In the past few years TV has cost almost as much as films. The producer of Bridget Jones and Love Actually says that this has made his job more difficult. on the other hand this kind of 'super-TV' content has filled a gap in the market. Traditional cinema viewing is in decline and at home TV is more appealing to audiences. 'Oscar-nominated director of the series, Stephen Daldry, says it is "bigger than a film set".'
O Netflix's The Crown supposedly spent spent £750,000 in just one day.
O Andy Harries says he is creating a "viewing experience that is somewhere beyond top-end television and much nearer to big-budget feature films".
OThese programmes are "attracting a better quality of people than before because of the time and the format that you can tell a story in television. It is enticing for people who are auteurs," Smith says.
I personally think that new TV shows are more enticing because they are offering new content, the price hike of making them is just a result of people becoming more involved in the process because it has been made more appealing thanks to sites such as Netflix. I agree with Matt Smith because it is about the content of the show and not how much money has been put in it, in most cases the audience never really knows how much money is in it. If money was the only factor for its success then short films wouldn't be successful on sites such as youtube, people wouldn't give it a chance because a very minimal is put forward for the content. Big-budget television is not necessarily threatening cinema they offer different pleasures, traditional cinema is obviously in decline however this is not something new. Big budget television typically lets people binge watch, while traditional cinema is a one-sitting thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment