UPDATE:Now's the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.- Page 2
UPDATE:Now's the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#25
Posted: 10/12/20 at 10:31pm
Jordan, I think you may be technically correct but if you subtract things that are likely to attract less than 100 (or even 1000) viewers, what do you think the percentage is? I'm not sure I am following your last sentence. What are you referring to?
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#26
Posted: 10/16/20 at 2:05am
The streaming juggernaut will be hard for Broadway to evade. Disney yesterday shook up the film biz a bit by announcing that its new films would be targeted at streaming and at rental from online sites. Release to film theaters would be on a case by case basis, where you can read "case by case" to mean dollars.
The streaming music broadcasters have also millions of subscribers, but no original product to send out. to listeners. The companies that own the royalties to 85% of the music played on Spotify have a monopoly on this music.
I acknowledge that Broadway theater really only exists in Broadway Theaters. But I sure wish I had seen Phillip Barry's play by "The Philadelphia Story" in in 1920. The film starred Katharine Hepburn, who actually bought the rights so she could resurrect her film career. The result was one of my favorite films. Since I can't see it live, I would gladly fork over some bucks to see a filmed production.
Broadway stars are usually more talented and disciplined than typical film and television stars. Kelli O'Hara (OK a favorite of mine and Brantley) , is an unknown among most in the country and even in the City.. Matthew Morrison, of whom I think it would be fair to say is not considered a top tier star in New York, became an instant star on television. More money and recognition is due to many on Broadway.
I would never approve, however, of any streaming or rental that directly competed for viewers with the live Broadway show.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#27
Posted: 10/16/20 at 2:14am
sparksatmidnight said: "As a Brazilian, no, it's not. Theatre is about a live communal experience and should remain that way. It went through basically every pandemic since ever without the need to 'plan transitioning to worldwide audiences' and it will go through this one, and the next one and the next after that."
The difference today compared to previous pandemics is the business model has drastically changed. Theatre is now much more expensive to see and run, something in the current model will have to change. Either productions have to get more cost effective or they will need to look at alternative revenue streams.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#28
Posted: 10/16/20 at 10:04am
@OlBlueEyes You are sitting atop of the fault line as are many people but let me underscore one key difference: none of the other examples you mention have a live alternative as a part of their revenue stream. What Disney is maneuvering is what size screen optimizes their revenue, and although there is of course live music, the lion's share of revenue from recordings does not flow to music makers and those who reap that revenue generally do not have a significant stake in live performance.
Regarding seeing old plays, of course, no decision anyone makes today is going to bring that about, any more than we can do anything that will prompt George Gershwin to write one more tune. (I would also note that the number of people who would be willing to fork over some bucks to see a film of Hepburn on stage is probably not enough to violate the current restrictions on crowds.)
Finally, I bristle at the notion that stage stars are "better" than film stars. It's like saying that basketball players are more athletic than baseball players. They are more talented and disciplined in a different discipline. Some of my favorite stage actors clearly don't "get" the camera.
@Princeton2 It sounds like you are talking about differences during pandemics, not in general. As I have written elsewhere, what we do during the pandemic may not be a model we will want to follow after it is over but the OP's proposed "transition" is not about the pandemic. During the pandemic, productions can try to find other ways to make money, but good luck with that. Commercial Broadway productions (of successful shows: no model is going to make lousy shows profitable) were not enticed by alternative revenue streams before the pandemic and there is no basis to think they will be afterwards.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#29
Posted: 10/16/20 at 11:05amI was referring to the comment about theatre surviving past pandemics and that it will again, my point was it may have done in the past but theatre is not the same now. There is far more money involved and the business models have changed. Productions have high investment and running costs. That may not be viable moving forward. There is every reason to think further pandemics will happen, this has been warned by scientists. For producers to invest in putting on shows in the future they are going to have to consider the fact that at anytime they maybe forced to close. Either productions will have to be much cheaper for quicker returns, or they will need to consider alternative revenue streams at the same time.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#30
Posted: 10/16/20 at 11:35am
Princeton2 said: "I was referring to the comment about theatre surviving past pandemics and that it will again, my point was it may have done in the past but theatre is not the same now. There is far more money involved and the business models have changed. Productions have high investment and running costs. That may not be viable moving forward. There is every reason to think further pandemics will happen, this has been warned by scientists. For producers to invest in putting on shows in the future they are going to have to consider the fact that at anytime they maybe forced to close. Either productions will have to be much cheaper for quicker returns, or they will need to consider alternative revenue streams at the same time."
