131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 14:34:15 GMT
Bootleg-guilting is so early 90s. It harms shows, it's basically stealing, and it's against the wishes of the artist. Nobody should do it regardless of how chic it is. |
|
2,859 posts
|
Post by couldileaveyou on Sept 26, 2016 14:48:07 GMT
Bootleg-guilting is so early 90s. It harms shows, it's basically stealing, and it's against the wishes of the artist. Nobody should do it regardless of how chic it is. And then it offends Father Lin, who sent his only son to die for our sins... |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 26, 2016 16:26:27 GMT
Lin, who's made jokes about "maxell tapes," so I don't think he's entirely innocent here.  But back to the actual show... |
|
|
|
Post by QueerTheatre on Sept 26, 2016 16:44:20 GMT
If anyone with a bootleg fancies sending it my way... it might help alleviate that guilt if its shared between two people |
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Sept 26, 2016 19:25:39 GMT
Bootleg-guilting is so early 90s. It harms shows, it's basically stealing, and it's against the wishes of the artist. Nobody should do it regardless of how chic it is. BOORRRING... Also, where do you derive that fact from? I am an avid bootleg(er) and bootleg collector. And I can guarantee you that I massively support theatre (enthusiastically and financially), and no bootleg has ever stopped me from seeing the show myself (in some cases over many repeated visits). Having been part of the bootleg "community" since 1994, I can almost vouch that no one has ever preferred to see the bootleg from their TV at home (or laptop) over the live experience. I can understand the argument that it might be "theft" and how there are ethical arguments against it, but I honestly don't feel that there is a financial case to be made. These are not Hollywood DVDs that are sold on the corner of the streets. It's a bunch of recordings that are viewed by a few thousand people, at best, who are big show fans to begin with. The general public does NOT want to see a bootleg at all, and wouldn't even dream of pursuing one or even begin to know where to find one. Have you been to Broadwayworld.com recently? Practically their entire video archive and video stories use bootlegs. This is an industry-followed website, perhaps one of the top five globally. If there were oh, so, serious concerns from creatives over these videos, they'll be down. Documentaries even use them now..I'll have to think of which ones to draw a list, but the current trailer of the Merrily We Roll Along Broadway production clearly features bootleg recordings. Not only do I find them fun and interesting, but I actually think they are NECESSARY to reserve a record of shows for posterity. Plus, how else do you think I perfected the choreography of Hot Honey Rag from Chicago? |
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 21:40:43 GMT
It harms shows, it's basically stealing, and it's against the wishes of the artist. Nobody should do it regardless of how chic it is. BOORRRING... Also, where do you derive that fact from? I am an avid bootleg(er) and bootleg collector. And I can guarantee you that I massively support theatre (enthusiastically and financially), and no bootleg has ever stopped me from seeing the show myself (in some cases over many repeated visits). Having been part of the bootleg "community" since 1994, I can almost vouch that no one has ever preferred to see the bootleg from their TV at home (or laptop) over the live experience. I can understand the argument that it might be "theft" and how there are ethical arguments against it, but I honestly don't feel that there is a financial case to be made. These are not Hollywood DVDs that are sold on the corner of the streets. It's a bunch of recordings that are viewed by a few thousand people, at best, who are big show fans to begin with. The general public does NOT want to see a bootleg at all, and wouldn't even dream of pursuing one or even begin to know where to find one. Have you been to Broadwayworld.com recently? Practically their entire video archive and video stories use bootlegs. This is an industry-followed website, perhaps one of the top five globally. If there were oh, so, serious concerns from creatives over these videos, they'll be down. Documentaries even use them now..I'll have to think of which ones to draw a list, but the current trailer of the Merrily We Roll Along Broadway production clearly features bootleg recordings. Not only do I find them fun and interesting, but I actually think they are NECESSARY to reserve a record of shows for posterity. Plus, how else do you think I perfected the choreography of Hot Honey Rag from Chicago? You can rationalize and self-justify all you want, but this is cut and dry. It's literally illegal in New York and at least forbidden by trade rules in London. And Hamilton is not some grey area where the artist says he's personally cool with it and knock yourself out taking video. You may not care about that, and you may find ethical considerations boring, but that's how it is. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 26, 2016 21:51:01 GMT
After 30 years, bootlegs are called "audience captures."
Jaywalking is also illegal, but 80% of New York would be behind bars if anyone followed up on it.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 26, 2016 22:08:55 GMT
After 30 years, bootlegs are called "audience captures." Jaywalking is also illegal, but 80% of New York would be behind bars if anyone followed up on it. Come on. I have no interest in being a scold here but the better analogy is sneaking into a cinema. At the very least, it's not something to brag openly about. We should move on. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 6:02:39 GMT
Sorry for indirectly starting this debate!
