I think it’s pretty well known that before the 2000s, there was a general divide between television and movies. Movie stars (and directors) largely believed that moving to television was proof you were a has been and should be avoided the plaque (except for special, one-off jobs). In recent years, that trend seems to rapidly decline. That it is common to see a movie star to headline a television series or even be supporting characters in one. There seems to be less of a stigma attached to television than before. I can think of a few reasons:
New and/or cheaper technology has allowed television to produce episodes that rival some movies
The gradual trend from episodic television to serialized shows. Executives originally wanted shows that created episodes where a viewer could start watching anytime. The idea being that this would allow the show to pick up viewers during its original run and in syndication. Plus, it meant viewers who happened to miss that week and, depending on the decade, might never be able to watch that episode would be less likely to quit the show. This obviously hindered a writer’s ability to create the kind of complexity we see in shows such as Mad Men or Breaking Bad. There couldn’t be a multi-seasonal arc and up until the 80s/90s even an arc over several episodes was rare.
The changing structure of television. The network standard is 22 episodes and many shows in the 80s/90s had seasons with even more. It seems that the networks have started experimenting with 13 episode seasons, but the real driver of the change to shortened seasons is cable. Originally, I’m sure the goal was to save money, but shortened seasons meant writers didn’t have to stretch out plotlines, insert filler, or burn through ideas as quickly. Shortened seasons is also more amenable to an actor’s schedule and I think is more appealing to them.
The laxer restrictions for cable versus network. Without the regulation enforced on broadcast networks, writers were free to explore areas that were once considered taboo for television (or to depict in any meaningful way). Television can delve further into complex issues compared to movies because of the former’s longer running time. As artists, this would appeal to many professionals who previously worked exclusively on movies.
Agree? Disagree? Have another reason? Have something to add/correct one of my reasons? Don’t think television’s stature has risen in the industry? Sound off below!
Television increasing became a medium for more adult, less constrained fare.
People in movie theaters are talkative assholes who are either checking their phones or pretending not to hear the screaming of the baby they brought with them.
Blockbusters became too dominant in movie making. They sucked up a lot of resources and made it harder to make mid-budget movies that were based around stories and characters rather than special effects. This left a lot of quality filmmakers looking for opportunities.
Television doesn’t have the budget to compete with movies on special effects. But it can afford characters and stories. So it offered opportunities to the filmmakers who were getting squeezed out of movies.
Yeah, I think a television show (cable model; with 13 episodes a typical season) is the perfect visual medium for telling stories. Or, novel-length stories, I should say. Really, movies are more like short stories and mini-series are novellas. A longer runtime means a writer can expand supporting characters, have increased and varied character interaction, and generally explore characters in a different way than films. I’m not sure exactly WHY the movie industry was considered superior to the television industry basically from the start of television. Tradition?
Speaking strictly of American movies and TV, when television arrived as a major medium in the late 40s and early 50s, there was a lot more air time than available material so there was a lot of filler. There was also the largely incorrect perception that the pool of competent-or-better actors, directors, and writers was limited and the best ones were already on Broadway or in movies thereby leaving TV to mostly get the scrubs. Television originally demanded new material nearly every week (a typical weekly show used to be 39 episodes a season) so it was considered a creatively exhausting medium that burned out even the most talented writers and performers after only a few years. In addition, the sponsors used to have a lot more power in the early days of TV so there was always the need to kowtow their demands. Furthermore, by the 1960s, the film industry was freed from the shackles of the Production Code so while it could delve into more controversial subject matter with fewer creative restraints, TV still had to make sure its content didn’t violate FCC regulations and alienate large groups of viewers. Finally, from an actor’s perspective, even if you made it on TV, that fame was regarded as ephemeral and would vanish as soon as your TV show went off the air. Movie fame, on the other hand, could last a couple decades. However, as you mentioned, these attitudes have steadily eroded over the last 20 years.
Money.
A film could last two hours and gross tens of millions of dollars. Thus extreme care was taken in crafting the movie. Whereas tv shows were dependent on selling commercials and had to fill dozens of hours per season. Thus the tv shows had to be cranked out.
