The Stage: An Outmoded Medium?

[Battlecow]

Methods and modes of storytelling come and go. The zoetrope (for all intents and purposes) made its final bow a century or so ago, and the moving picture made its debut around the same time. One particularly ancient medium, however, insists on clinging on to an unnatural lifespan sheerly by dint of its past.

The theatre, popular as it is, has been, in my mind, completely and inarguably outmoded. Everything that it does, a movie does better, cheaper, and for a broader audience. I shouldn't have to elaborate on the advantages of one medium over another-they're obvious- but just to give you a taste:

Movies are cheaper to attend than proffessional theatre, because, once recorded, they can be reproduced with no loss of quality for as many people as necessary.

Movies allow the actors to act better, because they can try a scene as many times as they need to

The director isn't limited to one perspective, one set, and so on and so forth

There are a hundred more advantages to movies, which is why they're more popular. However, Broadway still draws thousands upon thousands (possibly millions? IDK) of spectators every year. This might, at first sight, seem to be a justification of the medium in itself; if people want to watch it, they're obviously getting some value from it, which makes it A-OK.

But what are they getting out of it? The same thing people get out of Gucci handbags- that is, gross self-satisfaction. It's conspicuous consumption at its worst. Simply because plays are "classy" or because attending them fits the image that many with more money than brains want to acquire, the producers of these tremendously sub-par monstrosities rake in money hand over fist and use it to produce further insults to art and decency. I think that we as a society need to start seeing plays for what they are- desperate appeals to pretension.

There is, of course, one rather important exception- Shakespeare, Moliere, and many other geniuses labored at playwriting, and the fruits thereof don't translate as smoothly onto the screen as we might hope. Obviously, Shakespeare is still worth performing on the stage. All we can do is lament the sad fact that he wasn't born late enough to write movies.

 

[Ocean]

why do people go to concerts when they could just stay at home and listen to the pre-recorded tracks?

Methods and modes of music playing come and go. The 8 track (for all intents and purposes) made its final bow a (some period of time) or so ago, and the CD made its debut around the same time. One particularly ancient medium, however, insists on clinging on to an unnatural lifespan sheerly by dint of its past.

Live music, popular as it is, has been, in my mind, completely and inarguably outmoded. Everything that it does, a prerecorded track does better, cheaper, and for a broader audience. I shouldn't have to elaborate on the advantages of one medium over another-they're obvious- but just to give you a taste:

Records are cheaper to buy than tickets for concerts, because, once recorded, they can be reproduced with no loss of quality for as many people as necessary.

Pre-recorded tracks allow the musicians to play better, because they can try a track as many times as they need to

The producer/musician isn't limited to one perspective, one set, and so on and so forth

There are a hundred more advantages to pre-recorded tracks, which is why they're more popular. However, live shows still draws thousands upon thousands (possibly millions? IDK) of spectators every year. This might, at first sight, seem to be a justification of the medium in itself; if people want to watch it, they're obviously getting some value from it, which makes it A-OK.

But what are they getting out of it? The same thing people get out of Gucci handbags- that is, gross self-satisfaction. It's conspicuous consumption at its worst. Simply because plays are "emotional" or because attending them fits the image that many with more money than brains want to acquire, the producers of these tremendously sub-par monstrosities rake in money hand over fist and use it to produce further insults to art and decency. I think that we as a society need to start seeing plays for what they are- desperate appeals to pretension.

There is, of course, one rather important exception- Mozart, Bach, and many other geniuses labored at musicwriting, and the fruits thereof don't translate as smoothly onto the record as we might hope. Obviously, Mozart is still worth performing on the stage. All we can do is lament the sad fact that he wasn't born late enough to write pre-recorded tracks.

 

[ballin4life]

why do people go to concerts when they could just stay at home and listen to the pre-recorded tracks?

Damn, exactly what I was going to say.


I go to musicals because I like music. I don't go to non-musical plays though.

 

[Battlecow]

why do people go to concerts when they could just stay at home and listen to the pre-recorded tracks?

