Skip to main content

Post-Television



The first five episodes of Doctor Who's Series 7 are airing this month worldwide. In much of the press for the new season, the creative forces behind the program haven't been shy about wanting to tell us how "cinematic" and "epic" the new episodes are/will be. Anyone with half-a-mind not to trust everything that is told them tend to yawn in reaction to such hype, yet I find the whole 'it's like a movie!' trend in television to be a curious thing.

The decision to have television programs look more like movies has been fairly obvious for at least a decade, if not longer. I'm sure there are reasons for why this was done, but it's often left me scratching my head a bit. Perhaps it's an antiquated notion but, for me, movies are movies and television is television. I've not felt the need for TV to look more cinematic. It's true that with widescreen TV sets, it's more sensible to film shows in widescreen format, but that's about it.

I remember watching a new set of episodes of a favorite program, Midsomer Murders. This was a few years ago, and suddenly the program's beginning changed noticeably. Instead of the theme song playing over the opening credits each episode, now the stories began simply with the title card flashed briefly on the screen, followed by the credits being displayed during the opening scenes, not unlike in a film. I missed the theme music. Thankfully, after a couple seasons, they put it back.

Now with Doctor Who, we have the production team outwardly proclaiming that their intent is to make the program look more like a film. Why? What's wrong with it just being a TV show? Other programs are doing the cinema-look thing, too: Luther, Copper, The Walking Dead, Boss, Mad Men Hell On Wheels, etc. It's baffling. Are people such fickle viewers -- so demanding of being entertained by style over substance -- that they require a more 'cinematic look' to their televisual programming?



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yesterday's Restaurants

The local newspaper has a feature from one of Champaign-Urbana's most legendary restaurateur's, John Katsinas, on what his favorite area restaurants were that have now since closed (or will soon be closing).  It's a nice little read, and has made me stop and think about the restaurants that have come and gone that have left an indelible (and edible) impression on me throughout the years. Here we go....
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: Thir13en Ghosts

While not a scholar or even a purist, I am somewhat of a film snob. Not a big fan of remakes, specifically when the originals don't need updating. It is therefore an unusual position I find myself in, preferring a remake to an original, and by leaps and bounds. Let's take a look at today's feature...
Post a Comment
Read more

31 Days of Horror Movies: The Woman In Black

Yesterday, we had a lady in white, and today we have.... The Woman In Black Just as Nosferatu was our oldest horror film to be reviewed this month, The Woman In Black is our most recent. Released earlier this year, the film stars Daniel Radcliffe in a more adult role than previously seen in his Harry Potter career. He plays a young lawyer whose wife died in childbirth, so he has been raising their son (mostly) on his own. With money tight, and his job on the line, the young attorney takes an assignment in a remote village, much to his dismay. The small, closed community Radcliffe's character finds himself in is apparently haunted by a woman dressed in all black. When she is seen, a child dies. She is seen quite a lot during the course of the film. The locals get edgy with the attorney, making him feel most unwelcome. And when he is doing his work, sorting through the papers of a deceased elderly woman, he discovers the secret of the woman in black. It doesn't
Post a Comment
Read more