OK, so our starting points are very different. While it is reasonable to think that there will be pandemics in "the future," there is no reason (IMO, obvs) to think they will become a more frequent occurrence just because we finally had one that seeped into the American consciousness. There is no scientific consensus suggesting what you are envisioning (although, again, believe what you will). I also hope we will be better prepared, like many in Asia were this time around, rather than being sheep to a fool again. So from my perspective there is nothing about the current model that will require adjustment because of this pandemic, which is not to say there may not be independent reasons to consider changes to that model. I would be delighted by more art and less commerce, both in the theatre and beyond.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#31
Posted: 10/16/20 at 11:49am
There should really be a streaming service that charges a monthly fee to stream closed shows. Just a short list, but if the following were available, I'd imagine there would be a solid subscription base: Midler's Hello Dolly, Bettlejuice, Nathan Lane's The Producers, The Color Purple revival, Spamalot OBC, etc.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#32
Posted: 10/17/20 at 10:51am
Actually I’m not in agreement with the OP to the extent that he may want the film of the Broadway show distributed around the world while the show is still running on Broadway. Broadway reigns supreme as long as attendance might be affected by the release of a film. And this also means that the film can’t come out so close to the end of the run that it might also affect the attendance. I expect that instead of filming the show and distributing it what would happen is that the show would be streamed live instead.
Hogan you don’t object to the way that the revival of South Pacific was streamed live during its last week of running, do you? That event gave praise to the show, to the creators of the show and to the creators of this revival that ran 1000 performances. The only mystery is why great performances has buried that production instead of making it available for resale. Probably due to some restrictions in the contract.
As to Temms post, Is it news that a film of a Broadway production is not the same thing as the Broadway production? A film of a Broadway production falls between the live show and nothing, just as affordable housing lies between the penthouse at the Waldorf and a park bench. Each may not be the best but they are far superior to nothing.
In this era of inclusiveness Hogan wants to restrict any experience of a particular Broadway production to only a small area of Manhattan Island in New York. And even then it is restricted to New Yorkers who can pay $150 for a ticket, get their butt into a seat 20 inches wide, get their daily exercise by standing up and down a dozen times as their aisle mates may require, wait online to use the restroom for 16 minutes of the 15 minute intermission and pay 50 bucks for a cocktail.
The future of filmed Broadway productions may lie with the reception given to the film Wicked when it finally arrives. Although that may not be a good example since it is one of those shows like Cats that has evolved beyond Broadway show into its own life form.
But we have an example of a hit show that was filmed while it was running and was released afterwards in The King & I. This was a hit on Broadway but not a megahit as it played about 500 performances. What harm has been done to anyone by this film and production that allowed so many to affordably enjoy it afterwards. Apparently in Great Britain at least the film met or exceeded financial expectations.
The filmed presentation of the West End revival of The King and I has become the highest selling theatrical cinema event of 2018 after the worldwide premiere screening November 29. According to the film's distributor Trafalagar Releasing, the film is expected to take $2.5 million at the box office, with an estimated attendance of more than 135,000. The one-day screening was also the highest-grossing film of the day.
Due to the success of the first screening, Trafalager has scheduled encore showings worldwide
This is all I'm looking for, Hogan. You don't even concede this?
I dictated this instead of using one finger picking on my iPhone. I had to go back and make a number of corrections but on the whole I think I prefer it.
