Broadway Shows as 3D Movies - I Can't Wait!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 12:18pm

I think this could be a fantastic idea. I have a feeling that if this happens 9 to 5 will be one of the first we see in theaters.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/129511-Will_Broadway_Productions_Be_Seen_as_3-D_Movies%3F

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 12:21pm

Ya gotta get a gimmick....

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 12:29pm

Well I'm up for anything that includes filming Broadway shows. I wish they'd do it more often. It doesn't compare to the experience of being there, but after a show closes it's certainly the best we have.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 12:33pm

This could be a really amazing way to put you "into" a show. It's the next best thing to on-stage seating.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 12:54pm

Ugh...but what about those of us who get motion sick in 3D movies?

[Glory]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 1:00pm

I'll bet my money that Shrek and Rock Of Ages are in this.

[BroadwayBound115]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 1:10pm

I am all for this. Living in Detroit, times are extremely tough, so money to go to school in NY, let alone visit NY is not there. I would love it to be, but its okay. Back to reality, I really wish that they taped Broadway shows so people like me would be able to see them. But lots of money would be lost if they were to film these shows, because then people would feel they wouldn't need to see them. Maybe they should do something similiar to the Live performances from the Met at the local movie theatre. Why not film Broadway performances every once in awhile and broadcast them on the big screen. I would not mind paying $25-30 to go see that type of entertainment.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 1:33pm

"But lots of money would be lost if they were to film these shows, because then people would feel they wouldn't need to see them".

That's a very dangerous argument to make because it's one of the reasons this isn't done more and it's also completely untrue. If you use the argument that seeing something on the big screen or at home will dissuade someone from going live than how is it that THE SOUND OF MUSIC, OKLAHOMA, THE KING & I etc are done constantly all over the world and are also the most seen movie musicals ever? CHICAGO had a huge boost in sales after the film came out, and we're seeing that these can only help. I know that movie versions aren't the same as actual live filmed performances but the idea is basically the same. If one of the 99.9% of people who don't live or come to NYC wants to see something like ROCK OF AGES, it can only help to SERVE the show, not hurt it in having a life after Broadway which is eventually the fate of every show. If people see it in the movie theater and like it they are that much more willing to go see it live if given the chance. People pay for what they know and are comfortable with, that's why movie/jukebox musicals are so popular now. People do not want to spend their money to take a risk anymore, it's just too costly of a "risk".

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 2:35pm

"Musicals have never been more prominent in the pop culture psyche than they are right now."

Is this guy on crack?

[Kad]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 3:00pm

The statement should be "musicals have never been more prominent in the pop culture psyche of the last 20 years than they are right now".

Can't beat the 1940s-60s. Ever.

[BudFrump23]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 3:30pm

"If you use the argument that seeing something on the big screen or at home will dissuade someone from going live than how is it that THE SOUND OF MUSIC, OKLAHOMA, THE KING & I etc are done constantly all over the world and are also the most seen movie musicals ever?"

Yes, but as you stated, these movies are not the filmed version of the stage show. Yes, there is (in most cases) the same plot and songs, but it's a completely different experience from having actors on stage perform it. You see all the stage tricks, all the uses of scenery and lighting that would happen on stage. You'd see the Wicked Witch rise up in her cherry picker, or a bunch of hippies running through the audience. These are special surprises that only happen with stage versions. Movies have huge budgets.

Chicago brought more people to the theater because it is a different show than what the movie was. Different choreography, the complete score, and just a different feeling. My guess is people wanted to see how they differ. If Chicago was the filmed version of the stage show, I don't think we would've seen the box-office boom that we saw.

I spoke with many friends and family members when I asked them if they wanted to see Legally Blonde with me. Their response? "It was filmed for TV, so I'll just watch it there."

I'm not against this happening, but I think it wouldn't be a good idea for currently running shows. Perhaps after a show has closed, then let audience members who didn't get a chance to see it live at least take away something?

What about contracts and pay? That's my big question.

Updated On: 5/22/09 at 03:30 PM

[phantom39]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 6:46pm

This sounds like something ROCK OF AGES should do.
I'm all for filmed Broadway shows. LEGALLY BLONDE's MTV airing was a tremendous success- look how great the tour is doing. It'll be interesting to see which show jump on this first.

[sally1112]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 9:39pm

I love it! Love it! Love it!

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 9:40pm

I'm SUPER excited about this and I hope it happens. Some of us live far far away from NYC and don't live near an equity-tour hosting city. Sure, it won't be as good as seeing it live... but at least I get a chance to see it LEGALLY and well shot!!