Don't even try it. First of all, large portions of your modified quote make no sense. Secondly, there are legitimate reasons for live music- you can feel the hype with your fellow concert attendees, you can "see" the music being performed, which you can't do with pre-recorded tracks, and, most importantly, most live music is the same (more or less) as the pre-recorded version. There's not nearly as much separating live music from recorded as there is separating plays from movies- so you're getting an equally good or very nearly equally good product in a really fun environment with really fun people. You don't attend plays for the audience, though. There's also a feeling of being "close" to the musician (whom you presumably idolize, whether it be quietly or loudly, and therefore want to lay eyes upon), but, generally speaking, while movie stars do provoke this kind of reverence, even very elite Broadway actors do not, these days.

They're totally different phenomena, is all I'm saying. I personally don't go to many concerts because I feel content listening to most artists' studio tracks, but live music has its advantages. Live theater manifestly does not.

Also yeah I totally thought ballin' "Master of the False Comparison" 4life was gonna be the one one to say that =p

 

[GoldShadow]

Ah, but live theater is very different from movies the same way concerts are different from studio recorded tracks: they are live.

An artist in the studio, or an actor on a set, can perform take after take until everything is just right. They can choose the right scenes and edit to their heart's content, do everything piece by piece and alter it later as necessary.

But on stage (whether acting or playing music), part of the experience is seeing the performer get it all right in one take in front of the audience.

There are also differences between stagecraft and filmcraft. Movies don't have to worry about thirty-second costume changes or thirty-second set changes. Part of what I love about live theater performances is seeing how they've set up props and sets to efficiently change (or creatively reuse) them between scenes.

You'll have to forgive my lack of knowledge of theater terminology. I'm not a drama buff or anything, but I like a good live performance now and then.

 

[Battlecow]

So it's worthwhile because it's difficult to do? Should we start adding artificial difficulties into movies? Maybe the cameramen should have to do the Macarena while they film?

Keep in mind that the audience doesn't get anything out of that 30-second costume change except for sacrifices in the quality of the performance. In a movie, you could change into whatever costume you wanted.

You remind me of my father- he still loves Netscape, simply because he's been using it for so long that its flaws have become endearing.

 

[GoldShadow]

I think you're taking for granted that everyone has the same priorities, when they watch a performance, that you do--which they quite simply don't. Some people are impressed by how much work goes into the production, and they are impressed with the final product of said efforts (which is where your browser analogy ceases to be relevant). Perhaps you aren't, and that's okay. Nothing wrong with that; everybody has their own tastes. It doesn't, however, invalidate an entire medium.

Would you take it a step further and eliminate magic shows as well? Stand-up comedy? Siegfried and Roy? Circus performers? Speeches? All of those can be filmed as well. I guess I want to know where you draw the line.

 

[vVv Rapture]

A play and movie are pretty different, though, so I wouldn't necessariy compare the two.

In a theatre production, a lot of how it is produced, written, developed, etc. is pretty different than in movies, mostly because of the medium. It's unique. Stories are told in different manners because you don't have the luxury of different camera angles or locales. Plays have a different feel to them, and at the very least, it's much different watching a play live in the theatre than a recording of it, for example.

I mean, if a play was just an archaic movie, then yeah I may agree with you. But there's a lot that goes into a play than just not having the advances of movie-making. Having to write a script for a play while being in the limitations of the theatre doesn't make it outmoded, it just makes it different.

 

[Battlecow]

I think you're taking for granted that everyone has the same priorities, when they watch a performance, that you do--which they quite simply don't. Some people are impressed by how much work goes into the production, and they are impressed with the final product of said efforts (which is where your browser analogy ceases to be relevant). Perhaps you aren't, and that's okay. Nothing wrong with that; everybody has their own tastes. It doesn't, however, invalidate an entire medium.

Movies are just as hard to make as plays. Harder, in fact; there are more people with more expertise spending more hours to make it work.

Would you take it a step further and eliminate magic shows as well? Stand-up comedy? Siegfried and Roy? Circus performers? Speeches? All of those can be filmed as well. I guess I want to know where you draw the line.

With magic shows, it's no fun on film, because you subconsciously feel that they could be using camera tricks and the point of magic (NOT of plays) is to fascinate you with the "how did they do that?" Speeches are good live because they're unfolding for the first time while you're there; anyways, there's only so much you can do with a speech, and film techniques distract from rather than add to speeches. Circus performances are also fascinating in part because the danger to the performers is imminent and your subconscious doesn't wanna get camera-tricked, it wants to see plausibility and reality. Since circuses are real, you don't wanna get tricked, whereas the point behind drama should be to trick you as completely as possible. Sports (which you didn't mention) are good live because of the crowd interaction that I mentioned vis-a-vis the live music, and because being in the moment is important when something is unfolding live.

