Watch Broadway Shows At Your Local Movie Theatre

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:26pm

This was an idea I had after watching the Met opera at my local theatre. And now, it's actually being discussed (not because they read my post here at BWW, I'm sure, but who knows?).

https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=15504

I am all for it...BUT might I suggest they do these for shows that are closing that week? It'd be rare enough to make going to your local movie theatre a special event to see a Broadway show and still not rob the show of losing money for tourists who have the misguided thinking in that "I've seen the show here, now there's no need to see if live."

So, only broadcast a show if they are closing that week (I'd suggest closing night, but several times you don't actually see the show as meant to be. There is often ad-libbing and inside jokes that I don't think would translate well to an outside audience).

They could also broadcast limited engagements (Roundabout shows).

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:33pm

If the videos were good quality, then I would really like it. Would it be regular movie admisson? Because that would be so cool, and they could play old shows from the Lincoln Center archive!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:34pm

It's not in everyone's local movie theatre...

that article is about Canada.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:36pm

dear GOD. Lincoln Center archive tapes will NEVER be shown in public. It is AGAINST THE LAW.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:36pm

True, but a local AMC (at the Del Amo Mall in Torrance CA) does the Met films, so maybe...

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:38pm

The Met is not Broadway - they operate on entirely different levels.

Right now a theatre in Canada is looking into the possibility. That doesn't mean AMCs across the country will be showing WICKED on Friday nights.

It will never happen. Ever.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:40pm

Sorry about the misreading. I do that alot...

But the concept's cool.

With the Met, is it live, or taped?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:42pm

I do believe that the Met was live.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:43pm

1. If a show is touring or is planning to tour after closing on Broadway, the producers wouldn't allow such a broadcast for fear of cutting into potential revenue.

As for limited engagements, it would depend on the property we're talking about as to whether there would be sufficient national interest in such a broadcast (PBS broadcast the closing night of Nathan Lane in The Man Who Came To Dinner on Broadway and that seemed to do OK, though I don't know any of the specifics).

2. Opera has a different set of unions than Broadway has. Equity and the musicians' union would still demand compensation (probably two weeks salary for each performer) for all of its members, plus you still have major royalties to pay to the composer, lyricist, book writers, director and the designers (for an opera, you generally wouldn't have to pay royalties to the composer's or librettist's estates -- they've been dead for centuries in most cases -- and I'm not sure exactly what sorts of compensation would have to be paid to the performers or any of the other interested parties). By the time you finish paying everyone, your cost has probably already hit six figures and you still have to worry about the cost of distributing the show to theatres around the country.

I'm guessing such an enterprise wouldn't be profitable, but I guess we'll see. They tried this a couple of decades ago with Sophisticated Ladies and a couple of other shows and it proved not to be cost effective, which is why we haven't seen too many other shows filmed since then.

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 03:43 PM

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:44pm

The article says the shows would be live, not taped.

I think it's a great idea - many MANY people can't afford to come to New York - what a wonderful way to open them up to theater.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 3:46pm

I agree that it's a great idea - I just don't think it will ever happen.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 4:00pm

There was an enterprise called the American Film Theatre that produced a series of filmed plays back in the early 70s and then distibuted them to about 500 theaters nationwide. Attendance was on a subscription basis -- people subscribed to the entire series, as they would to a not-for-profit theatre like Roundabout or Manhattan Theatre Club. Some of the films included A Delicate Balance (w/ Katharine Hepburn and Paul Scofield), Butley (w/ Alan Bates), Ionesco's Rhinoceros (w/Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder), Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well..., The Maids (w/ Glenda Jackson and Susannah York), The Iceman Cometh (w/ Lee Marvin and Frederic March), and Pinter's The Homecoming (w/ several members of the original Broadway cast).

The experiment continued for a couple of years before being abandoned. I've seen most of the films and while the casts and plays chosen were always first-rate, many didn't translate particularly well to film and seemed a bit too "stagy."

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 4:08pm

I don't understand why shows do not include into the contract that under the conditions if a film recording were to be made for the show, performers, musicians, etc. will get a set compensation.

How does it work for a cast recording? I assume they get paid by the hour and receive no percentage of sales from the CDs?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 4:13pm

If I remember this right (and someone please correct me if I am off), performers receive a full TWO WEEKS salary for for each 8 hours of session time in the studio for a cast album. Generally, performers can complete all their necessary tracks within the allotted 8 hour time, but if for some reason they go past that 8 hours, they get another two weeks pay.

That's one of the reasons cast albums are so expensive to record. Performers receive similar compensation for performances captured on video.

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 04:13 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 4:21pm

I am in Denver and the Met showings are live.

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 6:45pm

I do not see producers doing this. Why pay $100 when you could see it at a movie...that totally destroys the art of live theater.

[rflpfl2]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 7:00pm

Well except that it's live.

I know that if I didn't live in New York or a major city- I wouldn't get to see anything.

Cool idea- although it wouldn't work.

