Will filming Broadway shows ever be profitable? — Page 2

@OlBlueEyes

Thank you for the retraction. I don't think it is inconsequential because when we dilute words, that has an effect. I think you mistake robust debate for ungraciousness but I won't argue the point.

I understand your point of view (which many others share); I just don't agree with it, but I understand the point of view. Let's not confound things by discussing what a non-profit does, but in general Broadway is a commercial enterprise and should be viewed as such. In several respects, you treat things today as different, but in many respects it was always this way.

1. Most shows have always lost money. (People invest not out of charity but because they want to make money. The risk is high but limited to one's investment. The upside is unlimited. Think of Broadway as investing in oil drilling.

2. There has always been a lot of crap, some of it successful and some not.

3. Your vision of "leading us away" is dead wrong, both historically and presently. It is also deadly. Musical theatre WAS popular culture until it took a wrong turn. It's headed back, and not because of the crap, most of which, incidentally, fails miserably. The highlights of the last few seasons have evinced the prestige you seem oblivious to.

All of this, of course, is a side bar to the question presented in this thread. I doubt you will convince me that the health of Broadway is to be found in sacrificing its uniqueness but you won't be the first to try.

@OlBlueEyes, you are just repeating the same ol' "Broadway is Dying" claptrap we have been listening to since the beginning of Broadway.

Hogan, can't you find a friendlier way than the above to begin a robust debate. This says to me that I'm just another one of the idiots who have expressed this tired and erroneous opinion. Maybe I am, but break it to me more gently.

I thought that your comments on the jukebox musical thread were very perceptive.

The upcoming screening of The King and I around the world is something that will be received with great interest. It's a very good production to begin with, the score is very familiar to most and the Ruthie Ann subplot is tragic but compelling. I think that I read that she is playing or has already played Lady Thiang in the film, with her cane.

It could be a game changer if successful (by "successful" read "makes a ton of money".

HogansHero said: "Could I? Yes. But I did not call you an idiot (and wouldn't). The fabulous invalid meme is (obviously) not a new one and warrants a degree of scorn.

Re the K&I screening, it may (or may not) be a financial success on its own terms, but that does not overcome my belief that it is deleterious to the health of the theatre."

Deleterious? I think that is a bit much to say, Hogans. Personally, i've seen RENT on Broadway quite a few times throughout the original run. When the filmed production was released, I honestly felt like i was watching the production for the very first time. BOTH experiences are valid and if anything the filmed performance only made me want to catch the show again on tour later on. And the even greater thing about the filming - (almost) 10 years later I am able to play that DVD and relive an experience that thankfully was not lost forever, like most other productions. The "brand" lives on.

---

Updated On: 9/4/18 at 02:43 PM

haterobics said: "Even your take on Rent plays to this. You say that watching RENT on DVD lets you "relive" an experience. Which seems like you are making Hogans point, in that you are not having an experience in the moment, which is the heart of going to see live theater."

While personally it takes me back to "relive" the moment, I still feel those that watch the DVD for the first time will be more likely to catch it next time it tours or in their regional theater. That way, the brand is able to live on years later and promote theater all over the world, creating demand for the actual live productions. Just look at the wonderful thing they did with Miss Saigon - capturing that show back in 2014 spiked the interest in a musical that almost disappeared from public attention after closing on Broadway/West End. I'm sure it will give the show a much healthier life now in terms of rights.

By the way, MTI's most popular titles are the ones that were filmed/captured live: Into the Woods, Newsies, Freaky Friday, Shrek the Musical, ....

---

Updated On: 9/4/18 at 03:45 PM

Kad said: "TaleofTwo said: "By the way, MTI's most popular titles are the ones that were filmed/captured live: Into the Woods, Newsies, Freaky Friday, Shrek the Musical, ...."

... and not coincidentally, all of those are adapted from well-known source materials, whether they be well-worn fairy tales or recognizable motion pictures (or both). Correlation doesn't equal causation here."

Well, it's hard to find a show these days that is NOT adapted from a well-known source. Also, I don't think the old Newsies film can be considered a recognizable motion picture...

---

OlBlueEyes said: "And the Broadway theater community, for profit or not for profit, which practices holding itshands out for donations with such fervor that they hope to make it an Olympic event, passes on a large source of income just sitting out there waiting for them."

Not sure what collecting money for charity has to do with filming performances, but... given the financial hurdles to overcome to film them, market them, and distribute them, I'm not sure how you just skip all that and say a lot of people want to see them, so they should do it.

The reason ticket sales keep going up and investors keep losing a lot of money is because of the enormous and rising costs to mount and operate a show. Not sure how adding even more millions to film, edit, marketing, and distribute a filmed version is an attractive proposition for investors. "Hey, if you agree to lose an additional $1.5M, you can even have a DVD of the show!"