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/22/09 at 11:56pm

I wonder how this would effect subsidiary film version rights to the show's author/creator of an original work. You are essentially making a movie of the stage show which may obviate demand for the film version of the musical, which would be different from the stage version. For example, the film version of Phantom was able to use a lot of outdoor scenes and many more sets than you would have onstage. Webber waited a long time (perhaps until his duty of payment to investors ended, for one thing).

I think this would work for some shows better than others. For producer-created, investment-driven shows this may work. For original works it may not be such a good idea.

[kchenofan]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 6:20pm

I honestly REALLY don't like this idea. Isn't the point of live theater for people to experience theater LIVE?

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 6:41pm

^ Wow. What an ignorant statement. Experiencing theatre live is not possible for everyone. There are a load of shows that I want to see, but I live far from New York and my parents aren't willing to book broadway binge trips for me every summer. There are loads of people who would love to see certain shows that are not accessible for them. That was one of the most moronic and ignorant statements I have ever read on this board.

Updated On: 5/23/09 at 06:41 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 6:56pm

"^ Wow. What an ignorant statement. ... That was one of the most moronic and ignorant statements I have ever read on this board. "

Nope. And there is no need to attempt to belittle kchenofan just because you hold a differing opinion--what's up with that.

There is nothing like live theatre. You don't get the chills of live stage presence from TV or movies, it's a very different experience. Also, stage work is much more boring filmed because in a film you have much more freedom to move outdoors, to different locations, people can make mistakes and do retakes. You can have more special effects, stunt men. Film can be 90% visual and theatre 90% audial and still work. TV lends more to using a higher percentage of audio, but still the shoots come out rather dull from the camera angles onstage in a three camera shoot. Plus if you close up you can miss some great activity on another part of the stage. Not to mention the stage makeup would generally look lousy in film and would have to be altered. Plus the costumes that look great from a distance can look worn, shabbier or just different up close.

Very different mediums.

[kchenofan]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:14pm

Thank you for seeing my point, nomdeplume. I know that some people aren't fortunate enough to live in or near New York, but Broadway shows are something I feel can't be filmed. This is my opinion, and I am NOT being ignorant. But I did have a feeling that someone would be ignorant enough to act like I'm a complete idiot.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:22pm

I'm not pointing out any one person who has posted here but as I've said before I tend to find the people who write about how these shows should never be filmed and it's not the same experience, are the very people who you have a hard time moving around in their homes due to the amount of bootlegs they have piled up.

This goes back to a very old argument. You'll be very hard pressed to find ONE person who is glad there is no video of Merman in GYPSY or no video of Julie Andrews in MY FAIR LADY. Of course theater is best experienced live, that's a given and you won't find anyone to argue that. This is simply about preservation of the medium for future generations to see. I'll never understand why people are actually against this.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:29pm

Nobody needs to deem someone else ignorant, just all move on from adding name-calling to an opinion. It's not needed in the discussion.

I would also add that the acting onstage has to be a lot bigger to be seen from a distance than it does on the screen, and larger physica gestures may be used as well to convey the story and often actors have trouble with that transition, many can't do it, so seeing stage acting in a different medium often looks way exaggerated.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:32pm

nomdeplume, I think most people who would actually be watching these filmed versions are used to "theatrical acting" and understand it's not the same as a movie. Are you saying we shouldn't have our videos of INTO THE WOODS, SWEENEY TODD, COMPANY, etc because they had to act differently than they would if it were a film?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:34pm

Many of the Broadway shows, and sometimes others, are filmed for archival purposes, have been for many years, and kept at the NY Library for the Performing Arts and I don't know anyone who would be against that. You do need to being doing research or some such to view them; I don't believe they are available to everyone who walks in.

But that is an entirely different subject matter than what this thread was addressing about commercial filming of Broadway shows for presentation in 3D in movie theatres.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:40pm

If you'll read back, I thought it might work better for some shows than others for different reasons than that, mainly regarding subsidiary film rights of original works.

The next question this subject begs would be would the stage presentations be changed to accommodate the filming and how much? Will changes be made to make it more like a movie filming or will it be a straight run of a show before a live audience, PBS style. We could only guess at this point so far as I know. Updated On: 5/23/09 at 07:40 PM

[kchenofan]

Posted: 5/23/09 at 7:41pm

I don't have as much of a problem if the show is closing (i.e. Rent Filmed Live on Broadway) or is a limited engagement. Having a recording of Merman in Gypsy would be golden since she is obviously not playing the role anymore.

Changing the subject, the first filmed shows would probably be the Disney shows, since we all know that the Disney company would never pass up an opportunity to make some cash.