A play and movie are pretty different, though, so I wouldn't necessariy compare the two.

In a theatre production, a lot of how it is produced, written, developed, etc. is pretty different than in movies, mostly because of the medium. It's unique. Stories are told in different manners because you don't have the luxury of different camera angles or locales. Plays have a different feel to them, and at the very least, it's much different watching a play live in the theatre than a recording of it, for example.

I mean, if a play was just an archaic movie, then yeah I may agree with you. But there's a lot that goes into a play than just not having the advances of movie-making. Having to write a script for a play while being in the limitations of the theatre doesn't make it outmoded, it just makes it different.

You'd have a point if plays did anything that movies couldn't do a thousand times cheaper and a million times better. How plays are produced, written, developed etc. is exactly like how movies are- except arbitrarily limited. What's the difference? What does a play offer me that a movie doesn't? You say they're pretty different, but I'm unconvinced.

 

[GoldShadow]

What does a play offer me that a movie doesn't? You say they're pretty different, but I'm unconvinced.

And this right here is the thing: they don't offer you anything that a movie doesn't--emphasis on the "you."

Perhaps all the things we've mentioned are not enough, in your opinion; in our opinion (and the opinion of those who enjoy plays), those things are enough to make plays worth it.

Sports (which you didn't mention) are good live because of the crowd interaction that I mentioned vis-a-vis the live music, and because being in the moment is important when something is unfolding live.

You're also conflating your own values with everyone else's. I enjoy concerts as much as the next person (was just at one the other day!), but I've never even thought about the "crowd interaction" you keep bringing up because it is simply not a priority to me. I don't go to concerts partly because I enjoy the crowd; I don't enjoy the crowd. In fact, I wish there were fewer people at concerts. The "crowd" thing has never even crossed my mind before. It's simply not what I like about concerts.


Which is why, ultimately, this debate is pointless the way it's currently framed. You bring up a number of issues you have with live theater, other people disagree because, in their opinion, those are either non-issues or there are factors which outweigh those issues, and we go back and forth repeating the same things.

The only fact I see in this argument is that you have a different value system when it comes to entertainment than some people, and some people have a different value system when it comes to entertainment than you (which is why some people enjoy live theater and believe it is quite different from film whereas others do not).

 

[Battlecow]

You're talking as if you had some sort of complete knowledge of the argument and you're trying to wave the subjective wand really hard and make the debate go away, but for all your posing, you've yet to offer up a single legitimate advantage that the stage has- for you or me or anyone. Until you can do that, you have no right at all to say that it's a value judgment or that my mileage may vary.

You've tried saying that it's somehow fun to watch because it's hard to produce (?) but when I show the obvious- that this is not the case- you suddenly decide that it's time for another round of "Let's pretend that art can't be good or bad." Live theater is a zoetrope, and the only thing that allows it to stay uncomfortably wedged in the ***crack of our culture is that it was, at one time, the best medium we had for visual storytelling, and that there's nothing people with too much money hate more than being "mainstream" and watching what everyone else is watching simply because it's "artistically worthwhile."

 

[Sucumbio]

I think you underestimate the popularity of Broadway productions.

Some of these Broadway Season Statistics are insane:

Those numbers are in -millions-

Yeah obviously it does compare to the billions made in movies, but... movie attendance for the last 40 years has always been bigger than theater. So... yeah. It's still big.

Now if you're talking just straight plays, not broadway musicals, well then I tend to agree, plays are kinda dead.l

 

[ballin4life]

Well, given that plays exist at all, I think it's likely there is SOME reason to prefer them over movies. I just don't know what it is since I don't like plays personally.

 

[Battlecow]

I explained the reason. Conspicuous consumption

 

[Dre89]

By the logic of the OP, there'd be no point watching movies with cinematics and action scenes, seeing as video games not only provide cinematics and action scenes, but are interactive.

Also, does this mean people shouldn't go to sports events when they can just watch it at home?

Apart from the live factor, the other point, which Goldshadow touched on in his first post, is the difficulty and achievement that comes with pulling a successful play off. It's why we like watching a gorilla doing a dance more than a human doing the same dance; the human will be much more efficient at the dance, yet the fact that it's a gorilla is what makes it more fascinating. The same could be said about theatre- the quick costume- changes, the fact they only get one shot at a scene etc. adds to the thrill.

