Is putting Broadway Shows in movie theatres truly a good idea? Let's discuss.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 12:40pm

As I reflect upon the MEMPHIS thread as well as the AUDIENCE BEHAVIOR threads I wonder if there are long term implications for this new crossover of Broadway shows in movie houses.

On the surface, it seems wonderful. Bringing Broadway shows to places that may never see them and expose people who never get to NYC.

On the contrary, does it reinforce the blending of movie house=Broadway house. Live theatre is movie theatre. Talk, eat, discuss, get up, etc. Increasing a growing casual nature towards live performance?

Also, with more musicals based on junky film properties does it further blur the line of theatre as a mere commodity and will this hurt the new musicals, small musicals, complex composers?

Will producers begin factoring in film rights to the initial negotiations for stage shows? "Oh, well no one would see this in a movie theatre?"

Some of what I found magical about live theatre was that it happened in just that moment for just those people present. Elitist? Yes a little, but I think that was kind of cool.

Will films eventually hurt tours? People thinking they saw the movie, so why bother?

Those were just some of the thoughts I had. Im not pro or con, just wondering out loud.

Discuss.

Posted: 5/1/11 at 12:47pm

Just to add to your debate.

Out of the 10 people in my theatre for MEMPHIS .

2 older men were cackling uproariously- in an extended way while chomping popcorn.

and a senior proceeded to have a conversation on his cellphone for 3 minutes until a woman yelled- shut your phone off!-from across the theatre.

another person was texting and lights glared all over

Um---yeah----
protocol trends could be gone if it continues.
But it depends on the show, circumstance, etc.

there are the same types that go see a theatre live and ruin it for everyone else.
no matter what it is.

I do feel that theatre etiquette is gone.
But it's our responsibility to teach everyone else around us I guess.

I do feel it can be commercial for seeing it live.
I think it broadens to an audience that may not necessarily be available to afford a show.

In my case, I already saw memphis on stage and wanted to introduce it to others that couldn't afford to see it in person.

Taping something live may also be more lucrative for the show in box office receipts.

I want more to come.
Updated On: 5/1/11 at 12:47 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 12:47pm

I was also thinking about the long-term impacts on touring productions, but if this continues with such short runs, it's really a relatively small number of people who are going to have seen the film. I would worry more about hypothetical DVD releases hurting ticket sales in the long term.

As far as its impact on theater-going behavior, I don't know. Yes, there's a different standard of behavior in a movie theater, and yes, people will be able to engage in movie theater behavior during what was once a real, live Broadway show, but it's a movie, NOT a live performance. I'm not advocating overly rowdy movie theater behavior, but I think it's a little silly to assume that just because films like Memphis are somehow holier pop culture than your average crappy film because they were made out of live stage performances, people are going to start conflating the two. I can't imagine someone going to a Broadway show having seen Memphis at the movies and thinking, well, when I saw Memphis is was okay to loudly unwrap candy and talk to my friend and text so I'll do it here, too. People behave that way at shows, but I don't know that it's in correlation with the stage-to-screen trend. No matter what, a film is never going to give you actual people in front of you, performing in real time, and I think in general, that's what sets up the paradigm of different behavior and levels of respect.

Updated On: 5/1/11 at 12:47 PM

[Katurian2]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 12:54pm

I've said this in a previous thread, but I don't think DVD sales would hurt ticket sales as much as some say it could. Just as with concert DVDs not reducing the amount of people who go see their favorite bands on tour.

I know personally that I would see Frankenstein in the NT in a heartbeat, even having seen the theatrical release, and even if I could obtain a hypothetical DVD copy of it. A truly great show is a great show, and people will pay to see it live. Even non-theatre goers realize the difference between a recorded version and seeing something in person.

Maybe they wouldn't see Memphis after having seen it in a movie theatre, but then well, Memphis just isn't very good.

[bwayfan7000]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 1:40pm

Since seeing Memphis in a movie theatre last night, I, too, have given this some thought.

