| re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:06 pm EST 02/11/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands - mikem 10:53 am EST 02/11/23 | |
|
|
|
| re Hamilton, (1) I don't think that either the form of making an OBCVR [yes, I just made up that acronym :-) ] or the way it was distributed was financially motivated nor do I think it was the producers per se with the motivation. I think LMM wanted both of these results, for personal and also personal financial reasons that were not especially the best business decisions. The latter did not matter because (a) everyone had already made a ton of money so the production cost was a drop in the bucket and (b) based on generated profit to the production, LMM's compensation (which was significantly above the norm) was actually nowhere near full value. (2) I agree about Disney's "sacrifice" although I just saw an article about how they lost a ton of subscribers in 2022 4Q. Regarding what you say abut why livestreams are not threatening, I think you are correct and thereby have landed on the precise reason why they are not viable commercially. (Hamilton, of course, was not a live stream, nor was it shot on a livestream budget.) What the failure of commercial Broadway to jump on board has shown by its inaction is, that except for a "true phenomenon," it won't fly. As an example, for a great little show like Kimberly Akimbo, that is teetering on the edge financially, a live stream would be suicidal even though, admittedly, it would be popular with folks here who cannot see it on Broadway. (My answer to them would be that I would prefer to see it have a robust afterlife where most everyone will have a chance to see it live and in person.) |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands - mikem 10:53 am EST 02/11/23 |
| Next: | re: Clyde’s had tens of thousands - simbo 03:12 pm EST 02/11/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.014849 seconds.