People say television is now taking the big risks, why is this the case when a movie requires less time investment for viewers?

Robert McKee said something along these lines a few years back and while he is probably right, the actual rationale for TV/MOVIE studios doesn't really make sense to me.

Is there a logical rationale for this? Or a difference of production culture between the two mediums?

I have always wondered, because - thinking pragmatically - I would far prefer to watch a movie passion project that takes two hours to complete over watching an entire season of a strange new show only to discover season 2 loses it's momentum.

If the movie sucks, I've at least only wasted 2 hours. If I spend two hours on a show, I can't really be sure it will get better or worse that far in, because it's barely hit 30% of the story line.

Do you think films will start taking big risks again? I realize there will always be risk takers, but risks with a budget seem to be going for television (Think how game of thrones was percieved when Season 1 came out and the "HBO-style" phenomenon of TV)

Submitted September 21, 2017 at 02:09AM by tfilmirl http://ift.tt/2fclqbb