TV as play vs TV as film

[FredH]

I’m probably the last person to finally get this, but I finally understand why Classic and 21st-Century Doctor Who feel so different— they’re literally made according to different paradigms (possibly the wrong word). All the way to the end, even in 1989, the original series were basically presented as televised stage plays, even where FX shots, strange editing or other elements temporarily broke through that. Whereas right from the start, the 21C were presented as movies, with fast cutting and a visual, musical and emotional language borrowed directly from film. I think.

So naturally, or at least quite often, people who grew up with the old “stage play” feel and were more used to it tended to gravitate more towards Classic, while younger people who grew up in a later era often quite naturally didn’t.

It’s not really a question of either style being “better”, just of trained audience expectations being different in each era according to that era’s paradigm (or, again, whatever term).

(I grew up with the old so tend to feel more at home with the older series in general, even while also thinking some of the very best individual scripts not written by Chris Boucher come from the modern series.)

(EDIT: That also explains the appeal of Big Finish audios to at least a lot of Classic Series fans — they’re literally audio plays. I guess you could write them in a way that more closely matched the modern style; those I’ve heard do tend to feel about halfway between — stagey, but with more emotion than the original show would have had. Depends on the story, and I stopped trying to keep track of them long ago.)

 

[Santa Kang]

I guess it depends on the era and setting of "Old Who". The Third Doctor had a more film like quality in some serials, especially in the UNIT years. Much more stagey when in the studio

 

[FredH]

I guess it depends on the era and setting of "Old Who". The Third Doctor had a more film like quality in some serials, especially in the UNIT years. Much more stagey when in the studio

See, I wouldn’t say so. Sure there’s the jarring bits (on old TVs) when they switch between videotaped interiors and filmed on-location exteriors. But the pace and staging still feels play-like in that era (to me; YMMV).

In a funny way, I’d actually kind of say that about early Star Trek too, for TOS and at least early TNG. Probably subjective, though.

 

[Santa Kang]

See, I wouldn’t say so. Sure there’s the jarring bits (on old TVs) when they switch between videotaped interiors and filmed on-location exteriors. But the pace and staging still feels play-like in that era (to me; YMMV).

In a funny way, I’d actually kind of say that about early Star Trek too, for TOS and at least early TNG. Probably subjective, though.

I've been stuck at home and Prime has a Doctor Who channel that streams 24/7, so I've been watching a lot of Classic Who. They show them out of order so you can jump from Pertwee to C. Baker to Hartnell to T. Baker.

 

[FredH]

I've been stuck at home and Prime has a Doctor Who channel that streams 24/7, so I've been watching a lot of Classic Who. They show them out of order so you cant jump from Pertwee to C. Baker to Hartnell to T. Baker.

Well, so it’s a sampler potluck. There are worse things to be watching!

 

[Christopher]

I see what you mean. It really started with the Paul McGann movie; I was struck at the time by how much more cinematic it was than the series, in terms of cinematography, music, and the scale of the action. And the revival series continued in that same vein.

I find I'm rather nostalgic for that old-school BBC-TV stagey flavor, which I've been getting a lot of lately. I've been going through the BBC's 1970s-80s complete Shakespeare series, which is quite theatrical, and I just finished a rewatch of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy miniseries, where I was very fond of the cheesy old-school production values and the Paddy Kingsland Radiophonic Workshop score right out of the Fifth Doctor era. And I'll be rewatching Blake's 7 soon. I wouldn't say I prefer it to a more modern cinematic style, but I can enjoy both in their own ways. I don't understand fans who pick one lane and refuse to open themselves to anything different. I enjoy having a variety of approaches to keep things interesting.

Sure there’s the jarring bits (on old TVs) when they switch between videotaped interiors and filmed on-location exteriors.

Why would that not be the case on new TVs? Maybe if you have all those artificial noise-reduction and motion-smoothing settings turned on so that everything is uniformly made to look like high-frame-rate video, it would negate the difference, but I think most viewers prefer to disable those and let film look like film.

 

[JD]

I don't think the difference between the two styles is a purposeful choice so much as an issue of budget. The old series just didn't appear to have the money to really go for the big cinematic style of modern series.
I like both styles, but I do tend to have preference for the bigger modern style.

 

[Unionized Elf]

Indeed, it should be noted that the deleted scenes available on the DVD for the Tennant years do have that sort of "traditional" British videotape look to them, suggesting they were filmed that way and just prettied up in post production to look more like film.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think the difference between the two styles is a purposeful choice so much as an issue of budget. The old series just didn't appear to have the money to really go for the big cinematic style of modern series.

That's a gross oversimplification. Theater isn't just cheap movies, it's a distinct artistic style of its own. Early television was performed live, and early videotaped shows like Doctor Who had to be performed almost live because the technology didn't allow heavy editing. So it essentially was theater, developing its own aesthetic different from what movies (even low-budget ones) were doing at the same time. Naturally that carried over into the age when TV shows could be recorded.