Stand-by Joined: 4/7/09
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#33
Posted: 10/17/20 at 12:19pm
Lets' be clear. No one is talking about eliminating live theatre or paying actors little money. On a subscription basis, actors will be well paid as they should. And seeing the performances of the 100 seat theatres will give those performers the exposure they need to advance their careers. The performances of all the theatres should have the opportunity to participate, even and especially Off-Off Broadway.
QUESTION: How many of you have seen the pulitizer play, "Man in the Moon Marigolds"? Or the comedy, "My Smart TV Under the Christmas Tree?" I saw "Marigolds" in New York at very small theatre years ago. Loved it.
Before I leave this earth, my dream is to be able to sit in my comfy sofa in Indiana, turn on my big smart TV and watch a beautiful play coming from New York City. I want to have access to all the plays being performed in New York, not just Broadway. And I am willing to pay for the subscription. I literally can not stand the idiotic sitcoms on TV being passed off as comedy. I implore all those in New York City. Make it happen, for the benefit of all, for all the people of the USA. Make it happen for all the businesses in N.Y. and all those who depend on tourism for their living.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#34
Posted: 10/17/20 at 1:28pm
@OlBlueEyes I think there are multiple issues involved. First and foremost to me is the question of whether disseminating filmed versions of stage shows is healthy for the theatre as a genre. Philosophically, I don't think it is. Although it has no effect on you or me, since we appreciate the superior value of live theatre, I believe that the long-term effect of wide-dissemination will be a reduction of live alternatives and a development of the notion that the filmed version is "just as good" or even better. To me, that sells what is unique about theatre down the river.
A second issue has to do with commercial vs non-profit theatre. The overwhelming majority of filmed shows have been non-profit productions, and commercial producers have been and continue to be generally averse to losing the advantage of live performance in an increasingly couch-potato-y world. I understand the distinction, though I still think the non-profits doing this are harming the theatre.
And third, I think special considerations apply during the current pandemic, though I don't like seeing broader proposals that leech out of times of trouble.
A couple of other responses. Re Wicked, is there a film of the stage show? I confess I pay little attention to Wicked but is that being seriously discussed/undertaken? Re limiting exposure to Broadway, there are (or had been pre-covid) a multitude of opportunities for folks everywhere to see live theatre without the need to come to Manhattan, including in particular shows of the type you mention. And yes I would prefer for someone to see a live production of a great local theatre production of My Fair Lady (or whatever) than a film of the Broadway production. In fact, I attribute a good part of the reason that I became interested in the theatre to the extent I did to just such productions.
@chicagodannyd I'd respectfully suggest that none of your ideas are rooted in any possible reality. That is true not only of the direct economics and pragmatics, but also that there is a market for these shows. We have a bountiful harvest of great work created for viewing on a screen. (As I have said before to you I think, the comparison to sitcoms is inapt; do you really have blinders on to the high quality work that is available?) There is no budget that would make sense of your proposal. People do not want to watch some poorly filmed off-off-Broadway show when they can watch all the wonderful stuff on Netflix, Amazon, etc etc etc. that does not suffer from the inherent limitation. In the end, this feeds the very unhealthy process I describe above.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#35
Posted: 10/17/20 at 8:15pm
Good exchange. Don't want to cover the same ground. So you do think that the U.K. folk who did not see the show live in London have to wait until a local production and never get to see Tony winners Kelli O'Hara and the tragic Ruthie Ann.
On another note, I'm not quite old enough to have viewed them, but you may know that in the early days of TV there were three networks and a few local stations in a city., With such a small choice, the public had to take it when a network put on Nat King Cole for an hour, or broadcast live a play. One play I know of was Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
This play is usually said to be an attack on McCarthyism thinly veiled in the tale of the Salem Witch Hunt. (The Army McCarthy Congressional hearings were held at the height of the cold war fear of a nuclear exchange. Notable people in the arts and sciences who were found to have the smallest connection to Communism in the past, such as being present at a Communist meeting once, were found to be disloyal Americans and were "blacklisted" so they could not be employed in their profession. This compares to our present day practice of, say, finding out on a Friday that a white person 20 years ago had put on blackface once and on Monday labeling him a racist and having him pack up his desk.)