I think that whether or not it will hurt sales depends on the show. For a show like Memphis, a lot of people who are interested in that show are a certain type of theatregoer. They tend to be the type to not take a huge risk in the shows they see. They are content to see a show with music of a familiar style and a plot that they have been given before in other shows/movies. That's really not meant to be a knock at Memphis, but it's more fun theatre than it is bold theatre. And these people I'm talking to above tend to see the same shows over and over just because they know them. They would see Phantom 20 times just because it toured to their city or they're in New York and want to see a Broadway show. These people, assuming that they enjoyed Memphis, would see it in a movie theatre, on Broadway, on tour, and maybe even buy the DVD. They like the familiarity. The person behind me said after the showing, "If we're ever in New York, we can see it again! Or the tour!" So I don't think this will hurt sales of the live performance, but perhaps for a smaller show, people will prefer to just watch it in the theatre and won't see it live. But, then again, the smaller shows still tend to get way fewer people in the audiences anyhow. So it might be a losing battle.

As for audience behavior, except for the woman behind me whose cell loudly rang and then she answered it and had a short conversation (which didn't go on very long, or I would've said something), the audience was pretty well behaved. I think that if audience members feel they are entitled to talk, text, or do other obnoxious things in a theatre where a live show is playing, they'll do them. I don't think a line is really drawn between movies and theatre for most people. I have heard people loudly whispering both places.

Sorry for the overly long post...

[phantom39]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 1:41pm

Ha, the million dollar question. Producers have been trying to get this right for the past 20 years.

Everyone has an opinion on this, some say it's the best thing a show can do during a run, while others say it may kill future box office biz. I won't go into these opinions, because everyone has theirs. But here are some facts from a few recents "experiments", you be the judge:

Legally Blonde was on MTV (and is available where Internet is found).
- The Broadway production got another full year of good sales
- Brand recognition for "Legally Blonde: THE MUSICAL" ("what? there's a musical?" was out of people's vocabulary once the show aired)
- The tour production was a hit, selling out in most theaters (now in SECOND national tour)
- The London production is a big hit, winning olivier awards and getting great B.O. numbers.
- The brand is international with productions opening in South Korea, Philippines, Netherlands, Paris, Finland, Sydney...

Rent was filmed and shown in theaters. A DVD and a Blu-Ray are on sale.
- The film did very well in theaters, with an encore presentation shown shortly after.
- The "Rent" brand got stronger; Sony reported DVDBlu-Ray sales are fantastic.
- Rent is now RE-OPENING in NY after just closing its doors in 2008 due to consumer demand.

South Pacific was shown on Public Television. Everyone with a DVRInternet connection has a copy.
- The production went to tour the U.S. (not sure about their sales- anyone?)
- An identical production is opening in London with some leads from the broadcast due to great buzz of their performance ("we want to see him!")

So, in my opinion, shows getting filmed are not only getting brand recognition internationally, but also get a new revenue stream out of possible DVD sales (which won't hurt ticket sales- people understand the difference between a DVD and a live performance. Those who could not afford seeing the Broadway production would get the taped performance on PPV or DVD).

Theater would need to embrace technology, whether producers like it or not. Audiences can't get enough of a product if they like it, and theater not available for them to buy only hurts possible sales. The Broadway unions would also have to understand this, and be less stiff about this process.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 3:18pm

I honestly would rather watch them on DVD in my home as opposed to going to a movie theater.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 3:27pm

TaleofTwo, you raise a good point. It's almost like a marketing tool for branding. That being said, Sondhiem's stuff, LaChuisa's stuff, and the like aren't really brandable.

My fear is fluff like Legally Blonde and such will become the high profile candy that gets produced.

I'd be more interested in seeing complex works like Grey Gardens in a theatre but thats never gonna happen.

Also, I never really understand why shows which kind of suck and don't recoup (aka Legally Blonde) are then opened overseas. What producers would be like, "let's mount this show that got mixed to negative reviews and did not make its money back over here."

[binau]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 6:33pm

TaleofTwo, can you really claim the screening caused another year of "good sales" for Legally Blonde? :- I mean, what is your reasoning behind this? Also, where are the sales data for RENT? And where did you notice the London Buzz relating to the South Pacific Broadcast?


"I've said this in a previous thread, but I don't think DVD sales would hurt ticket sales as much as some say it could. Just as with concert DVDs not reducing the amount of people who go see their favorite bands on tour"

I can definitely say that in my case it would probably make me less inclined to spend money to go to NY. (I live in Australia). If I lived within the actual NY area though it probably wouldn't -but I've been to NY twice and have another trip booked - and I'm e.g. travelling to NC to see Ripley in the N2N tour - it just costs so much money. If I could have seen the OBC of N2N in a cinema, and most of the current high-profile shows, I probably wouldn't have bothered this time around.