Keep in mind that at the time the BBC was making videotaped shows with a theatrical feel like Doctor Who, Monty Python, and the like, ITV was doing fully filmed shows like The Avengers that were in a more "cinematic" style, or at least a similar style to American filmed TV. So the BBC's approach was as much a matter of preference as budget or technology. In the same way, American TV had single-camera filmed dramas and multi-camera sitcoms with studio audiences, a cinematic style and a theatrical style coexisting, with the difference being an aesthetic and stylistic choice rather than a matter of budget alone.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

There were lots of reasons why the classic series felt more like a stage play than the current one. Episodes were typically shot multi-camera with massive heavy video cameras like an old sitcom, video was more difficult to edit than film so they recorded long well-rehearsed takes, all the actors spoke proper BBC English, and they were in a real rush to get it done. Sometimes they'd get a director like Paul Joyce with fresh ideas, who took the time to give Warrior's Gate a more cinematic look... but he took too long so he wasn't invited back. Graeme Harper did quite well with Caves of Androzani though and continued directing on the new show.

 

[Santa Kang]

Cinematic!!!

 

[Christopher]

There were lots of reasons why the classic series felt more like a stage play than the current one. Episodes were typically shot multi-camera with massive heavy video cameras like an old sitcom, video was more difficult to edit than film so they recorded long well-rehearsed takes, all the actors spoke proper BBC English, and they were in a real rush to get it done.

Well, yeah, that was true in the Hartnell and Troughton eras, but later on they had smaller cameras and easier editing, yet still went for the soundstagey videotaped look. Although that was often a budget issue. I read recently that "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" looked more cinematic than usual because it was Philip Hinchcliffe's last serial as producer, so he pulled out all the stops and went way over budget on location filming and elaborate sequences, because he was leaving anyway so it wasn't like they could fire him for it.

Certainly John Nathan-Turner tried to bring slicker, more sophisticated production techniques and visual style to the show when he took over, which was maybe the first step toward the full-on cinematic style of the McGann movie and the revival. But it was a refinement on the existing video style and electronic music, rather than the jump to filmic aesthetics and orchestral scores that started in '96.

 

[JD]

That's a gross oversimplification. Theater isn't just cheap movies, it's a distinct artistic style of its own. Early television was performed live, and early videotaped shows like Doctor Who had to be performed almost live because the technology didn't allow heavy editing. So it essentially was theater, developing its own aesthetic different from what movies (even low-budget ones) were doing at the same time. Naturally that carried over into the age when TV shows could be recorded.

Keep in mind that at the time the BBC was making videotaped shows with a theatrical feel like Doctor Who, Monty Python, and the like, ITV was doing fully filmed shows like The Avengers that were in a more "cinematic" style, or at least a similar style to American filmed TV. So the BBC's approach was as much a matter of preference as budget or technology. In the same way, American TV had single-camera filmed dramas and multi-camera sitcoms with studio audiences, a cinematic style and a theatrical style coexisting, with the difference being an aesthetic and stylistic choice rather than a matter of budget alone.

OK, I didn't realize that about The Avengers, I had just assumed all British TV was created like Classic Who in that era.

 

[FredH]

Pretty much agreed 100% on all of that, and yes, it definitely started with the McGann film. I guess by the mid-nineties audiences were perceived as just no longer being able to accept the older, slower-paced stageplay approach. Perhaps correctly? Especially once the money and resources were there to make something more energetic available at all.

As to the difference on newer TVs, I don’t know the technical reasons, but can only relate what I’ve seen:

— Growing up in the 70s/80s, the indoor-video/outdoor-film contrast on then-current Who (and whatever BBC shows I saw generally on PBS) was always super-sharp and jarring. (And the sound micing seemed to usually be terrible, too: the Doctor would be excitedly saying mumble mumble mumble and I’d raise the volume and he’d excitedly continue MUMBLE MUMBLE MUMBLE.)

— In recent years, on my now old but still this-century small flat TV, the abovementioned filmgrain differences seem to have disappeared, even on the same shows I remember as visually jarring previously. Whether that’s due to differences in the TV or some kind of remastering process I don’t know.

— Whenever I visit rich suburban in-laws, with a gigantic fully-modern TV, I’m amazed at how sharp and eye-popping the filmgrain quality is even on programs and films from the thirties, let alone the sixties or later BBC stuff.

Others would know better than I why they look different now, but they definitely do.

 

[FredH]

Addendum: Of course, the other advantage of the older stagey approach was that, paradoxically, they allow a show to do more. When the audience basically understands, consciously or otherwise, that what you’re seeing is a sort of stage-play version of the intended fictional reality, you can present lots of different weird planets built out of often-dubious cheap props etc, and it’ll be accepted. (Say what you want about “The Web Planet”, but I’ve always respected its sheer ambition in building a really alien world.). Once you have a huge budget and everything is supposed to look “cinematically real”, most of the time you’re either stuck on Earth/London/Cardiff, maybe a few planets that look like either Earth or a single interior soundstage, or the one or two stories where you got to blow some Disney money. The classic show was cheaper and stagier, but consequently also more free.