At least that's what I'm guessing is the case, I'm not really a theatre person.

 

[Battlecow]

I already explained sports- read the thread.

Video games provide many things that movies don't, and vice versa. This is incredibly obvious. If y'all would think about the argument instead of assuming you were right and working backwards, you might not end up with so many false comparisons.

I don't believe that people attend the theater because of an appreciation of the difficulty of the performance rather than because they think the finished product is worthwhile; at any rate, theater isn't that difficult to do (of course "good" theater is hard to do, but so is "good" anything).

 

[ballin4life]

I already explained sports- read the thread.

Video games provide many things that movies don't, and vice versa. This is incredibly obvious. If y'all would think about the argument instead of assuming you were right and working backwards, you might not end up with so many false comparisons.

LOL.

Ok, I'm calling shenanigans on this one.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The difference between stage and movies is this, audience feedback.

A live performance offers a unique performance each time, the performers are able to take into account the audience reactions to tailor their performance for the crowd.


I mean, compare the studio version of speechless to a live version.

That's what live version of anything gives, uniqueness tailored to the audience.

 

[Battlecow]

Calling bull****. I'd give you odds that there is no significant tailoring-to-that-night's-audience at 99% of professional theater.

As for that song- that's not theater, first of all, and second of all, live versions of songs are often very different from studio ones. This doesn't usually have anything to do with the specific audience present in the physical theater.

Also ballin' are you calling them on the video-games movies thing (I hope not lol) or on my assertion that you guys are putting up false comparisons at unprecedented rates?

 

[Sucumbio]

Calling bull****. I'd give you odds that there is no significant tailoring-to-that-night's-audience at 99% of professional theater.

I think what he's referring to are reviews. Once a movie is released, that's it... all the harsh reviews in the world can't change the movie... at all (at least not until the Director's Cut, remember the -original- Highlander II?)

In Theater, specifically Broadway styled musicals, but also in plays, not only are reviews released quickly and the actors/singers paying attention to the "suggestions" made... but actually many productions have a meet-n-greet sort of deal after the show, where audience members of note are able to approach the actors/singers and give their feedback directly. Normally it won't be criticism, but then again, it can be, just worded surreptitiously.

"Your delivery of the coloratura was not unlike Diana Damrau's gripping solo in Romeo and Juliet." (when in fact Ms Damrau recieved harsh criticism for being too breathy during her Munich Performances.)

That kinda thing...

I just had a thought about something you said earlier... about how the stage is ... one dimensional in a way. If Miss Saigon taught us anything it's that the stage is by no means limited in what it can produce (they brought a HELICOPTER on stage!)

Les Miserables features a fully rotating 360 degree stage which offers all kinds of unique perspectives on the action. There's also some ingenious lighting in one scene in particular, which makes it look as if Jean Valjean is climbing down a ladder into the sewers, when in reality he's just going through the motions of climbing but stationary.

CGI and trick photography can make anything in a movie exciting or realistic, but to accomplish this with analog set materials is a feat unto itself and deserves high praise for its cunning and ingenuity.

Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet is particularly large in scope in terms of set design. Zeffirelli's version starring Mel Gibson is more traditional in scope, though no less convincing. Then we have Orsen Welles, in black and white, and very traditional, and then yet again we have Ethan Hawke's modern-day performance, taking Hamlet into the 21st century. The point? ALL of these movies feature actors who were classically trained for the stage, so as to make their performances of Hamlet more convincing. You may prefer a movie of Hamlet than watching a play, I prefer Branaugh's to anyone before or after his performance, but we owe these gripping movie renditions to the stage.

 

[Battlecow]

It's no use bringing up crazy awesome sets for plays or whatever; no matter what they do, they won't be able to approach even a mediocre movie's level of immersion or realism. The point about reviews is interesting, but you can only make minor changes at best based on what a critic or audience tells you- surely whatever slight variation an actor might make night-to-night would be equivalent to the different editing stages of a film?

 

[ballin4life]

Calling bull****. I'd give you odds that there is no significant tailoring-to-that-night's-audience at 99% of professional theater.

As for that song- that's not theater, first of all, and second of all, live versions of songs are often very different from studio ones. This doesn't usually have anything to do with the specific audience present in the physical theater.

