Broadway Shows as 3D Movies - I Can't Wait!

I think this could be a fantastic idea. I have a feeling that if this happens 9 to 5 will be one of the first we see in theaters.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/129511-Will_Broadway_Productions_Be_Seen_as_3-D_Movies%3F

Well I'm up for anything that includes filming Broadway shows. I wish they'd do it more often. It doesn't compare to the experience of being there, but after a show closes it's certainly the best we have.

Ugh...but what about those of us who get motion sick in 3D movies?

---

I am all for this. Living in Detroit, times are extremely tough, so money to go to school in NY, let alone visit NY is not there. I would love it to be, but its okay. Back to reality, I really wish that they taped Broadway shows so people like me would be able to see them. But lots of money would be lost if they were to film these shows, because then people would feel they wouldn't need to see them. Maybe they should do something similiar to the Live performances from the Met at the local movie theatre. Why not film Broadway performances every once in awhile and broadcast them on the big screen. I would not mind paying $25-30 to go see that type of entertainment.

"Musicals have never been more prominent in the pop culture psyche than they are right now."

Is this guy on crack?

"If you use the argument that seeing something on the big screen or at home will dissuade someone from going live than how is it that THE SOUND OF MUSIC, OKLAHOMA, THE KING & I etc are done constantly all over the world and are also the most seen movie musicals ever?"

Yes, but as you stated, these movies are not the filmed version of the stage show. Yes, there is (in most cases) the same plot and songs, but it's a completely different experience from having actors on stage perform it. You see all the stage tricks, all the uses of scenery and lighting that would happen on stage. You'd see the Wicked Witch rise up in her cherry picker, or a bunch of hippies running through the audience. These are special surprises that only happen with stage versions. Movies have huge budgets.

Chicago brought more people to the theater because it is a different show than what the movie was. Different choreography, the complete score, and just a different feeling. My guess is people wanted to see how they differ. If Chicago was the filmed version of the stage show, I don't think we would've seen the box-office boom that we saw.

I spoke with many friends and family members when I asked them if they wanted to see Legally Blonde with me. Their response? "It was filmed for TV, so I'll just watch it there."

I'm not against this happening, but I think it wouldn't be a good idea for currently running shows. Perhaps after a show has closed, then let audience members who didn't get a chance to see it live at least take away something?

What about contracts and pay? That's my big question.

---

Updated On: 5/22/09 at 03:30 PM

I love it! Love it! Love it!

I wonder how this would effect subsidiary film version rights to the show's author/creator of an original work. You are essentially making a movie of the stage show which may obviate demand for the film version of the musical, which would be different from the stage version. For example, the film version of Phantom was able to use a lot of outdoor scenes and many more sets than you would have onstage. Webber waited a long time (perhaps until his duty of payment to investors ended, for one thing).

I think this would work for some shows better than others. For producer-created, investment-driven shows this may work. For original works it may not be such a good idea.

^ Wow. What an ignorant statement. Experiencing theatre live is not possible for everyone. There are a load of shows that I want to see, but I live far from New York and my parents aren't willing to book broadway binge trips for me every summer. There are loads of people who would love to see certain shows that are not accessible for them. That was one of the most moronic and ignorant statements I have ever read on this board.

---

Updated On: 5/23/09 at 06:41 PM

Thank you for seeing my point, nomdeplume. I know that some people aren't fortunate enough to live in or near New York, but Broadway shows are something I feel can't be filmed. This is my opinion, and I am NOT being ignorant. But I did have a feeling that someone would be ignorant enough to act like I'm a complete idiot.

---

Nobody needs to deem someone else ignorant, just all move on from adding name-calling to an opinion. It's not needed in the discussion.

I would also add that the acting onstage has to be a lot bigger to be seen from a distance than it does on the screen, and larger physica gestures may be used as well to convey the story and often actors have trouble with that transition, many can't do it, so seeing stage acting in a different medium often looks way exaggerated.

Many of the Broadway shows, and sometimes others, are filmed for archival purposes, have been for many years, and kept at the NY Library for the Performing Arts and I don't know anyone who would be against that. You do need to being doing research or some such to view them; I don't believe they are available to everyone who walks in.

But that is an entirely different subject matter than what this thread was addressing about commercial filming of Broadway shows for presentation in 3D in movie theatres.

I don't have as much of a problem if the show is closing (i.e. Rent Filmed Live on Broadway) or is a limited engagement. Having a recording of Merman in Gypsy would be golden since she is obviously not playing the role anymore.

Changing the subject, the first filmed shows would probably be the Disney shows, since we all know that the Disney company would never pass up an opportunity to make some cash.

---