About the show, English is not my first language and I wasn't familiar with the Alexander Hamilton story, so I found myself pausing the video, reading the lyrics online and checking Wikipedia on several ocasions lol. But I really enjoyed it and now I feel ready to see this live when it opens in London next year!
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Sept 27, 2016 9:21:29 GMT
Interesting article in the NY Times about second acting broadway shows and how lots of prominent theatremakers etc. freely admitted to doing it in the past, despite that also being illegal, stealing, and also very cheeky. www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/nyregion/a-lost-art-on-broadway-sneaking-in-for-act-2.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/theater&action=click&contentCollection=theater®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0I'm not really interested in wading into the bootleg debate, but as much as I do agree that it's wrong, I don't agree that it's stopping people from seeing live shows, or hurting sales in any way. In fact, I think it's done the opposite. (Also as a side note, Eldermillan, I know that you're clearly the person on the right in your photo, but whenever I see your name I picture Nic Rouleau anyway!  ) |
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 27, 2016 13:05:39 GMT
Interesting article in the NY Times about second acting broadway shows and how lots of prominent theatremakers etc. freely admitted to doing it in the past, despite that also being illegal, stealing, and also very cheeky. www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/nyregion/a-lost-art-on-broadway-sneaking-in-for-act-2.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/theater&action=click&contentCollection=theater®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0I'm not really interested in wading into the bootleg debate, but as much as I do agree that it's wrong, I don't agree that it's stopping people from seeing live shows, or hurting sales in any way. In fact, I think it's done the opposite. (Also as a side note, Eldermillan, I know that you're clearly the person on the right in your photo, but whenever I see your name I picture Nic Rouleau anyway! ) That's interesting. I admit I used to do it too, but a series of conversations over the year with friends and family who are in theatre--several of whom have written their own shows--dissuaded me and made me feel small for doing it. I understand why some think it does no financial harm but I tend to think it makes you change your mind on the margin: oh, I won't go see that show a second time, or meh, I'll just stay in tonight. Maybe that won't be make-or-break for many shows, but it pinches. I also think that argument paints the producers as on the one hand money-obsessed business types who, on the other hand, would just make more money if they were smart enough to allow this. I'm not sure I buy that. But I've always been more persuaded by the argument that artists should have ultimate agency over their work. All that said, artists and producers should crawl kicking and screaming into the 21st century and come up with better ways to reach audiences. Hopefully sites like BroadwayHD will catch on, and will be seen not as cannibalizing the industry but expanding it. And to bring this back to Hamilton, while I believe strongly that it's the artist and producers' call to make, I also think their strategy of highly constrained supply is going to hurt the show in the long-run. |
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 27, 2016 19:26:54 GMT
By the way, here's a trailer for a documentary on the musical (and the man) that's going to air on PBS in the US late next month.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 27, 2016 19:27:36 GMT
j
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 28, 2016 14:41:37 GMT
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 28, 2016 16:59:08 GMT
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 28, 2016 18:30:12 GMT
That article never explicitly comes out and says it but you can feel the egg shells LMM and the cast must have been walking on with each other. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 28, 2016 18:40:12 GMT
The quote from the stage manager made me chuckle but also is pretty telling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nelly on Sept 29, 2016 9:33:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 9:38:14 GMT
Not gonna lie, I flipped my s*** a little bit at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nelly on Sept 29, 2016 10:16:38 GMT
Can't help but wonder if they missed a trick not having this up ready in time for Wicked's 10th anniversary show. Not that they need the hype I guess?
|
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Sept 29, 2016 10:27:37 GMT
Yikes. It was clear for a while there was tension amongst that company. A shame, really. |
|
345 posts
|
Post by johartuk on Sept 29, 2016 11:39:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Sept 29, 2016 12:21:44 GMT
Lovely new advertising up at the VP.
|
|
131 posts
|
Post by primitivewallflower on Sept 29, 2016 14:01:51 GMT
Yikes. It was clear for a while there was tension amongst that company. A shame, really. I'm actually still scratching my head at that article. Obviously, someone leaked the actors' emails, but why? What's the agenda? The actors come across as nervous but reasonable and firm. The producers play a little hard ball but of course in the end gave in. LMM is disengaged for much of it but finally expresses support for them. It's not really a hit job on anyone. In the end it feels like there was color taken out of the article. The narrative of the affair reads like it just caused a modest burst of tension in the cast that then subsided, but there are these hints throughout the article that it was worse than that, like the stage manager quote 49thand8th mentioned. Was there longer-term bad blood between the actors and the producers, or with LMM? |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 29, 2016 14:28:07 GMT
It ends very abruptly. I also wonder about the timing -- was it meant to be published within the same 36 hours as the first preview of Hamilton in Chicago and the announcement that Lin was hosting SNL?
|
|
)