Also ballin' are you calling them on the video-games movies thing (I hope not lol) or on my assertion that you guys are putting up false comparisons at unprecedented rates?

"If y'all would think about the argument instead of assuming you're right and working backwards".

 

[adumbrodeus]

Calling bull****. I'd give you odds that there is no significant tailoring-to-that-night's-audience at 99% of professional theater.

As for that song- that's not theater, first of all, and second of all, live versions of songs are often very different from studio ones. This doesn't usually have anything to do with the specific audience present in the physical theater.

Also ballin' are you calling them on the video-games movies thing (I hope not lol) or on my assertion that you guys are putting up false comparisons at unprecedented rates?

I from my limited work in theater and my attendance (furthermore my less limited experience in stage music which does have similar principals of showmanship) I can tell you that isn't the case.

Sure, the script is set in stone, but subtle texturing of the delivery changes based on how the audience reacts to prior things.

It's a great deal more evident in music to even the casual listener, but subtle differences in tone have just as much power in a performance.


So, anything live can have the audience as a component in the art.

Anything recorded will always be static.

That is the difference between stage and movies and one of the differences between movies and video games.

 

[Battlecow]

One of the very, very, very minor differences between movies and video games.

And wait, video games are live? I really don't get your point.

 

[Sucumbio]

It's no use bringing up crazy awesome sets for plays or whatever; no matter what they do, they won't be able to approach even a mediocre movie's level of immersion or realism.

I think you're begging the question, here. There's no basis to assume that immersion or realism requires a movie to be experienced on the same level as a theater. For you, perhaps, but looking back at those statistics I posted, there's millions of others who don't feel this way. It may even be possible that the presence of live actors and live music -enhances- the immersion quality, and that a movie is too detached, too flat an experience to compare.

The point about reviews is interesting, but you can only make minor changes at best based on what a critic or audience tells you- surely whatever slight variation an actor might make night-to-night would be equivalent to the different editing stages of a film?

Not exactly. I'd equate the editing process to rehearsals. And true you can only make seemingly minor changes, but it's not minor at all if you're the audience. For instance, perhaps the lighting was insufficient to illuminate a specific set design and a review noted it. Correcting this oversight may be as easy as adding another light bulb to the rafter (a "minor" change), but the audience will see the set as none before them saw, and may take away something from that difference that significantly alters their experience.

Also I think we need to distinguish the difference between movie and film. A movie is fairly brain-dead in delivery. Eye-candy, sure but... you're not exactly looking for symbolism in every scene, lighting and angles and set choices, they're all pedantic in comparison to a live theater presentation, mainly because theater's not as about portraying things real-to-life as it is portraying things in a meaningful way. This is why I say "Film" because films normally do take the extra step to involve the audience as much as possible. You could almost take it as a theater production that has a dynamic set capable of transforming in ways that current technology just doesn't allow for their analog counterparts.

 

[Battlecow]

You make a convincing argument, but I don't believe that any of this legitimizes plays. You just haven't made any points that are substantive enough or present in enough plays to make them a sufficient reason for the industry's existence.

Anyways, movies/films are always edited carefully before they come out as well.

 

[Ocean]

You just haven't made any points that are substantive enough or present in enough plays to make them a sufficient reason for the industry's existence.

people still pay to go see plays, and that is reason enough for the industry's existence.

 

[adumbrodeus]

One of the very, very, very minor differences between movies and video games.

And wait, video games are live? I really don't get your point.

Yes, they are. The player physically plays the game and that's part of what immerses the player, the illusion of choice.

 

[Battlecow]

people still pay to go see plays, and that is reason enough for the industry's existence.

Right, but they're doing so in a crass display of foolish pride and elitism. A change in cultural views on the theater would stop them from wasting their money on inferior forms.

Yes, they are. The player physically plays the game and that's part of what immerses the player, the illusion of choice.

Um...

You said that anything live could be changed, whereas anything recorded was static. Video games (1-player ones, at least, which is I assume what we're talking about) are recorded and static. Yes, they immerse in different ways. Still not seeing the connection here.

 

[Sucumbio]

...

he's saying that a video game is dynamic unlike a movie (unless you include watching the movie while upside down o.o) without you, the game just sits there. a movie plays, regardless if there's anyone there to watch it. that's not even getting into the deeper aspects of the comparison, such as how video games can play out differently depending on the decisions made by the player(s).

