|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!
|Previous:||Well... - ShowGoer 06:09 am EDT 04/06/21|
|Next:||re: Well... - ryhog 10:14 am EDT 04/06/21|
Time to render: 0.017053 seconds.