Now the movie industry has bifurcated with superhero movies that cost hundreds of millions and twee coming of age movies that cost a couple of million. TV has shorter seasons and pay tv, streaming services, on demand, and dvd sales mean more ways to get money for the same product. Thus TV is crafted in a way it never was before. Both Game of Thrones and Chips have had 6 seasons but Chips had twice as many episodes.
I agree that this point plays a big role. Studios can market action movies overseas to an extent not possible with something like Manchester by the Sea.
Early TVs were small little boxes with a little black and white picture. Movie theatres, on the other hand, offered large screens, vivid color, and surround sound. Now, you can get all of that at home, too. Plus, you have your favorite comfy couch.
But, I think the major reason for the explosion of TV has been the fact that cable TV offers just as much freedom as movies once did with regard to content. Censorship has died down as various ways of accessing TV shows have improved; that has created a more vibrant medium.
But you got some of the finest television writing ever back in the fifties. Marty and Twelve Angry Men were both originally written as plays for television. There were even ballets and operas written for television.
Fair enough. I was thinking of memories of my grandmother, telling me how big a deal it was to go to the movie theatre when she was a kid in the 30s. There was a spectacle seeing a big screen and booming sound, but it is now possible to get the same experience at home. That, in my opinion, has contributed to the fact that “going to the movies” isn’t the special experience it once was, and to the fact that vivid effects are not diminished when viewed at home via TV.
Yes. Compare the experience of watching a movie with watching TV, as they used to be.
When you went to a movie, you’d sit in a dark room with a bunch of other people, and you’d pretty much have to give it your full attention. When you watched TV, you might have other things going on in the background, or you might have the TV on in the background while you do other things; and the program would be interrupted every so often for commercials, which takes you out of the moment. I am reminded of Police Squad being cancelled because “the viewer had to watch it in order to appreciate it.”
Since then, home screens have become bigger and higher resolution. TV budgets have become bigger. Thanks to first VCRs, then DVRs and TV seasons on DVD, then on-demand streaming, people no longer have to watch whatever’s on, when it’s on. Viewers have higher expectations, and more choices for how to spend their home entertainment time. Meanwhile, movies haven’t changed all that much.
I hadn’t considered this. Certainly seems reasonable. Makes sense that the film industries growing reliance on box office films to the exclusion of everything else made a vast mass of talent migrate to television. At a certain point, if you know a studio will pass on anything that can’t be almost guaranteed to be blockbusters then why even go them? Especially if a place like Netflix not only wants to make your creative dream a reality but also gives you more artistic freedom. Right now, it seems film executives are under the impression that any remake will be a blockbuster (or at least has a higher percentage of doing so), so they’re inundating the market with remakes no one particularly wanted and relying on it name recognition to make it a blockbuster. They don’t seem to understand that the remakes that WERN’T bombs all primarily had one thing in common: they had far better scripts. Ditto for superhero movies.
Wow, how I could have I forgotten about the infamous Production Code? It’s demolishment certainly would have made movies more attractive for many writers/directors over television. I think your point about the amount of fame television vs movies could give an actor is a good point. Seems so paradoxical though. You’d think a television actor’s fame would have lasted LONGER since they were not only “in the home” every week when the show aired, but would also live on in syndication
Something else I hadn’t considered but makes sense. Televisions are far less expensive than what they used to be but are far bigger, have better screen resolution, and improved audio systems. I can see that popularizing television within and without the industry. It made them more similar to movies and allowed television to mimic the experience watching a movie gave you.
I also just wanted to another possible contribution: By releasing the season all at once, Netflix takes advantage of the novel/television show similarity I mentioned. Like a book, the reader/viewer can read/watch at their own pace. They aren’t forced to consume it week-by-week. Furthermore, they film all the episodes at once which I think would be much more amenable to a movie actor’s schedule. Being on a television show isn’t as much of a time commitment anymore. This is also true for cable companies that don’t release all their episodes at once since the typical 13 episodes are far less than a broadcast network’s standard.
The introduction of DVRs, cheap DVD box sets, and online on-demand viewing massively expanded the amount of story complexity you could expect viewers to handle. The reason that earlier shows were more episodic is that new viewers couldn’t reasonably be expected to start watching from the beginning. Now they can, and do.
At the same time, the increasing importance of the international market for movies meant that mainstream movies trended toward simpler stories and themes. High art is hard to translate; pratfalls and car chases work in any language.
