Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: We don’t understand the model that works | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 10:59 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: We don’t understand the model that works - ryhog 05:14 pm EDT 03/31/21 | |
|
|
|
| But, if the production as a whole, taking into consideration whatever income was generated from Netflix, ends up returning its investment, isn't that a win? Maybe we will move away from the model of Broadway shows running for many years and needing to run for many years to recoup their investments. Maybe any given production will be planned to run 6 months to a year on the stage and then be filmed. And then, if something really hits and is doing enough business to continue to run past expectations, that's a great bonus. That's pretty much the model for plays already, minus the filming. It's only the really exceptional play that runs more than a year. Maybe we'll see a return to the golden years of Broadway when 50 or more productions opened in a season. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: We don’t understand the model that works | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:38 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: We don’t understand the model that works - JereNYC 10:59 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| "But, if the production as a whole, taking into consideration whatever income was generated from Netflix, ends up returning its investment, isn't that a win?" First of all, I doubt it would but if we assume your "if," no I do not think so. Second, Diana has not opened on Broadway so it is of course a lousy example even of what you are suggesting. But in general, no I would not say that is a win. People produce theatre (in my opinion and also in my observation) because they have a deep-seated belief that live performance is the coolest thing on earth. These filmed things are not and, frankly, I don't really have much of an appetite for them especially when we are not cooped up at home. I think they are pale imitations. Even Hamilton. (Maybe especially Hamilton.) Just returning an investment is not the "win" of making theatre; it is a goal but to me what you are proposing is missing the forest for the trees. And to me the logical extension of what you are proposing is also that we would reach a point where we say (in my best Bette Midler voice) why bother (opening on Broadway at all). |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: We don’t understand the model that works | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:22 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: We don’t understand the model that works - ryhog 11:38 am EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I totally get what you're saying, but from a pure business perspective, the objective is to make money. And, if a production needs to run 3-5 years to recoup the investment or could run 1 year and sell a filmed version of the show to a streaming service, it seems to me that the version of events that includes the streaming service is the better bet. I write this knowing that actual numbers are going to vary from production to production. And running for year, even six months, on Broadway isn't nothing and it's a big leap to "why bother opening on Broadway at all," although, of course, we already have productions produced for television that have never played on Broadway. And any production that was a big enough hit would certainly run for as long as the audiences are there for it, so you'd probably still get some shows with multi-year runs. And I absolutely get that watching a stage production on video is not your personal thing. And I agree that it's not the same. But a lot of people would disagree with you and would happily watch shows on Netflix or wherever. If I lived in some part of the world that was not convenient to New York, I would absolutely treasure the opportunity to watch professionally shot videos of some of the new work from a season that I was not able to get to New York and see anything live in person. I also agree that the reason people who make theatre do that, rather than making money in some easier way, is that they LOVE live theatre. Yep, I don't think that's even a question. But they'd still be making live theatre. It's not an "or," it's an "and." (As the Baker's Wife might say.) The potential fly in the ointment here is that production that is planning a year's run and has a video deal in place and then opens to terrible reviews and dismal ticket sales. Does the video production still happen or would that be contingent on a certainly level of business? If the production closes prematurely, perhaps the entire investment would be lost, but that would also be the case without the video deal. If the video production still went forward, at least whatever is earned from that could be returned to investors, but they'd likely still lose money, but maybe they'd lose less? I don't know. That's why I'm so interested in new business models for Broadway...the only way to see what works is to give it a go and see what happens. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: We don’t understand the model that works | |
| Posted by: ryhog 06:20 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
| In reply to: re: We don’t understand the model that works - JereNYC 12:22 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| I wrote a lengthy reply but had to pause before finishing. I lost it. {I have noticed this a few times recently. I sign in, type a lot but have to stop for a bit and when I come back I have the sign in page again, and no post. Ann-if you read this can you address if something has changed? I'll send a note later if you don't chime in here.} Anyway, briefly now, I think this model presumes that Netflix or equivalent will buy every show, and in advance. Neither is likely to happen, so how does this pan out? What is the timeline you anticipate? I think the shows with big advances could get bought, but that leaves a lot of have nots in this model. I also think that ultimately this shifts content decisions from theatre people to Netflix people. I think you will agree that there are shows that will not translate to film well for one reason or another, and a lot of shows that are going to have to capitalize for filming on spec, when they already have trouble capitalizing just to get up and running. I have more thoughts but losing the screen kinda took the wind out of my sails for the time being. I hear what you are saying and I agree about a lot in the middle of your post and I think searching for new models is great but I just don't see this and I don't think there is a bandwagon that a lot of experienced producers have hopped on, and not because they are closed to trying new things. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: We don’t understand the model that works | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 01:20 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 01:17 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: re: We don’t understand the model that works - ryhog 06:20 pm EDT 04/01/21 | |
|
|
|
| Now, it's my turn...same thing happened to me on Friday when I went to respond. Whole response swallowed up into the void. Oh, well. And then, of course, I was running around all weekend and didn't have a chance to circle back until now. To your point, I'm really curious about how Netflix got hooked up with DIANA. There's nothing about that particular show that would seem to suggest that it would be a good candidate for streaming. I'd have thought that a streaming service would start with either a classic title or a production with a big name star...or possibly a new show that had proven itself and gotten terrific reviews and/or word of mouth or had a bit of a run. I could see them starting with THE MUSIC MAN or HADESTOWN or even AIN'T TOO PROUD or TINA, given that the scores of those are comprised of pop hits. With DIANA, the only connection I see is that Netflix also airs THE CROWN, the most recent season of which covered the Charles and Diana years, and has a recent development deal with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. But here's the thing about that...THE CROWN is going to cover the same ground as DIANA in (most likely) a more complete and interesting way, given its strong writing and performances and expensive production values. And I'm pretty sure that the Duke of Sussex would rather that Netflix just dropped the whole enterprise. So...what's the niche here for DIANA? Who is this for, aside from musical theatre fans? Why did someone at Netflix pony up the cash for this? And then what would be negotiated as far as what point in the process would the production be recorded and at what point would be debut on the service? My sense is that, depending on what the box office looks like, and the timing of the opening, the production would be recorded in the first six months of the run and would hit the service at some point in the first year. Then...the producers would watch to see what happens to their box office after their production becomes available on a service. If they've done a good producing job, my idea is that the box office revenue during the first year, coupled with the investment from Netflix, would put the production into the black around the one year mark, so, if the audiences continue to buy tickets, the show continues to earn money as long as the business lasts. I don't think every production would partner with a streaming service, just as every production now doesn't partner with a film studio and get a movie adaptation. If none of the services bites, I imagine producers would go with the standard model of producing the show and, if it's a potentially long running musical, hope that it runs long enough to pay back. The streaming services would be yet another option, another source of potential investment. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.016186 seconds.