 

[FredH]

For a perfect (if obscure) contrast of the two styles, consider the 1956 dramatization of Bang the Drum Slowly — presented as a teleplay on U.S. Steel Hour, apparently— and the 1973 film. It’s not like the film is suddenly frenetic or something, but the difference is there.

 

[FredH]

There were lots of reasons why the classic series felt more like a stage play than the current one. Episodes were typically shot multi-camera with massive heavy video cameras like an old sitcom, video was more difficult to edit than film so they recorded long well-rehearsed takes, all the actors spoke proper BBC English, and they were in a real rush to get it done. Sometimes they'd get a director like Paul Joyce with fresh ideas, who took the time to give Warrior's Gate a more cinematic look... but he took too long so he wasn't invited back. Graeme Harper did quite well with Caves of Androzani though and continued directing on the new show.

That’s too bad — I’ve always quite liked Warriors Gate and the surrealistic “shifts” in the castle (and would like to have revisited the Tharils).

 

[Christopher]

— In recent years, on my now old but still this-century small flat TV, the abovementioned filmgrain differences seem to have disappeared, even on the same shows I remember as visually jarring previously. Whether that’s due to differences in the TV or some kind of remastering process I don’t know.

As I said, it depends on the settings on the TV. The smart TV I recently bought, my first, fortunately doesn't appear to have motion smoothing, but it came with things like noise reduction, dynamic contrast, and edge enhancement set to medium by default, and I learned in reading online that you'd get a more authentic picture if you turned those off. (These days you can't learn anything about a product unless you search the web. The TV didn't come with a proper instruction manual, just a pamphlet with assembly instructions and a guide to the remote buttons.)

Still, it does seem that the clarity of both film and video images is better. Looking up close at the screen when watching an older videotaped show, for instance, I don't see any scan lines, so I think there must be some computer interpolation going on to fill them in.

Thinking back on my Hitchhiker's Guide rewatch, I wasn't really paying attention to the contrast between the film and video scenes, but as far as I can recall, the location scenes did look like film and the studio scenes like video. I'll try to pay more attention when I get to Blake's 7.

Addendum: Of course, the other advantage of the older stagey approach was that, paradoxically, they allow a show to do more. When the audience basically understands, consciously or otherwise, that what you’re seeing is a sort of stage-play version of the intended fictional reality, you can present lots of different weird planets built out of often-dubious cheap props etc, and it’ll be accepted. (Say what you want about “The Web Planet”, but I’ve always respected its sheer ambition in building a really alien world.). Once you have a huge budget and everything is supposed to look “cinematically real”, most of the time you’re either stuck on Earth/London/Cardiff, maybe a few planets that look like either Earth or a single interior soundstage, or the one or two stories where you got to blow some Disney money. The classic show was cheaper and stagier, but consequently also more free.

Good point. Higher production values have resulted in a generation that takes everything too literally, that wants the production to do all the work of convincing them instead of exerting their own imaginations to meet it in the middle.

 

[Unionized Elf]

it definitely started with the McGann film. I guess by the mid-nineties audiences were perceived as just no longer being able to accept the older, slower-paced stageplay approach.

I suspect the American influence was probably more at play there. The McGann movie was an American co-production filmed in Canada, so naturally they'd film it in a manner more consistent with American productions than British. Meanwhile when RTD took over the show in 2005, he was specifically trying to hook an American audience, American network audience at that which is why he did thirteen episodes and why in the first season the episodes were usually in the vicinity of forty-five minutes long. So naturally, he'd want to make it look similar to other American shows as opposed to British shows. Though it arguably still came off as "British looking," which is explained in The Writer's Tale as the result of many on the production side of things never having worked on a show like this before and were still trying to figure out how to get it done as they were doing it.

 

[JD]

As to the difference on newer TVs, I don’t know the technical reasons, but can only relate what I’ve seen:

— Growing up in the 70s/80s, the indoor-video/outdoor-film contrast on then-current Who (and whatever BBC shows I saw generally on PBS) was always super-sharp and jarring. (And the sound micing seemed to usually be terrible, too: the Doctor would be excitedly saying mumble mumble mumble and I’d raise the volume and he’d excitedly continue MUMBLE MUMBLE MUMBLE.)

— In recent years, on my now old but still this-century small flat TV, the abovementioned filmgrain differences seem to have disappeared, even on the same shows I remember as visually jarring previously. Whether that’s due to differences in the TV or some kind of remastering process I don’t know.

— Whenever I visit rich suburban in-laws, with a gigantic fully-modern TV, I’m amazed at how sharp and eye-popping the filmgrain quality is even on programs and films from the thirties, let alone the sixties or later BBC stuff.

Others would know better than I why they look different now, but they definitely do.

I have a 10-15 year old dumb, lower level HD, flat TV and the difference between the video and film scene is still very obvious. I'm also watching on BritbBox which seems to be the same version as the DVDs, so it might more cleaned up and less obvious if you're watch Blu-Rays on a full 4K TV. And a lot of them have some AI program that will make everything on it look like 4K, so that might remove some of the differences between the two types of scenes too.