That there is an audience is secondary to how you are suggesting shows, a majority of which fail straight out of the gate, would somehow build this huge extra cost into their initial investment rounds.

"As someone who used to create some of these budgets it is unfortunately mind blowing how the expenses add up. You needed to pay everyone multiple weeks of their salary. We even had to pay hundreds of thousands to the theater owners. You also need to pay the writers, directors, designers, and stagehands. Acquiring the rights to film the show also can get expensive depending on the title. Equipment rentals are also very expensive. The trucks you see parked outside must be rented for multiple days and that is not cheap. Then on top of that the film crew is also in a union. All of this adds up very quickly."

What is the problem with that? The people you mention worked long and hard to get the show up and running. Why is it a problem that they get paid something for their efforts, when they sign away their rights to profit forever? The film company comes in for 2 days (in my experience, that has been the maximum), yet somehow they should reap ALL of the profits?

Also, I don't know where this "multiple" weeks salary, and days for trucks to be outside come from. It's called a "buy out", and is usually a week to two week's pay, which they are entitled to, as they make nothing from future profits. I rarely see trucks outside for more than two days, and BANDSTAND had no trucks at all. Those are usually (though not exclusively) for shows broadcast live.

The point has been raised that filming or broadcasting a production and then having that reproduction made available to the general public at an affordable price is not possible. The filming is too expensive and the entire endeavor would end up in a loss. This is out of my league to judge here and now so I just drop out.

I respect the Colonel's desire to keep Broadway from being homogenized; I just see the price as being too costly. According to that Broadway League newsletter on the demographics of Broadway audiences, they are a small (when compared to the eligible population of the country) elite group of middle-aged whites with an average annual household income just short of $200,000.

I don't think that anyone wants to have to admit that the entire experience and expense of putting on a Broadway show is only for the benefit of that elite. In some way, that may not have been broached here, the rest of the country should share in the artistry and emotion of a great musical. At an affordable price.

And Tony Award viewership might start increasing.

OlBlueEyes said: "According to that Broadway League newsletter on the demographics of Broadway audiences, they are a small (when compared to the eligible population of the country) elite group of middle-aged whites with an average annual household income just short of $200,000.

I don't think that anyone wants to have to admit that the entire experience and expense of putting on a Broadway show is only for the benefit of that elite. In some way, that may not have been broached here, the rest of the country should share in the artistry and emotion of a great musical. At an affordable price."

Yes, but if the average is $200,000 that means people who earn $50,000 and millionaires are all meeting at the theater together. That doesn't necessarily mean the theater is 92% full of that demographic, and barely anything above or below it. From being on this site, it seems like people making less than $200K are finding ways to see shows.

Personally, I saw 6 shows this past weekend (two Broadway, two off-Broadway, a comedy showcase, and a cabaret act) for a grand total of $260.50 with two lottery wins and one TKTS ticket in the mix.

Also, the model only is truly elite if you want to see the hottest buzziest shows. Otherwise, you can see shows with 2-for-1 tickets this week, 40% off with discount codes most days, or queue up in Times Square for TKTS

In fact, the elitist model rewards this system, since the people who line up close to showtime at TKTS are often getting some of the best seats in the theater, since they are unsold premium seats.

Updated On: 9/5/18 at 03:35 PM

I still agree with Kad and haterobics.

Fosse, you can think it is nonsense; I don't. And regardless of whether or not you buy into the damage notion, you are overselling your position by saying "there has been no damage..." The sample size is very small, as you seem to acknowledge, and the effects you are focusing on are short term, not long term, which is what I am concerned about. Long term and in expanded form, which presumably is what OlBlueEyes is talking about. Prestige is a loaded word, so let's set it aside.

Let's talk for a minute about this $200,000 figure. Aside from the good points made above, household income of $200k is middle class so let's also drop this elite mishegoss based on that. That said, the reality is that the theatre at every level is an elite art form. Poor people do not attend the theatre, even when it doesn't cost any more than a movie. (They also don't go to the movies, because they do not have the time, money or energy.) And poor people cannot afford to come to New York on a vacation, so when we speak of Broadway tourism, they are not even on the radar screen. These are the realities of the world we live in.

ggersten said: "I recall reading that MetHD has not affected Met attemdance but that the airings are not all that profitable, if at all. That is a much larher sample of an "elite" product."

It's not really analogous. First of all, the Met is a non-profit that relies on ticket sales for less than 30% of its revenue. A commercial Broadway show relies on ticket sales for almost all of its revenue. Secondly, the Met manages to attract an audience of a little over half a million annually. Broadway averages an audience of over 13 million. I could go on, but to say that the paltry attendance is unaffected is kinda meaningless in this context. (I would not suggest a correlation between Met attendance now vs 20 years ago (it averaged up in the 90s in the 90s but I just don't think its numbers mean anything for our purposes.)