| re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:29 pm EST 02/08/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands - mikem 05:22 am EST 02/08/23 | |
|
|
|
| I have at least 2 reasons. First, universally, I feel streaming/taping is unhealthy for the theatrical art form because it substitutes for seeing a live performance. I'm not worried about it with someone like you, but it opens the door to the broader audience equating the two alternatives and the more successful it is, the closer we get to a time when the live performance becomes irrelevant. Also, I feel seeing the show (even more so when it is streamed) on a screen provides a lesser experience and communicates (especially to those who have never experienced the joy of live theatre) that this is what it is and, oftentimes, what one sees on a screen is a poor translation because the performances were not designed (by director, actor, etc) for that medium. (There is an additional issue, which has been discussed here IIRC, because the compact between artists and audience in the theatre incorporates a suspension of belief that does not register or apply when viewed on a screen.) I could go on but I'll shift to the second reason, which is at least alluded to in that lousy article: that streaming is not financially beneficially to commercial producers. This relates to both the cost of doing the streaming or recording and also to the long term box office effect. The article includes certain claims by the self-interested party, like the number of people watching the streams, that are not verified and sound like likely puffery. Moreover, even if true, it's a drop in the bucket. As I said these non-profit streaming examples are apples and oranges with commercial Broadway, and the math for the Hamilton deal is going to be used as a demonstration that, economically, it was a bad deal. (One that Hamilton could afford, but most could not, and that does not even account for the fact that that deal would not be available to most any other show). I hope this clarifies my shorthand comment in the earlier post. | |
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands - mikem 05:22 am EST 02/08/23 |
| Next: | re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands - mikem 06:24 pm EST 02/09/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.042473 seconds.