Updated On: 5/1/11 at 06:33 PM

[Kalimba]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 6:41pm

It's a good idea, but it has to be properly marketed. There are so many shows I wish were preserved this way.

[Donthatecongratulate]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 7:26pm

"A truly great show is a great show, and people will pay to see it live. Even non-theatre goers realize the difference between a recorded version and seeing something in person. "

The reality is, that in this economy lots of people can't afford to the see the shows they would like, even if they live in NYC. For example, BOMs new outrageous prices make it virtually impossible for the regular middle-lower class person to get a ticket. Bway producers need to be less greedy and set a cap across the board on ticket prices, thus making it even more competitive among different shows for audiences.

But back to the specific subject, for the average person who can't afford outrageously priced tickets, movie houses are a great way for shows to be seen. But I do believe that in the long run, it will cheapen the Broadway experience which is supposed to have a certain amount of class and decorum. I think Broadway previews would be a great alternative. Use top quality B-roll to advertise the show to a larger market which would make people want to come spend their much needed tourist dollars in NYC......let's face it, without tourists, midtown would be broke.

As far as behavior goes, I think that ALL pre-show recordings should specify things like talking, candy wrappers, phones, etc., and people who don't follow the rules should be kicked out. Period. (There should be a fine-print clause on tickets stating that inappropriate behavior won't be tolerated.)

You have to elevate people to the standard that you want them to be.

just IMO.......

[binau]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 7:31pm

Donthatecongratulate, aren't Book of Mormon's cheapest seats (rear-mezz) still the same cost as they always have been? I.e. how is it less affordable? (I'm aware that they raised the tickets prices for the Mid-Mezz, but my point is that theatre-goers don't necessarily have to spend any more money than they did before).

Updated On: 5/1/11 at 07:31 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 7:43pm

This argument is old and honestly, pretty pointless. People want to see and have these shows to watch over and over again and they're going to get them whether they do it from a professionally done source or from a bootleg they track down.

I love the fact MEMPHIS is testing the waters with releasing a show while it's still playing and I'd love it if more shows followed that. Sadly though, the first time a show tanks people will say it's a complete failure and that should be an end to the whole thing, and you know they will. The fact is, some will make money and some won't. They're taking the same risk that Warner Bros. does every time they make a movie.

[Hest882]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 10:05pm

As an NT Live subscriber, and as someone whose first major exposure to Sondheim was the PBS filmed version of Sunday in the Park with George, AND as someone who lives far from Broadway, I am firmly on the "pro" side of musicals in movie theaters. I'm also lucky enough to be a subscriber of my regional repertory theater, but since I'm hardly rich I can't see all the musicals I want. The advantage of musicals in movie theaters for someone like me are manifold, include being able to see performances close-up and life-size in a way I couldn't afford to do regularly if they were Broadway or official touring performances. As much as I'm fond of my DVDs, there is something about seeing something on a large screen that is extra exciting.

Yes, you have the noisy audiences, but that's not the fault of the venue. Those "Silence is Golden" reminders still apply to movies, and given all the threads about people talking and texting during Broadway shows it's obvious that it's going to be a problem whether live or at the movies.

[phantom39]

Posted: 5/1/11 at 11:51pm

TaleofTwo, can you really claim the screening caused another year of "good sales" for Legally Blonde? :- I mean, what is your reasoning behind this?

I can't say if that was a direct result of the screening, but the fact is, after airing the show on national television, ticket sales were not "killed" because you could see the show for free and the Broadway production was open for another complete year of good sales, per their grosses. If they were smart enough to get it out on DVD, maybe they could have created a new revenue stream for the Broadway production and keep the show afloat for more than a year.

The reality is, that in this economy lots of people can't afford to the see the shows they would like, even if they live in NYC. For example, BOMs new outrageous prices make it virtually impossible for the regular middle-lower class person to get a ticket. Bway producers need to be less greedy and set a cap across the board on ticket prices, thus making it even more competitive among different shows for audiences.

You can't give the economy excuse. People CAN afford seeing these shows, that's why last week over 10 shows were up in the Mil$ club. Those that can't go see these shows, will NOW have an opportunity to pay $20 to see them-- producers target the crowd that can't get to Broadway and pay $140, and *may* see the tour for $70 if they like the show enough. Besides, they probably already paid $20 to see the movie and another $20 to own the DVD. It's a win-win.

Updated On: 5/2/11 at 11:51 PM