Should There Be A Push for Recordings of Shows?- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 2:11pm

They removed a lot of stuff because of the crackdown from the Ed Sullivan estate.

The Sullivan estate has over 15 hours of clips from Broadway shows 1950-1970. It has release only a handful of these, and it pursues legal action against anyone who posts them.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 2:21pm

"There are pros and cons on both ends, as with everything.
But I will say, I would much prefer to watch a filmed musical than a movie musical most of the time. Case in point: 2008 Broadway Rent or Film Rent? No comparison or competition for which ones I will want to watch when introducing friends to the show."

My initial opinion about this is in the spirit of expanding interest, but as I think about it, it's not like Broadway is dying*. Gross increased last year, didn't it? At first the giant ticket price increases in the past few years may seem a big reason for Broadway to buckle under its own weight, but instead I think the target audience has simply shifted. And I think flop rates generally have remained the same for a long time. If theatergoing as a hobby/tourist attraction were to fall in both ticket sales and gross, perhaps then an "evolution" would make more sense to consider.

*Some may disagree in the artistic sense, but I mean from the pure economics standpoint. 

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 2:56pm

No! I also think films should only be shown in one theater for a few months, and then burned. The scripts can be sent to amateur filmmakers around the country to reproduce locally.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:07pm

"But you can't.

That's the point of theatre. "

 Well I can. they film it and hold it at the Lincoln center library. I just wish I could pay for it and keep it lol

theatre is meant to be seen live and that's the point but why shouldn't we be able to look back at what others did years ago before I was even born. 

Shrek is up on Netflix and it's great!

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:09pm

I would never substitute seeing a show live with a video recording cause I know it's not even a quarter as good as seeing it live but it would be nice to see all the classics I couldn't see

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:10pm

I don't understand why this question keeps coming up. Where is the (hypothetical) money coming from? If somebody wants to foot the bill and pay for shows to be recorded, like NTLive and Lincoln Center, then it can happen. Otherwise, it can't.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:17pm

That's what we are taking about in this thread! Producers should set money aside to professionally film it with the original cast and release it after closing. They already film the shows anyway but it's usually just a video of the stage. Not any well done videos except for shrek and piazza and South Pacific and a few others

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:24pm

I mean realistic ideas of where the money is coming from.

"Producers should set money aside to professionally film it"

That's not going to happen.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:25pm

"They already film the shows anyway but it's usually just a video of the stage."

 That's because it does not cost them money to create an archival video. If it did you can be guaranteed that you would see a lot less of those being filmed as well.

You are aware of how hard it is to fund a show (you should be, with all your "insider" friends)? Now add in an additional cost to film a video which is probably even less likely to be profitable than the show itself. I'm sure producers and investors would love to see that line item added in to the budget.

[brdway411]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:33pm

Shrek was so much better live. 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:36pm

sometimes the producers of the show don't produce the cast album right? Maybe there would be people interested in producing the film of the production and selling it after it closes

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 3:50pm

Grosses are up because ticket prices are sky high. Many people can no longer attend and have been priced out. Now, New York is a destination for tourists. With horror stories re crime and Times Square becoming nothing more than a Disney Park it may have a bad effect on tourism. The weak dollar abroad may keep some tourists from coming as might some current events.

Many people think the price increases can continued unabated with no end in sight. They are wrong.

Time will tell

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 4:04pm

Important to understand that the archival recordings are inexpensive (relatively: around $15k average last I heard) and have little setup, editing or post production. A fully realized filming (a la Passing Strange) is a horse of a very different color and costs real money, not only including paying everyone but also for the entire bucket of what it costs to make a "professional" movie. Many shows complete their capitalizations at the eleventh hour; no way producers would take on the added burden.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 4:29pm

I'm conflicted because I do think everything should be recorded, at least for the archives so it exists somewhere. But I know that making it commercially available would affect ticket sales. I think similarly to Netflix and home video when the option is available, you don't go see the lesser material in person. If everything were recorded I think there would be a tier of theatre the way there's a tier of film that most people just wait to catch on DVD or Netflix. 

That said, I'm sad everyone couldn't experience things like Doctor Zhivago and Ellen Greene reprising her role as Audrey at Encores.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 4:40pm

Wait.... they should budget for it so you can see it because you want to?  Just the way the world works.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 4:50pm

I think that more musicals should be recorded in order to preserve our history. Make them available for streaming or, at a premium, on-demand printing.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 5:02pm

Why the hell would producers spend an additional $500k+ for an unproven product/market? 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 5:23pm

cause maybe it would sell well. Theres a recording of the 25th anniversary of Phantom at Royal Albert Hall. Pretty sure that sold well

[Marianne2]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 6:00pm

There is a huge difference between Phantom,  which has been on Broadway for 27 years now, and a show that closed quickly.  Like if I offered most people to see something like Phantom or a show like Glory Days,  I highly doubt they would choose Glory Day. 

I get the desire to want to see certain shows or performers. But, a recording cannot usually match the magic of seeing something  live. 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 6:05pm

okay well i think hit musicals at least would make money from their recordings

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 6:32pm

"okay well i think hit musicals at least would make money from their recordings"

 Well they don't. I understand that you want them to, and why you do, but they don't. And no producer, affiliated or independent, would do it to lose money. Except maybe the OTT idiots. 

If you remain interested in the theatre, you can satiate your desires at TOFT.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 7:00pm

"Important to understand that the archival recordings are inexpensive (relatively: around $15k average last I heard) and have little setup, editing or post production. A fully realized filming (a la Passing Strange) is a horse of a very different color and costs real money, not only including paying everyone but also for the entire bucket of what it costs to make a "professional" movie. Many shows complete their capitalizations at the eleventh hour; no way producers would take on the added burden."

 Oh, I myself was only thinking of an archival-type recording, not a big pro-shot affair.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 8:42pm

 Oh, I myself was only thinking of an archival-type recording, not a big pro-shot affair. "

 I was referring to what Pinto wrote, but bear in mind that a filming for any purpose other than TOFT would incur substantial additional costs even if the quality is not improved. 

[Pootie2]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 9:26pm

"
 Oh, I myself was only thinking of an archival-type recording, not a big pro-shot affair. "
 I was referring to what Pinto wrote, but bear in mind that a filming for any purpose other than TOFT would incur substantial additional costs even if the quality is not improved. "

  Fair enough. POD might solve part of that, but the industry hasn't gotten to a point of "adapt or die" for media accessibility; I guess the real modern battle right now is the use of smartphones, between illegal recording and ringing/texting.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 8/3/15 at 9:37pm

how can you say that recordings of the show won't sell when we don't even know the numbers. We haven't seen how much shrek or phantom made