mlukfc.com Forums - View Single Post

ashkent7 · 17 Mar 2017, 15:56

I've seen low quality non audience recordings of We Will Rock You and others...I think Jekyll and Hyde might have been one...which were never recorded to be released, but are more than just single shot pan and scan. I would also have thought with cameras already being used in quite a few scenes in Bat and put on the screens in the theatre, it would have made it easier to record something for posterity (I'm not talking million dollar blockbuster movie, just more if this ends tomorrow we have something to look back on...and that could be actors changing, the show changing etc)

I'm more thinking of the amount of shows that have come and gone that may actually have been enjoyed by people. I think technically now you have said it, is I'm thinking more of the broadway archive but much more accessible and known to the public. That's just something I've had a bee in my bonnet about for years, long before Bat, but I bring it down to the fact that without such recordings surfacing, I would never have seen Steve Barton performing as Krolock.

I have no links to theatre production and costing, but I have always thought that it is pretty common sense to see that film and DVD recordings of shows has no impact on the sales of tickets - as you said there are plenty of shows that have had various screen adaptations and still pack in the crowds. To me there are three different types of people when it comes to this stuff. People who will go to the theatre for the experience of live performance. People who wouldn't go to the theatre if they were paid, but would watch a film or recorded version in a cinema or at home. People who would like to see theatre shows but for what ever reason could never get to see them - for example if Bat opened in Manchester and had been staying there for good, there would be many in say America who would never have been able to see it because maybe they can't travel, or its far too expensive to come to the UK for it, whatever. Just my simple view of it.

As for HD/4k...it's all just overhype to me. I've got a 50" TV and have used HD on TV so much I cancelled the subscription I was paying for it. From across the room the difference is minimal unless you're watching something originally made in the 80s/early 90s and most times they can't do anything about that graininess, or you have crystal 20/20 vision which I don't think I've had since I was 6. I can still spot the clues on Sherlock, see the blood splats on Game Of Thrones and see the detailed innards of a zombie on the Walking Dead whether its HD or SD. Plus downloading HD stuff takes up too much room. I'd rather download 40 things in SD than 20 in HD. Again though, might just be me.

17 Mar 2017, 15:56	#559
ashkent7 Super Loafer Join Date: 02.12.2010 Location: Durham,UK Posts: 338	I've seen low quality non audience recordings of We Will Rock You and others...I think Jekyll and Hyde might have been one...which were never recorded to be released, but are more than just single shot pan and scan. I would also have thought with cameras already being used in quite a few scenes in Bat and put on the screens in the theatre, it would have made it easier to record something for posterity (I'm not talking million dollar blockbuster movie, just more if this ends tomorrow we have something to look back on...and that could be actors changing, the show changing etc) I'm more thinking of the amount of shows that have come and gone that may actually have been enjoyed by people. I think technically now you have said it, is I'm thinking more of the broadway archive but much more accessible and known to the public. That's just something I've had a bee in my bonnet about for years, long before Bat, but I bring it down to the fact that without such recordings surfacing, I would never have seen Steve Barton performing as Krolock. I have no links to theatre production and costing, but I have always thought that it is pretty common sense to see that film and DVD recordings of shows has no impact on the sales of tickets - as you said there are plenty of shows that have had various screen adaptations and still pack in the crowds. To me there are three different types of people when it comes to this stuff. People who will go to the theatre for the experience of live performance. People who wouldn't go to the theatre if they were paid, but would watch a film or recorded version in a cinema or at home. People who would like to see theatre shows but for what ever reason could never get to see them - for example if Bat opened in Manchester and had been staying there for good, there would be many in say America who would never have been able to see it because maybe they can't travel, or its far too expensive to come to the UK for it, whatever. Just my simple view of it. As for HD/4k...it's all just overhype to me. I've got a 50" TV and have used HD on TV so much I cancelled the subscription I was paying for it. From across the room the difference is minimal unless you're watching something originally made in the 80s/early 90s and most times they can't do anything about that graininess, or you have crystal 20/20 vision which I don't think I've had since I was 6. I can still spot the clues on Sherlock, see the blood splats on Game Of Thrones and see the detailed innards of a zombie on the Walking Dead whether its HD or SD. Plus downloading HD stuff takes up too much room. I'd rather download 40 things in SD than 20 in HD. Again though, might just be me.