You make a convincing argument, but I don't believe that any of this legitimizes plays. You just haven't made any points that are substantive enough or present in enough plays to make them a sufficient reason for the industry's existence.

Well yeah, I really can't make a case for plays, as I don't personally enjoy them, nor do I find much in the way of plays out there anymore, it's mostly dinner theater and broadway styled or specialized shows like blue man group.

Not to mention I can't really argue against the position that "play goers are stuck up snobs who are more concerned with being artsy and looking cultured than having a good time."

 

[adumbrodeus]

This is from Ryker, and I'm posting it here because it supports my view but also adds things that I haven't considered.

You're telling people that they're assuming they're correct and then working backwards which is hypocritical and impossible for you to know or make the logical assumption with the information presented.

You're trying to apply your tastes to me, and it doesn't work. I enjoy acting, and I always have. The way I learned was through the stage. In that process, I learned all the ins and outs of stagecraft and how you can traditionally and nontraditionally present your story to the audience despite the limitations of the medium. That means that the rotating stage of Les Mis is incredibly interesting to me. I understand that every quick change is a chance to screw up a performance. I see every ad lib as a great, terrible, or alright decision to cover a problem.

Movies are a LOT of work, but I don't give two ****s about how hard the camera guy worked in this shot because I don't understand nor do I want to take the time to understand the camera guy's job. However, any time a stagehand has to do anything, I can relate it to things I've had to do.

Take this example. There are plenty of people who watch Basketball who don't watch Slam Dunk contests and vice versa. They both contain slam dunks, but they present them differently. Personally, I care next to nothing about a basketball game, but I can sit down and watch some crazy dunks. Different things entertain different people.

Pre-emptive counter argument to predictable deflection:

My example is DESIGNED to show how the same thing being shown in different environments having a different sort of audience because of it. In order to rule out my example, you have to go back and counter your own original argument. Theater is a different production of acting than movies. It uses different methods to produce a different products. Acting is to Movies/Theater as Dunks are to Basketball/Slam Dunk contests.

There are multiple other examples in the sporting world to pull from, but I'd rather my secondary example be a County Fair versus Iron Chef. Two different ways to produce a competition to see who is the better cook.

You can take this on it's own merits, but what I find the most important is add-libbing, because it's something that movies can NEVER do. Beyond the audience interaction it allows the actors to individually express themselves, the director to change what doesn't work, and all sorts of other changes.


Movies are a high cost affair for one result that is repeated continuously, but with plays, there is no real penalty for experimenting each night because the majority of the cost is bourne in the initial production.

You make a convincing argument, but I don't believe that any of this legitimizes plays. You just haven't made any points that are substantive enough or present in enough plays to make them a sufficient reason for the industry's existence.

Anyways, movies/films are always edited carefully before they come out as well.

Here's the thing.

You don't need "enough", you just need one.

This is art, and when you're talking about art, different attributes are needed to tell different stories at different times. If there is one thing that theater does that movies cannot do it will never be an outmoded medium, because there will always be a reason to do it for at least that purpose if the particular piece requires it.

Um...

You said that anything live could be changed, whereas anything recorded was static. Video games (1-player ones, at least, which is I assume what we're talking about) are recorded and static. Yes, they immerse in different ways. Still not seeing the connection here.

While true, technically, in practice this isn't the case. That's where the illusion of control comes in. Though the parameters of this feedback are always dictated by the programmers which ultimately limits the degree that it can respond to the audience, it still can respond based on what has been programmed in. In movies, you are merely a passive observer.

 

[Battlecow]

This is from Ryker, and I'm posting it here because it supports my view but also adds things that I haven't considered.

Can you, like, copy that into a post so that I can quote it? Thanks.

You can take this on it's own merits, but what I find the most important is add-libbing, because it's something that movies can NEVER do. Beyond the audience interaction it allows the actors to individually express themselves, the director to change what doesn't work, and all sorts of other changes.

As I believe I've already said, you don't see much improvisation in the vast majority of professional theater these days.

Here's the thing.

You don't need "enough", you just need one.

This is art, and when you're talking about art, different attributes are needed to tell different stories at different times. If there is one thing that theater does that movies cannot do it will never be an outmoded medium, because there will always be a reason to do it for at least that purpose if the particular piece requires it.