So I wonder if in the early days of TV that force-feeding the audience events considered to be of high cultural worth caused them to appreciate this art.for life. Today, when we have so many choices, 19 of 20 would prefer to watch The Apprentice instead of The Crucible. What harm is there in that?
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#36
Posted: 10/17/20 at 9:50pm
Quite a bit of non-sequitur and a healthy dose of rose-colored recollection going on there, BlueEyes. I'll indulge some of it and try to un-read the rest.
re not getting to see some really swell performances: yep, that's how theatre works; it's ephemeral and that's a part of its magic. We don't get to see Laurette Taylor or Duse or Burbage either. Heck, we don't even get to see John Wilkes Booth.
re The Crucible on TV in the (I presume) 50s: I don't know anything about that but what I do know is that there was plenty of garbage on TV in the early 50s. Yes there was the US Steel Hour et al but there was also My Little Margie and Dragnet and Ozzie and Harriet around the time of The Crucible's debut. Not everyone did culture then any more than they do it now. There was a lot of non-high culture being force fed to the masses.
Finally, your statement of what people prefer to see on the small screen doesn't align with the data, but then again neither does your understanding of history and I have no intention of embarrassing you about that here either.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#37
Posted: 10/17/20 at 11:51pmI feel like people are talking about different things. Plays and musicals being made into films or shot for broadcast with multiple angles and close-ups like what the Met Opera does brings those works to a worldwide audience. But the theatrical work, the score, the libretto, the actors' performances is different from the experience of being in a theater. And it just seems strange to make the goal filming more stage productions, especially at a time when stage productions are not happening. I get choosing to capture a musical late in its run so it will exist in some form after the production closes. But why would you want to mount a whole production to film something on stage during the pandemic?
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#38
Posted: 10/18/20 at 12:52am
VintageSnarker said: "I feel like people are talking about different things. Plays and musicals being made into films or shot for broadcast with multiple angles and close-ups like what the Met Opera does brings those works to a worldwide audience. But the theatrical work, the score, the libretto, the actors' performances is different from the experience of being in a theater. And it just seems strange to make the goal filming more stage productions, especially at a time when stage productions are not happening. I get choosing to capture a musical late in its run so it will exist in some form after the production closes. But why would you want to mount a whole production to film something on stage during the pandemic?"
I think you've expressed some things very well. Shooting a show that is not running in a Broadway house is both a pain compared to a sound stage and a few locations added and also does not look all that great, especially to non-theatre people. Just think about the Boys in the Band film compared to a multi-camera shoot in the theatre.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#39
Posted: 10/18/20 at 1:22am
ACL2006 said: "There should really be a streaming service that charges a monthly fee to stream closed shows. Just a short list, but if the following were available, I'd imagine there would be a solid subscription base:Midler's Hello Dolly, Bettlejuice, Nathan Lane's The Producers, The Color Purple revival, Spamalot OBC, etc."
That's part of the problem: such a service already exists in BroadwayHD. But either you aren't aware of it or they don't have enough content to make it worth the subscription for you. It's a chicken and egg problem, they aren't profitable with their existing catalog, but they can't film more shows without more subscribers.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#40
Posted: 10/18/20 at 10:25pm
Ah, Hogan. There I thought that we were capable of carrying on a nice discussion with your at times unpleasant personality under check and you throw me over. Since we were talking about filmed versions of plays appearing on TV, I remembered the early days, even before the famous sitcoms of the 50s when the Nets did some extraordinary programming. There were the plays, actually televised live, and there were the series given to the great artists of the time, as in recording there was a Judy Garland show and a wonderful Nat King Cole hour. Don't know what you know about Nat, but he had a style all his own. Can you imagine in the early 50's an hour a week of prime TV time being given to a "Negro." You can bet he had to be special.
