LIVE TV Musicals

[Jessetenny]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:27pm

Personally I love that they are doing Live TV Musicals, and GREASE was by FAR the best one! I think they should do it more like Legally Blonde: The Musical, where they filmed it IN the Broadway House! I feel as though that would get a lot of viewers as well, if they did musicals that are running Like Wicked, Hamilton, Fun Home, Etc. What do you think?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:29pm

That won't happen, people would use that as an excuse to NOT go to the theater. Producers don't want that. They would never consider airing hit shows like "Wicked", "Hamilton" or "Fun Home" on television.  

[Jessetenny]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:32pm

People would still go see the shows, especially the big ones like Wicked and Hamilton. It would just give people who live far away, or don't have enough money the chance to see a legit Broadway show, when they live so far from NYC. I'm sure plenty of people would still see the shows live.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:36pm

Never going to happen no matter how much "reasoning" you want to put behind it. 

That's why there are tours so people outside of NYC and Broadway can experience these shows.

Updated On: 2/24/16 at 05:36 PM

[Margo319]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:36pm

That's not the point.  The point is they want to make as much money as possible, and airing that on TV isn't in their best financial interest.  Broadway is a business.  The point to a business is to make as much money as humanly possible. 

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:37pm

If they charged $100 on pay-per-view, the more popular shows would stand to make a fortune. But working out the contracts with Equity and everyone else would be heated, I'm sure.

[Jessetenny]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:38pm

best12bars said: "If they charged $100 on pay-per-view, the more popular shows would stand to make a fortune. But working out the contracts with Equity and everyone else would be heated, I'm sure.

 

"

I would totally pay for pay-per-view. That is a brilliant idea.

[Sunny11]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:53pm

 

They could compromise by airing shows on TV just before the run ends on Broadway. Think how  many shows close at a financial loss and how an additional revenue from pay per view TV/ VOD/ DVD sales might make up the shortfall.

Also smilarly cinemas often airs live productions such as ballet and plays under a programme called NT live. It's always on week day mornings while I am at work so am unable to go but it looks great. 

 

Updated On: 2/24/16 at 05:53 PM

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 2/24/16 at 5:55pm

I'm a big supporter of filming Broadway shows before they close, i.e. Shrek BUT like it's been mentioned - Broadway shows are an investment, they don't care about as many people seeing the show, they don't care about some 20 year old student from Kansas who can't afford to get to New York. Producers only care about filling the theatre night after night for as long as possible. 

The filming of Legally Blonde was a bad idea and marked the beginning of the end for the show. It was a failed experiment that probably won't ever be repeated. 

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 3:22pm

I really liked The Light In the Piazza on PBS in 2006. 

[Odie2]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 3:43pm

Phantom of the opera 25th anniversary from the RAH is available on DVD and Netflix. As is Les Miserables at the O2. If anything it increases their relevancie at least worldwide, caused many actors to rise to fame and it did not hurt box office sales. Im sure aquity would be fine as long as the actors involved keep on getting risidual checks for every sale and public broadcast. The producers brand gets recognition is a similar way touring productions do and I'm sure they could gain money too.  I don't really see the downside. 

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 3:44pm

Didn't ticket sales for Legally Blonde pick up after the show aired on MTV or am I misremembering? 

[SNAFU]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 3:51pm

However with Chicago, which made into a film and shown on National TV, is still going strong. Go figure.

 

[Odie2]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:07pm

Plannietink08 said: "I'm a big supporter of filming Broadway shows before they close, i.e. Shrek BUT like it's been mentioned - Broadway shows are an investment, they don't care about as many people seeing the show, they don't care about some 20 year old student from Kansas who can't afford to get to New York. Producers only care about filling the theatre night after night for as long as possible. 

T

The filming of Legally Blonde was a bad idea and marked the beginning of the end for the show. It was a failed experiment that probably won't ever be repeated. 

 

"

The producer care only about makings money. If worded into the contract is risidual payments like TV shows get from DVD sales and reruns, I cant Imagine that producers would disgree. the kid in Kansas is watching a bootleg anyways. so much time, heart, money is invested in producing a show if it was filmed once a preserved and people have an ability to see it and the actors and producers can make money off it I don't see how it can hurt. 

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:10pm

CATSNYrevival said: "Didn't ticket sales for Legally Blonde pick up after the show aired on MTV or am I misremembering?"

 

By the time they finally aired it, they had already posted closing. I think it actually might have been aired three or so weeks before closing? Not totally sure.

