National Theatre Live... on screen- Page 2

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 3:51pm

You are being given the opportunity to see a theatrical production from someplace you may never go. How could you possibly see this as a bad thing. The more exposure theatre gets, the better. It is also possible to take advantage of seeing a live performance as well as going to a regional or Broadway show. It isn't like you are being asked to choose one or the other.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 3:55pm

But given the choice of only being able to see a particular great production on a screen or not seeing it at all because it isn't going to play here or I can't get to London -- I'll choose the screen version over nothing. Is that so horrible?

It means you hate theatre and you hate America and you are directly responsible for the unemployment rate in this country. You didn't know that? You should be ashamed of yourself. You probably watch Downton Abbey as well. Why don't you just hand this country over to the Taliban?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/26/12 at 9:33pm

"I don't think a national theater model will fit the US entertainment industry. The last time it was tried was when Tony Randall tried it in the 1990s. What he pumped out was several boring star productions."

Gotham, you may be right. But I don't think the fact that Randall tried and failed resolves the question.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 2:45am

Matt, I believe Frankenstein was Fall 2010--at any rate it was at least a year back, sorry that you missed it.

As others have said, no it's not at all the same as seeing it genuinely live. But to suggest that someone might see a filmed stage production, hate it and so decide theatre isn't for them, is ridiculous. It's been pretty much proven that showings like this raise interest in theatre (although honestly, I doubt too many none theatre fans are even aware of them anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point). The showings cost $15 dollars here, which is significantly cheaper than I'd pay for a major show, not that I live in a major theatre city anyway, and it's not like that money is money I would be spending otherwise on a live show--to suggest it's either/or for anyone is ridiculous.

[choitoy]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 3:47am

This thread makes no sense to me.

What's wrong with having more options to view theater?

It's not like I have thousands of dollars lying around to actually fly to London to see that show live. I think there should be more of this type of thing.

And on top of that, I do support my local theaters.

And the whole "un-American" argument...SMH. I guess you want me to throw out all my foreign language cast recordings too.

The hell?

Ok, I'm rambling now. Why do I only feel compelled to write when I'm really tired and browsing the internet with the intent to fall asleep...

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/27/12 at 10:05am

"Gotham, you may be right. But I don't think the fact that Randall tried and failed resolves the question."

Randall's failure was the result of it being a vanity project. In order to have a true National Theatre, it must be solely about the work.