All right. Perhaps there is one tiny, semi-noticeable "advantage" that the stage has over movies. Perhaps this, very technically, legitimizes the medium. Why do millions of people attend the plays each year? Is it because they realize that the plays can be "edited" in miniscule ways from its original state? Of course not. It's still, as Sucumbio so wisely says, that "play goers are stuck up snobs who are more concerned with being artsy and looking cultured than having a good time."

 

[Amide]

I don't think Scumbio meant that statement; I believe he meant that it's not a topic one can have an educated debate on. If that's not what he was trying to get across, I am.

I think the room for error in theater is exciting, and it presents challenges and performances that can't be appreciated the same way on the screen. That reason may be crap to you, but similar ones have clearly been enough to attract lots of fans to the medium. And going to crappy community theater productions is not "artsy" or particularly "cultured," but is still a good time .

 

[Sucumbio]

I believe he meant that it's not a topic one can have an educated debate on.

This. The topic itself could read: "Why is the stage not outmoded?" And then one could make the argument that it is, and it's just being perpetuated by Theater Geeks and Yuppies.

But it'd be a bad argument and struck down by linking to the bazillion (wait why is that in my T9, lol) sources that show it to be a popular medium.

At which point you would be forced to conclude that popular trite is a problem in more than just music, but in movies and theater and books and everything else.

At which point I'd call you a Hipster and wash my hands of you.

And we don't want all that, right? Nah.

So instead we have the discussion as it is, plain and simple, that for all intents and purposes you, BC, are perplexed at the popularity of stage presentations and are convinced that it's nothing more than elitist. You are entitled to this opinion, but you'd be guilty of generalizing.

I was wondering, are you familiar with The Rocky Horror Picture Show? If not it's definitely worth watching if not for the cult appeal aspect, just to laugh your *** off, cause it's pretty funny. But yeah, this movie ended up taking up elements of stage production. In cities all over, people will go to late night showings of the movie, and physical actors will act out the roles of the movie actors, simultaneously in front of the screen. This dual-layer presentation is unique, and I must say can be a lot of fun, especially if it's your first time

 

[Battlecow]

It wouldn't be struck down by linking to those sources. Proving it's popular doesn't prove that it should be popular.

And I actually like a lot of popular music, thank you very much. If anything, I'm arguing that the "popular" stuff (movies) takes away the need for the lame hipster stuff (i.e. Theater is a fixed-wheel bicycle).

 

[Sucumbio]

lol I know, but seriously, you've opened a pandora's box here with this assault. You and I both know it doesn't end with Theater. Remember hacky-sacks (sic) or rolling your pants into a taper at the bottom, or christ any number of trends. Popularity is infectious... it's also not always observably deserving. Friday by Rebecca Black, how many hits? And it's a horrible song! (Please no jokes about how it's not that bad, it sucks, and we all know it sucks). That's not theater. It's totally true that -some- people that go to shows are just trying to be cultured. I recall going to the symphony one night with a couple chicks, and they didn't even care for the music, they just wanted an excuse to get all dressed up and look cool in the company of others. But this isn't true of all fans of these things, it's a generalization you're making, and that's not typically a good thing.

Not to mention some messages, just have to be done FABULOUS! Ya know? Well ok, I know you don't, but lol that's what they're there for. Les Miserables is a book, but to those millions who have seen it on Broadway, it's more... I think the best argument presented so far in favor of the Theater is that actors act, they just do it differently than they do in the movies, and this difference is necessary for the message of the thing to be delivered. I'm sure you've heard of movie versions of Broadway musicals. Are they just as good? Maybe... I personally loved Jesus Christ Superstar as a movie, but as a musical, I've never seen it, so I can't compare. It may be just as good, or even better, or it may not be. It's not for us to judge those who think it'd be better on the stage, because like yourself, everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how annoying it is.

EDIT: I realize how that just sounded, I'm not saying you're opinion is annoying, I'm saying that you appear to be annoyed at the opinions of Theater goers.

 

[Battlecow]

Yeah, they're entitled to their opinion. I'm just making a judgment and saying that their opinion is bad; that's allowed too. It's like music; some people like bad music, but that doesn't mean it isn't bad, and it doesn't mean you can't try to convince them of this. Making arguments for why their opinion is bad is also kosher.