Talk:Television film

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Television Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Television film be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

There is an ongoing discussion about how television movies should be named. The main contention is that whether TV movies should be handled separately and be titled Movie name (TV movie) or treated under the film naming convention. Please leave comments at the original discussion. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This question concerns a graphic package. I found a few videos on YouTube, and they all seem to have something in common. In this one mini-series open, several stars light up and we go through a screen. Then, we start going down and see the words "CBS", "MINI", and "SERIES". I've been wondering, did the Sunday, Tuesday, and Friday movies have the same open? BTW, here's the link. CBS Mini-Series Open It seems to me that the viewer was at this really cool and really fancy movie theater owned by CBS. It would be called the CBS Theater. I hope this isn't off topic. 71.111.215.224 23:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it; made-for-TV films aren't necessarily miniseries.AlbertSM (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be called "Television film" and then, no more redirects for this article. --PJ Pete

In my view, this article currently starts well and finishes quite poorly. It progressively confuses the terms "movie-length" with "movie", eventually leaving the viewer to believe that if they're watching something that's about 90 minutes, and it's on TV, it must be a "TV movie".

However, it's narrative intent, and not runtime or visual style, which are the distinguishing characteristics of a made-for-TV movie, The Movie-length episodes of television shows section is particularly egregious. Consider "Family Ties Vacation". Not only did it kick off the fourth broadcast season, but its critical importance to Paramount wasn't that it was a movie, but that it was a four episodes' worth of content. Looking at the single movie as four parts helped them fulfil a commitment they made to syndicators in the third season that Family Ties would ultimate have at least 95 half-hours, whether NBC cancelled or not. "Vacation" was made at least as much for its parts as its whole. And, really, so are many long-form stories for established television series. Ultimately, they bump up the syndication value for a relatively modest budgetary increase over a regular episode. And that, in fact, brings up another point. The budgets for these kinds of "movies" are a part of the regular seasonal budgets. Thus, they are, as a matter of practicality, "normal" episodes.

Now that last point doesn't apply to the cast "reunion". Budgetarily, these are separately costed. But contentually, they are a part of the overall narrative of the series. Their budgets are a direct result of the past work. Had there not been a preceding series, there would not be a need for the supplementary material. Thus, I don't call these "made-for-TV movies" either, except under very rare conditions. For instance, if a TV series released both a feature film and a television reunion in the same year and I needed to distinguish between the two, I might be inclned to call the on TV, the "TV movie". But, honestly, how many examples can you think of that fit that description? Producers will tend to make either a TV revival or a theatrical one—not both. To me, if it's a part of the narrative of a series, but it's a lengthier format, it's just a "special". In other words, there is a distinction between a "movie-length episode" and a "made-for-TV movie".

This may be clearer by looking at the case of British television than America. Just take a look at A Touch of Frost and Sea of Souls. These demonstrate the relatively common British phenomenon of later seasons being comprised, in fact, of two or three movie-length episodes. However, this change of format does not deter British broadcasters and DVD producers from marketing these movie-length episodes, produced for the same broadcast year, as an (abbreviated) season.

But, aside from this failure to take a global view of the term, the article lacks internal consistency for the American market. As it now stands, the article is at best ambiguous about the status of the final episode of M*A*S*H*. It's curious, to me, that the article is silent on the 90-minute "Goodbye, Farewell & Amen", but it certainly seems to imply that the episode is a made-for=TV movie. The problem with that is that it logically invalidates one of the articles initial assertions, namely that The Day After is the highest-rated TV movie of all time. Either long-form episodes count, in which case After is not the highest-rated TV movie of all time, or they don't.

To me, it's logical conundrums like this that make me believe the article needs to scale back, and look for a simple, incontrovertible definition of its terms. There's no one that would dispute The Day After as a made-for-TV movie. So it seems to me that the article would be best served by basing a definition upon the qualities of that production. When you really look at it, the absolutely vital truth abot a "made-for-TV movie" like After, is that it is produced as a one-off. That is, at the time that the producers make it, it's intended to stand completely on its own content, not to augment the narrative of a series. CzechOut 04:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. For instance, one particular sentence in this article stood out to me as being a glaring example of this misapprehension:

"However, although they may be advertised as movies, they are really simply extended episodes of TV shows, such as the pilot and the finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation."

While this may or may not be applicable to other television shows, the pilot and series finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation ("Encounter At Farpoint" and "All Good Things...", respectively) were never advertised as movies. These episodes, along with numerous others ("Best of Both Worlds", "Chain of Command", etc.), were never presented as anything other than two-parters, usually season finale cliffhangers, and I've never heard of anyone misconstruing them as supposing to've been "movies". -=( Alexis ^(talk)00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC) )=-[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Brooke M (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were enough things wrong with this article that it began to accumulate a lot of "dead space" in trying to tag everything. Simplicity argued for the use of the Template:Articleissues. Many of these issues have been covered in the section above. However, one disadvantage of this centralizing template is that it fails to give useful information for the tone/essay tags. In an effort to preserve the criticism, I should point out that the sections previously tagged as requiring cleanup/reading like essays were those entitled Notable Examples and Production & Quality. I didn't tag these, so I don't know what, precisely, the tagging editor meant. However, I can assume that the issue is intimately tied to the general lack of references throughout. CzechOut 04:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a nation-by-nation comparison? I've seen made-for-TV movies from England by the BBC and some South Korean ones, too. These all high production values and such. I understand, in America, the made-for-TV film has replaced or become the grindhouse that it is, but in other nations, this isn't the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee4binky (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should it be mentioned that Conan O'Brian uses fictional made for tv movies as a running gag/skit? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the article about the made for TV Harrison Bergeron film, and noticed that it explicitly called the film a "cable television movie". To me, this implies that the film likely had themes which were either less accessible or more controversial than ones which would have been broadcast over-air or on "basic cable". I realise that this may not be the function of the word in the editor's mind when it was used, but I believe I'm not alone in reading this bias into the word. Should this be elaborated here? Should the differentiation be dropped entirely? I currently have no suggestion, and would simply like to bring this up. - BalthCat (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are full length episodes of anthology shows considered movies, or JUST TV episodes? or does it matter the length? IF every single episode is 60 minutes does that mean they're just episodes and not movies? If each episode is different length then it's also a movie? Shows like Hallmark Hall of Fame (each episode is different length) However 20th Century Fox Hour each episode is one hour long. So maybe they're just episodes? I'm not sure.

I noticed IMDb cites Magical Mystery Tour as a TV Special instead of a TV film, Wikipedia cites it as a film. What's the difference?

"The Day After ... was the subject of much controversy and discussion at the time of its release due to its graphic nature and subject matter" That article describes the reason for controversy and discussion more like how I remember it: "The Day After received a large promotional campaign prior to its broadcast. Commercials aired several months in advance, ABC distributed half a million "viewer's guides" that discussed the dangers of nuclear war and prepared the viewer for the graphic scenes of mushroom clouds and radiation burn victims. Discussion groups were also formed nationwide.[citation needed]" As I remember it, people were saying that the graphic nature had been greatly overhyped (perhaps because the goriest scenes had been cut before airing). Art LaPella (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few TV movies that were after the weekly series was cancelled. These were Little House on the Prairie and Emergency!. What other shows used the practice? --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:1CFD:23D:5AA3:91F5 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Theatrical Visual is a resemblance to a Television film.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:342A:6128:81F9:40E4 (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]