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:32pm

It actually closed almost exactly a year after the tv special.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 5:18pm

I don't think many of you understand how logistically and financially difficult it is to do this... especially with what negotiations for the cast and creatives would require. Airing it once on a public not-for-profit broadcasting station, or even on a for-profit cable network for that matter, is one thing. Offering it as an in-home PPV feature is totally different. There's a reason it so rarely happens and is such a big deal when it actually does (Memphis, Shrek, Passing Strange, etc.). 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 5:35pm

All of the arguments against airing TV versions while the live show was still running on Broadway used to be applied to the idea of making the film version while the show was still running. It was once standard to add a clause when selling movie rights that the film couldn't be made until the Broadway production closed.

 

But as others have pointed out, films of PHANTOM, LES MIZ and IIRC FIDDLER have shown that at today's prices, audiences want to be sure they will like the show before they shell out hundreds of dollars. So a film (or in theory a TV production) actually helps the Broadway b.o. Shows like HELLO, DOLLY! and SOUND OF MUSIC continued to be revived on Broadway and touring the country based, in large part, on the public's familiarity with the film version.

 

A bigger issue, I think, is that broadcasting a live musical play on TV is not a matter of just setting up some cameras and filming the show in progress. (Yes, I know they do it with opera, but few operas are as physically busy as most musicals.) Nor is it a matter of merely assembling the cast on their day off, as is done with original cast vocal recordings.

 

To actually do the work necessary to produce a commercially viable video would be next to impossible while the same cast is performing live eight shows per week. (Yes, we all liked SOUTH PACIFIC and LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA on PBS, but we are not the general audience. And neither of those shows are exactly movement heavy.)

 

***

 

For the record, I am NOT among those who thought GREASE on TV was an unqualified success. In fact, in the threads immediately after the production, only Hough and Hudgins got universally good responses. To me, the producers sacrificed every bit of drama and most of the comedy in their attempt to reproduce the film on sound stages. The actors were so busy racing from mark to mark that (with the above exceptions) they all seemed like middle-schoolers reciting lines by rote in their first time on stage.

[Sunny11]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 5:39pm

I don't really understand why it would be much different to the contracts the cast and creatives of movies and TV shows have when those are distributed similarly to what's being discussed.  

[Odie2]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 5:57pm

 the record, I am NOT among those who thought GREASE on TV was an unqualified success. In fact, in the threads immediately after the production, only Hough and Hudgins got universally good responses. To me, the producers sacrificed every bit of drama and most of the comedy in their attempt to reproduce the film on sound stages. The actors were so busy racing from mark to mark that (with the above exceptions) they all seemed like middle-schoolers reciting lines by rote in their first time on stage.

 

I agree  that why i feel the phantom at the RAH is a model that can work the best. The production was on one stage with multiple cameras filmed over three performances. 

 

 

[musicaltheatreman2]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 6:08pm

 

I know this is old new's, but  Hamilton will defiantly be filmed to air either on television or in movie theaters.

Although the article does not say wether it will be filmed on the broadway stage or on movie set, but it will definitely be filmed!

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6715469/hamilton-to-be-filmed-lin-manuel-miranda-mixtape-movie

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 7:08pm

It is NOT definitely being filmed. If you read the article carefully and scroll down to one of the tweets from Lin Manuel he writes that they WANT to film it with the current cast but that there are NO PLANS FOR ANYTHING yet.

Updated On: 2/25/16 at 07:08 PM

[sng]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 7:18pm

Am I the only one who absolutely hate Live TV musicals? SO many commercials, just like we have 20 intermissions in one night. And the energy and the atmosphere of live theatre are lost through the screen.

[hork]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 7:43pm

sng said: "Am I the only one who absolutely hate Live TV musicals? SO many commercials, just like we have 20 intermissions in one night. And the energy and the atmosphere of live theatre are lost through the screen.

 

You're not the only one, lots of people do. Because they're terrible. The commercials are completely aggravating, and the shows themselves exist in this weird, pointless limbo, where they're not theater and they're not cinema.  They're just bad videos. 

[Steve C.]

Posted: 2/25/16 at 8:12pm

IMO, unless the network's can re-invent the musical for tv, like FOX did for Grease, I think it's a trend that will run its' course , after 5 or so more years. Live theatre will not be replaced. People are still and perhaps always be willing to pay anything from $10 to $400 for the experience. The networks are already starting to do them on film.

Even though they are pre-taped, just keep looking to PBS and the long tradition of Great Performances. Until, like the Metropolitan Opera, Broadway turns to some simulcasts shown in movie theaters, at a more modest price.