it is worth taking a step back from the argument and realize that the two mediums have divulged in very significant ways.