Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Hmmm.. Glib naiveté? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:15 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
| In reply to: Hmmm.. Glib naiveté? - ShowGoer 09:50 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have probably read all of those articles or close to it. I have engaged with a lot of people; I have no idea how it compares to you in quantity, but there is not much quality in what you link. (Your first link to Ken D. kinda makes the point, no?) Here's the thing: Hamilton is sui generis as we all know, and it had banked well over a half a billion dollars in just under 2000 performances before it streamed anything. And that kinda serves up the economic argument. Yes, Netflix, Disney, et al will jump on the shows they can sell, but what happens to the ones they can't (which is most of them). Several possible answers, none of which are good for Broadway, the theatre, or New York City. Do you know how we make sure Netflix keeps buying? Do you know how Netflix short-circuits the production of these things? Think about it and get back to me. It is not pretty. I am happy to discuss this, in any depth you can throw my way. I stand by my two word description that struck a nerve. | |
| reply to this message |
| Well... | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 06:19 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 06:09 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hmmm.. Glib naiveté? - ryhog 10:15 pm EDT 04/05/21 | |
|
|
|
| Those two words haven’t so much struck a nerve with me, as just thinking you’re suffering from the “glib naïveté” you accuse him of. But I’m not saying Yang has all the answers, or that his pilot program makes much sense or will be all that effective, any more than (I think) you’re believing that this is all about Netflix, or that Netflix and Disney are the only streamers. Here’s the thing: you’re making this all about the streaming services; I’m making a larger point and saying it’s about the producers, as a way to preserve their shows, enhance awareness of their theater companies, and strengthen their long-term investments. I’m simply saying, and I’m confident in this, that a post-pandemic world, with it without Andrew Yang as mayor, will be moving more and more towards, not a SHIFT to streaming, but making either concurrent or -eventual- streaming a regular part of the theatrical product, much as the advent of home video in the late 70s and 1980s made video sales on VHS and later DVD a regular part of theirs. Virtually every off-Broadway theatre company and regional resident theater company that I’m aware of is planning/hoping to make it part of their model going forward (for the reasons Terry Teachout cites – during the last year countless theater fans have watched productions online from theaters not only that they’ve never attended and maybe will never visit, but that in some cases they’d never even heard of); I happened to wake up this morning to emails from four such theater companies just from overnight, including the Mint, Bay Street Theatre, and two outside NY, all referencing current or future streaming plans. And with major movie adaptations still a rare thing, virtually every Broadway production will want to make videorecordings happen, whether a smash hit or even some semi-flops (to be honest, it remains to be seen, for example, whether Diana actually opens next winter: it’s possible that in advance of filming they made the deal in advance to sell it and see a partial return on their investment, and that with the show loaded in already, if advance sales are dismal and/or critical and public response lacking, that they’ll have enough time to give notice after it drops on Netflix that the show will not reopen). But much as the major record labels stopped routinely bidding on cast album rights in the 1990s-2000s and the original cast recording became more frequently part of the show’s capitalization (Kurt Deutsch was, I believe, first among others in pushing first-class productions towards this model as the albums by RCA and Sony became rarer and rarer) – I am 100% positive that something of the same will become the rule, not the exception, here as well. (Make fun of Davenport all you want - I can join you in that in some respects - but there’s an argument that his Daddy Long Legs will prove to have had longer ‘legs’ than, say, best musical nominees as diverse as The Visit, Bright Star, The Scottsboro Boys and Groundhog Day purely because that original production was filmed.). Obviously everyone would love the $75-million sale to Disney + .... but the Diana example proves, and I’m sure they hope, the Come From Away example WILL prove, that the interest is there from the producers and the interest is there from the audiences. Maybe by selling to BroadwayHD or Broadway on Demand, maybe by putting it themselves on iTunes, maybe a service that hadn’t been invented yet... but there are more options if a show has been filmed than if it hasn’t. We’re not going to see every single show professionally filmed at all, let alone streamed during their runs... but I believe it will eventually become the rule rather than the exception. Apologies if it seems this discussion has turned snarky, but check back with me in a few years and we’ll see who’s exhibiting quality thinking. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Well... | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 09:49 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:41 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: Well... - ShowGoer 06:09 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't doubt what you're saying will be true. But I want to point out that VHS and DVDs were never released until well after the movie had left theaters, well after all possible ticket sales were made. Now for the movies that are released concurrently in a few theaters and on streaming, that is either a strategy to get people to watch in the comfort of their home and for (often) cheaper than the cinema for smaller movies with niche appeal rather than not getting their ticket money at all (like Bachelorette did several years ago), or major releases that are stunts or crown jewels for the major streaming service releasing them (like The Irishman did). I still think it is bonkers to release a movie people *would* pay for in theaters onto a streaming service they already pay for. I know MANY casual film fans who wanted to see Irishman but were happy to watch (for free, to them) on their home TV. Netflix for sure lost probably $30 per couple I know who watched at home but would have seen it in theaters if home viewing wasn't a choice, especially at the same time as in theaters (some who'd watch at home would pay for it in theaters just to have an opinion at the relevant time... so even having a cinema release for just 3 weeks and then concurrent on Netflix would have made them extra money I'm sure. (I also can't image this is good for the movie with regard to the experience the viewer has with it, good movie or not, without the full potential impact of the film when seen in an actually dark room with a truly big screen, and competing with the distraction of every noise or pet sound or buzzing phone, let alone people's propensity for casual texting and talking in movie when at home... so why are filmmakers in favor of this kind of release?) AND, second point... seeing a static thing made for viewing on a screen in a room in a smaller room on a smaller screen is not at all the same thing as viewing a play/musical meant to be experienced live (and directed/acted/designed for that) but seeing it on a screen in your home. It really a different thing on so many profound levels. The main thing I'd look forward to if concurrent theater streaming happens in this country is the accessibility and affordability for people to try out plays and musicals they never would have, in a proper first rate (hopefully) professional production... and can be part of the experience of hearing about it, seeing it, and talking about it, when everyone else is. I'm sure it would do wonders for the Tonys ratings. But while many things transfer film to stage-film (acknowledging of course something will always be lost in the experience of watching a live play on a screen rather than live in the theater it's performed in), many do not. Take something like Imelda's GYPSY which was filmed for broadcast. I have heard that live it was legendary, brilliant etc. I have been scared to even see the film of it because all I hear is that it doesn't play well... it's broad, it's intense in a bad way... the kind of thing that could turn people off of live theater or musicals or Gypsy. For every Hamilton there's at least one london Gypsy. Now of course I'm still very glad it was filmed, as I am every piece of theater that is lucky enough to get filmed... but I wouldn't think it would help the production or the people who see it via the film instead of live, while it's running and they have the chance to force people to see it live. And if I don't like it on the streaming film I see first, the chances are slim I'll buy a real ticket to try it again live just because friends say "no it's really much better live." And if that's my thinking, imagine people who aren't obsessed with theater! They'll watch 20 min and turn it off and move on... and if it was on netflix, they paid nothing for it! ha. It's also QUITE a different proposition for a home viewer if a stage-film is streaming on a platform they already pay for or which they might want to because it offers *many* other movies, series, specials etc... vs paying separately $25 for a single viewing of the stage-film. I would pay that for almost anything I'm mildly interested in... but if it starts becoming a battle between popular streamers and the stage shows they get vs pay-per-show ... I bet many will just happily settle with only seeing the stage-films that the services they already pay for will have. If that happens, how will producers of the pay-per-show films count on their show bringing in those streaming sales? Oh it's all so complex! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well... | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:14 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: Well... - ShowGoer 06:09 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't find what you wrote snark. I did not limit what I said to Netflix/Disney, but what I was trying to emphasize was the outlets that could produce meaningful coin for a production. I was writing about commercial Broadway productions because that's what Yang was talking about, whereas you seem mostly to be talking about non-profit companies. I think the dynamic, motivation, and economics are almost completely different. I don't think what theatre lovers think about the Mint etc all translates at all, and I would also note that these things are not professionally filmed full productions, nor are they even possible without concessions that will obviously evaporate in short order. Bottom line, I think filming is bad for the theatre because it diminishes/depreciates/imperils the art form. You don't see that, so we have to disagree about that. I also confess that I think Yang adores glib solutions that are ultimately lazy at best. In this particular case, I think his grand solution betrays a lack of familiarity with the subject. Just curious: has anyone ever seen him at the theatre? I haven't. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well... | |
| Posted by: LynnB 08:16 pm EDT 04/06/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Well... - ryhog 10:14 am EDT 04/06/21 | |
|
|
|
| “Bottom line, I think filming is bad for the theatre because it diminishes/depreciates/imperils the art form. ... I also confess that I think Yang adores glib solutions that are ultimately lazy at best. In this particular case, I think his grand solution betrays a lack of familiarity with the subject.” I agree on both counts. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.015572 seconds.