My thought was that today with all the viewing choices 19 out of 20 viewers would have skipped The Crucible for The Apprentice, with all the dire consequences that followed. But if they had no choice but to watch fine art such as Henry Miller's play, would they have grown to value it, or would they have abandoned it as soon as The Apprentice was available in its place.
So we still had a good discussion, although you know that you would be in a tight spot defending your belief that the Brits should not have had access to any film of the West End Production. But it is an honest belief and deserves respect. Basta!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/theater/golden-age-live-theater-on-tv.html
Ah, my memory increasingly fails. The Crucible was not presented in 1958, but in 1968, by which time such presentations on television were rare indeed, with airtime having to be dedicated mostly to series like "My Mother the Car."
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#41
Posted: 10/18/20 at 10:34pm
You are such a pretentious piece of shi*, Hogan.
And a troll
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#42
Posted: 10/18/20 at 11:53pm
@BlueEyes If I had a dollar for every time my Italian grandmother said "basta" to me, I could produce The Crucible on Broadway. Or maybe the Henry Miller play you must have secreted from everyone. 
Anyway, I rarely listened to her so in her honor I will respond to you, simply to say that I never threw you over or under anything. I just wanted to sort out your info on the TV landscape of the early 50s in relation to most recent times a little. Now it seems it's actually the late 60s (1967 not 1968). That was George C. Scott and Colleen Dewhurst et al and it actually doesn't fit in this thread; it was NOT a broadcast of a play that was otherwise on stage nor was there very much TV force feeding going on then, but oh well. What one can sit home and watch nowadays can run circles around what was on then but believe what you want.
@unclevictor your first statement is one about which there could be a robust discussion were it not off-topic and outside the terms of service here. I'd enjoy it I'm sure. Your latter assertion, I feel certain, would find few here to back you up. Kinda laughable to tell the truth. But have at it.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#43
Posted: 10/19/20 at 7:23am
Did you read the Brantley article? There was far more live drama on television in the 50s then I knew about. It is sending me over to YouTube to check out James dean.
I thought we had about talked the main topic of filming live Broadway productions to death so I broached another topic that had just come to me. Today there is so much choice on what to watch and so much of it is just trash starring people like trump and the famous Kardashians. I thought back to the 50s when television was new and people had to watch great art because they had no alternatives and I wondered if from watching these dramas they had grown to appreciate them and would now choose them over the trash. OK so it’s not the most compelling premise.
It’s all good.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#44
Posted: 10/19/20 at 8:00am
Jordan Catalano said: "Filmed theater is also a way to not only keep interest alive in a time when going isn’t possible but it, for decades now and will always continue to, will keep getting people interested in performing arts and make sure they still have paying customers."
Nothing replaces the real thing, but for kids who couldn't go to theatre, I have often heard those 80's videotaped productions of "Sunday in the Park" and especially "Into the Woods" on PBS were catalysts in pursuing an interest (and for some working artists a life) in theatre.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/14/20
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#45
Posted: 10/28/20 at 7:10pm
Look. I totally 100% understand how important theater is and can be to people of all ages. It can inspire, it can heal, it can open their minds. But there are certain things, that even if you don't have the means to do so, are meant to be experienced in real time, in real life. Otherwise you're taking away what makes it so special. Can you honestly say that once someone sees a show from their couch they'd also want to see it in the theater-even if that means paying for a ticket to go around the world to see it (example: if someone in, say, Australia sees a Broadway show from their couch and then wants to see it on Broadway). Do you think producers are willing to take a gamble on that?