Plus the translation from live theater to a film isn't great- always too big for that.

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 7:00pm

idea won't work!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 7:18pm

Y'know, if they can work things out with the unions (always a daunting task, I know, especially with these clowns), I think its a great idea.

Look, the Met has demonstrated that these films arent cutting into their potential revenue. If anything, it's enhancing it because it's providing a secondary income stream they woldnt otherwise have. Heck, I saw MAGIC FLUTE live and then watched the broadcast a few days later, and I would happily do the sequence again. I imagine a lot of people would.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 9:37pm

They already tried this with SOPHISTICATED LADIES and it didn't work financially. The theatre is a live medium and should remain that way. If you want to see a Broadway show at your local movie theatre, wait for Hollywood to make a lousy film of it

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 2/1/07 at 10:15pm

This is apples and oranges.

The biggest thing to remember is that The Met has seasons and their shows don't tour. The Met simulcasts work because of the limited nature of their shows, they don't have open ended runs that go for years. So a good way to see one of their shows for a lot of people around the country is to have it simulcast in a movie theater. Chances are people seeing it at the theater are people who would not have a chance to watch the show at all otherwise.

As for Broadway, chances are the great majority of people who'd be interested in seeing a show simulcast at a movie theater are people who are already fans of the theater. Simulcasting a show would then only eat into their audience for tours. I don't think this would grow the audience for live theater enought to offset that cannibalization.

[jasobres]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 12:21am

Oh, great idea, screen Broadway shows in a movie theater. Next thing you know, there will be hologrammed versions of Broadway shows!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 7:11am

Amazing how short sighted some people can be.

Not everyone can afford a plane ticket, hotel room, *and* the price of a ticket in the last row of the balcony just so they can say they've enjoyed the "live experience of theatre". And if the producers can figure out a way to bring it to them, then I say go for it. The potential one-night audience for these things isnt going to cut into a show's demand. People will still come to NY to see the shows live. I dont think that's an issue.

Look at it this way: CHICAGO has had, what, four or five road companies since the revival opened. Have they hurt its business? Not one whit that I can see. Tours of WICKED have been in place for a while, and the Broadway production is still at the 90+ capacity mark. So how have any of these alternatives harmed the financial strength of the original? And thinking from there, how would a live broadcast do so?

Insofar as the stagey look, then I earnestly suggest that these shows be filmed *as theatre*, not as a bastardization of a movie. Put the camera in the 16th row in the centre seat and leave it there. No closeups, no fancy montages, no side shots. Just theatre the way it would be seen were you actually there. Simple and elegant.

>> Lincoln Center archive tapes will NEVER be shown in public. It is AGAINST THE LAW.

It is hardly against the law. The tapes are shown in public every day, just in a very limited, very controlled manner. Were it against the law, the tapes would be locked up and never seen by anyone. But just the simple fact that these tapes exist in the first place proves there's an "after-market", if you will, for these productions.

From a business stand point, this venture makes perfect sense -- after all, guys, which would you rather see? A second-string, shoddily designed road show version like TMM or a live broadcast of the real thing? I'm betting door number two is the answer, and if I were a producer, I'd be looking at the cost of sending out those road tours versus the cost of a broadcast and be thinking to myself, "This is a no-brainer".

[sondhead]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 9:15am

"Look, the Met has demonstrated that these films arent cutting into their potential revenue."

Opera is a different land from Broadway. The Met could put their productions on DVD and hand them out for free after the show and their performances would still sell out.

SeanMartin, know the law before you post. The Lincoln Center archive tapes are recorded with contracts that speak very specifically about their future use. They will never be available to the public for it is contractually illegal for that to ever happen. They can't even be edited once the performance is completed. A car sits outside the theatre and a director switches camera shots when he wants to but when the show is over what is on tape is what goes in the archive.

People need to calm down. No one on this board is hoping this won't happen. However, after years of watching attempts for projects like this, most people know it never will. It's simply too expensive. As far as touring shows hurting Broadway sales, that's a different matter altogether. New York is such a touristy place. Regardless, the post about tours clearly states that no producer would ever film closing night of their show if the show was planning a tour following its Broadway production, which is very true.

I don't think a lot of the people truly fathom how much money it takes to record things, both visually and on CD. Nothing happens without money and considering theatre videos and CDs hardly ever make money on their own as products, they usually only happen if there's someone out there with the cash who's willing to support the cause.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/2/07 at 9:28am

>> They will never be available to the public for it is contractually illegal for that to ever happen.

LOL -- so all of us who have actually sat there and watched these tapes are criminals? Yes, they are available to the public for public viewing... that's patently obvious and has nothing to do with the "law", just the contract between the producing company and the Library. Contracts can be changed if doing so benefits both parties involved, so please dont preach to me about the "law" when this is a *business* decision.

>> No one on this board is hoping this won't happen.

Speak for yourself, pookie. I'd welcome it with open arms, and IMHO it's an inevitability. Get used to the idea, because at some point in time, it *will* happen.