Should There Be A Push for Recordings of Shows? — Page 3

"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"

Let's do this: print out this thread. When you have the numbers to back you up (or not), get back to me. I'll be here waiting.

"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"

Aren't you saying you think they would sell without even knowing the numbers? How is that different?

I have a friend who works on film crews. He worked on Shrek, The Nance (for LFLC), Act 1 (for LFLC) and Legally Blonde among others. Filming is not as easy as it sounds. For starters its usually a 3 day affair. The audience is chosen from a paper service like Black List or Black Tie and tickets are free for all the shows. Day one is done so that they can make sure all the equipment is working and so the crew can see the show and get an idea of what they want to film. Day 2 and 3 are actual recordings. They do 2 days so they can cut together the best of what they get. At least this was the case for the 4 that I attended.

The Metropolitan Opera does this and I think it would be good if Broadway shows had live HD performances for those living outside of New York. Indeed, the sold out West End production of Hamlet starring Benedict Cumberbatch will have an HD performance in October.

"a few key differences: special event, limited runs, usually after closing. It's not, and will never be, for every show."

Absolutely. I don't think it would be appropriate for most shows, but for limited runs, shows that have closed with no revival in sight, or even just a one night showing would probably be beneficial for many shows.

"Do you think widely available recordings (e.g. Shrek, Legally Blonde) would cut down on the number of amateur recordings or do you think the people who are brazen enough to do it in the first place would continue to do so?"

I don't think that Legally Blonde can be purchased, it was only allowed to be shown on MTV a limited number of times. There are some low-quality versions on youtube though.

And there's a reason why LEGALLY BLONDE was never made available for sale.... it costs a ton of more money for retail/direct-to-consumer distribution than to just have MTV pay you a fee to broadcast it on their channel. In this case, the producers of LEGALLY BLONDE, which likely covered some (or most) of the filming production expenses, are guaranteed a set amount of money from Viacom for the broadcasting rights. It's likely that the producers would then be privy to additional fees if certain ratings benchmarks were achieved. Those numbers are, however, never made public.

With respect to SHREK, many people are forgetting that this is a franchise propped up by Dreamworks Studio. They are a major animation picture company and have more to gain in the longterm by investing in the creation of a high-definition video recording. It's more likely than not that on a very basic level, they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on their video recording. But it's safe to assume that Dreamworks saw it as an important, longterm investment. That was the accepted "price" of increasing exposure for its film/merchandise franchise to a larger audience.