For me, personally, theater became a part of my life after I saw a high school production of Fiddler on The Roof. No recording. No illegal activity. Just high school students who inspired me. I think if you ask a lot of famous people, they won't say it was a recording that inspired them to act. It was either a tape of the cast recording, seeing a production (and honestly? you're being a snob if you say BUT IT HAS TO BE BROADWAY! BUT IT HAS TO BE THE WEST END! Theater can inspire you ANYWHERE. It does NOT have to even be a professional production!). Give things a chance. You don't get what you want, when you want it. Some things you have to wait for. And yes, I've had to wait. I haven't been able to see shows I've wanted to due to financial restrictions. Even if you're in New York City, that doesn't mean you always have the means to go to the box office whenever you want and get a ticket. Open your eyes and realize that.
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#46
Posted: 10/29/20 at 6:43am
I don’t think anyone has ever said that a professionally filmed Broadway production substitutes the real thing - just like how no one says that a studio album or TV special substitutes a musical artists’ touring performance. If anything (as stated recently) these things attract people to experience them live - because they know it’s completely different. Had my parents never seen the filmed OBC of Into the Woods, they probably would have never bought tickets to bring my brother and I to the revival.
This industry needs more visual exposure. Another two examples - my boyfriend has never given a damn about The King and I - but it’s now one of his favorite musicals after watching the filmed West End revival. I got my best friends into Legally Blonde through the MTV taping and we all made a trip to NYC to see it before it closed.
Theybcan release more from the vault without jumping the gun, and it’s very strange to me that people are so against it. This industry is already more exclusive than it should be, and if something doesn’t change then a lot of it is going to be forgotten along the way.
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/14/20
Now is the time to plan transitioning theatre to worldwide audiences.#47
Posted: 10/29/20 at 6:22pm
GiantsInTheSky2 said: "I don’t think anyone has ever said that a professionally filmed Broadway production substitutes the real thing - just like how no one says that a studio album or TV special substitutes a musical artists’ touring performance. If anything (as stated recently) these things attract people to experience them live - because they know it’s completely different. Had my parents never seen the filmed OBC of Into the Woods, they probably would have never bought tickets to bring my brother and I to the revival.
This industry needs more visual exposure. Another two examples - my boyfriend has never given a damn about The King and I - but it’s now one of his favorite musicals after watching the filmed West End revival. I got my best friends into Legally Blonde through the MTV taping and we all made a trip to NYC to see it before it closed.
Theybcan release more from the vault without jumping the gun, and it’s very strange to me that people are so against it. This industry is already more exclusive than it should be, and if something doesn’t change then a lot of it is going to be forgotten along the way."
That's ONE example of how people discovered theater. It is by no means the only way. People aren't against it-there is a whole process that is involved with releasing filmed footage. It is NOT as easy as saying "but Lincoln Center can just release archived footage!" No. It's NOT that simple, that easy, and it's kind of selfish that people are demanding this work. There are many ways to discover musicals. I don't understand why people are so deadset against discovering lesser known musicals through legal methods that don't involve going into archives. That's not what they're there for. If it's so exclusive, then how come so many people can see shows? How come they havre rush? Lotteries? Talk show performances/appearances? Tours. International productions.
Just because YOU can't see the show YOU want to see WHEN you want to see it, doesn't mean it's not accessible. I speak as someone who is not rich, lost her job in New York City, but couldn't afford to just pop into a box office and buy a ticket whenever I wanted. No. That's not how it worked. I saved my money. And even then, it's not like I was sitting prime seats. I usually sat in the back of the mezzanine close to the back of the theater. I think we have become so used to getting what we want, when we want, because of social media, the internet, that we expect theater, an historical art form, to catch up just as quickly. But then where's the special, exciting experience? That's what theater is. It's not special anymore when you can just experience it from your couch and maybe you might be possibly interested in getting a ticket. There is nothing like being in the actual theater, otherwise it will die out and then thousands of people who depend on the theater being there will lose their jobs. What about the people who run concessions? Ushers? Ticket takers? Front of house staff? You'd rather them lose their jobs for your own selfish reason?
Videos
