Broadway Shows as 3D Movies - I Can't Wait! — Page 2

I suppose my view is that no matter how these shows are filmed, they should be. Do we need a 3D version of IRENA'S VOW? Probably not. But once the show closes it should be available for people to see who either couldn't see it live (don't forget there are a lot of disabled people out there who love theater and are totally unable to attend) or want to see it again. And yes, for this particular 3D experience I'm sure a few stage actions will be altered to make the experience "unique" but that's a small price to pay for having the work preserved and accessible (unlike Lincoln Center's library that so desperately needs to be opened up to the general public AND released for DVD sale) to those want to see it.

I do see a risk, Jordan.

If someone sees one of these films of live theatre they may find it very boring because the acting is not for film and the whole show will seem very confined since is is confined to a stage. So they may think they don't like theatre and won't want to go to shows because of that.

They won't have had the "live" experience with the chills of stage presence and the sense that since it is live anything could go wrong and they can't do another "take" and yet here they manage to do these sometimes amazing feats of memory and agility every night right on cue. Plus real singing sounds so much better than recorded music on the ear, and the same for a live orchestra. They won't have that experience either and may just decide to shun theatre, thinking it is boring.

So nomdeplume, how do you explain the success the Metropolitan Opera is having with their operas shown in theaters, selling out all over the world every single performance? They are even launching (if they haven't already) an on demand tv station for them, demand is so high and all this with Opera having a MUCH more limited fan base than regular musical theater.

As far as the people you mentioned who would potentially go see one of these films and not like it and decide they didn't like theater at all...Well I'm pretty sure that if they decide they don't like theater at all because of a filmed version of something I'm pretty sure that seeing it live would have the same impact on them.

Updated On: 5/23/09 at 08:07 PM

Well, Jordan, there is not one right answer here. You have to evaluate all the angles, look at the risks versus gains.

I don't think the Met Opera ever intends to make films of their operas, as movie films, set outdoors, many settings, etc. So they don't have the downside risk of having it detract from a possible future movie. And a lot of the Met Operas would certainly not be "original" works to them, their authors, composers being out of copyright (not all) as well. The Met Opera does not, to my knowledge, do any touring casts that the filmings would give competition. And the filming for them may actually sell CD recordings or downloads for people who decide they like the music and want to have it afterward to listen to, since the Met's movie screenings are in-theatre, pay-per-view and in a limited timeframe for viewing rather than open-ended, as I recall.

I'm sure the Met weighed the benefits versus risks for some time. PBS has aired Met operas for years and Lincoln Center has even aired some of their theatrical performances such as The Light in the Piazza, but only for one or two showings, and that musical was close to operetta.

That said, have you ever watched a filmed opera on TV? They are pretty dreadfully boring and I can't watch them easily though I have a longer attention span for it live as the experience is so much richer and more dimensional.

Some operas are better than others, trust me on that. Plus it really is an acquired taste, or was for me. But man those four-hour Tchaikovsky operas are so long and Russian you don't want to see anything else Russian for a year or two, you've had your fill. Verdi and Puccini and Wagner are a different story.

And see, I'm afraid filming it would reduce watching live theatre to being dreadfully boring, too, taking the fun out of it.

And there is another competition. Shows like Spelling Bee are playing live in theatres all over the place so a stage film would be competition for those regional and smaller theatres putting it on. When the touring companies are going around, the rights are not available to those small theatres to avoid competition.

I am on the side of releasing a filmed stage version AFTER the show has closed. But, release it none-the-less.


Blaxx - Seeing a bootleg vs. a filmed stage version is like oranges and apples. Yes, with a bootleg you see it RAW like it is in the theatre but the actors, producers, director, etc. sees no money for their hard work. With a filmed stage version, you have people saying "cut" and redoing scenes and blah blah blah but we see a show that does not have a head blocking the view....the cameraman clapping, where it's like the Blair Witch Theatre Project....AND the actors, etc. get their dues.

---

The fact that operas get filmed and released on DVD all of the time is why I find the "live experience" argument so dubious. Of course theatre is best experienced live, but if there's no possible way you can ever see a show, it's better than absolutely nothing.

Btw, a lot of operas get turned into movies: Madama Butterfly, Die Zauberflote, etc. So, yes, they would risk losing revenue for movie releases.

For instance: when I saw Avenue Q on tour recently, a girl behind me was telling her friend that she wanted to see Legally Blonde when it came here becaus she had seen the MTV broadcast and it was really good. And, judging from her other comments, this was not a hardcore theatre junkie.

---