There’s nothing wrong with simple stories, and I love a good car chase, but art requires subtlety and nuance.
#3 for the win. I avoid theaters like the plague. TV (including home projection TV) is the only option available. Mr. Theater Owner, do you want me to come and buy a ticket? Rein in the jackasses in your theater. Common courtesy has become as fashionable as buggy whips.
As an outsider (i.e. just a consumer with no special insights into the industry) it seems fairly simple to me: the stigma of working on TV because TV was seen as a lesser art has gone away because for the most part TV is no longer a lesser art.
(I mean some of it still is, obviously, but there are plenty of terrible movies out there too.)
I really think the proliferation of new outlets financing their own content has dramatically changed the landscape. Many of them seem willing to take risks on interesting ideas, and I suspect that goes a long way towards making the set of TV projects overlap with the set of projects “serious” actors are interested in pursuing. A lot of TV shows these days rival serious movies in terms of cinematography and overall quality. It doesn’t surprise me if a True Detective (well, season one anyway) or Vince Gilligan project is more attractive than the thousandth shitty installment of the Marvel / DC franchise.
From my perspective when I think of catching a good example of actors and production people finely executing their craft I don’t automatically think of the big screen anymore. I’m more likely to start looking at Netflix original content (for example). If that change in perception has filtered down to my level, it strikes me as very likely it exists in the professional acting circles too.
I also agree with the points others have made about a 13 episode season story versus a 2 hour movie story. It is hard not to think of a blockbuster movie as simply light entertainment these days, even the supposedly dramatic ones, compared to the richness and depth of story and character you can get over a 13 episode arc. The exceptions that I have really enjoyed recently (Blade Runner 2049 and Dunkirk) have been visual feasts that really took advantage of their format.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Yeah, you spent more time with Sid Caesar and Lucy than with Rock Hudson or Debbie Reynolds, but that means Caesar and Lucy became your “buddies”, which may make for a warm, fuzzy feeling but doesn’t breed awestruck star quality.
Just to add to your list: streaming services, such as Hulu, Netflix, or Amazon Prime. Serialized television necessitates that viewers watch the entire series in order, rather than just catch a stray single episode here and there. Buying a DVD box set is sometimes a pretty hefty investment for a show you may have missed the first time around, but aren’t sure you really want to watch all the way through. With streaming services, you can watch a couple episodes and if you like it, you can continue; if you don’t like it, you just forget about it. The longterm effect is that more complex serialized storylines can be produced without the concern that viewers who may have missed the first episode won’t tune in.
(For an example, the series “Firefly” was famously hindered because the network aired episodes out of order. Casual viewers were confused as to what was happening because the pilot that explained everything wasn’t aired for a few weeks into the run. Hence, viewers didn’t bother to continue with it.)
It’s also worth noting that the advent of DVD box sets and streaming services reduced the voice of advertisers in determining what gets aired. For decades, television was dependent on selling commercial airtime to make their shows profitable. In that arrangement, advertisers had enormous clout about what got on air, and they often demanded that their products not be associated with any controversial material. For example, daytime soap operas (which were the archetype for serialized drama for most of television’s history) were often very conservative due to the demands of advertisers such as Procter & Gamble. thus, for decades, women couldn’t have abortions (unless they were villains), villains were always punished somehow for their transgressions (such as having an affair), there were virtually no LGBT characters, any person of color was relegated to a background role, etc.
The big change came when first box sets and then streaming services meant that television series could be profitable without depending so heavily on advertisers. That freed producers up a whole lot in regards to what they could depict onscreen.
In addition, being on a TV show that was successful in its first-run and then in syndicated reruns could be a double-edged sword. On one hand, there’s the money you get from residuals (which, thanks to SAG, AFTRA, the Writers’ Guild, and other entertainment unions, became extremely lucrative after 1980). On the other hand, if you wanted to make the leap to movies or launch a new TV show, the omnipresent nature of the reruns meant comparisons to your previous show would be unavoidable (especially if the show was highly regarded). Thus, you’d end up competing with yourself. That’s one reason why it’s so difficult for someone who became a big TV star on one program to come back and do it again with another. Even Mary Tyler Moore, who managed to beat the odds with “The Dick Van Dyke Show” and her self-named program, couldn’t make lightning strike a third and fourth time.