Slashdot Mirror


Hamilton Producer Jeffrey Seller: Live Theater Is the Antidote To Digital Overload (recode.net)

As more people come online and get hold of smartphones, we are witnessing a generation that is reliant on their phones to get news, entertainment, and educational resources among other things. They watch movies and TV shows on Netflix and other services, and they listen to music on Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube. Naturally, you would think that people in the Broadway theater business must be threatened that nobody will physically attend their show anymore, but that's not necessarily the case, at least not with everyone. Take Jeffrey Seller, for example, the producer of Broadway megahit Hamilton refuses to fold to the virtual reality laden world, and he has numbers on his side. From a Recode article (you can also found an hour-long podcast on this there): The success of "Hamilton," which is sold out in New York through May 2017 and will soon spread to Chicago, San Francisco and London, has convinced Seller that demand for a real, non-digital experience is stronger than ever. He said 13 million people went to see Broadway shows in the past season, and only 500,000 of those were "Hamilton" attendees. By contrast, when Seller first made a splash as the co-producer of "Rent" in 1996, he estimated total Broadway attendance was around eight million to nine million people. "Experiencing art live with friends, with family, with people we love, is so rewarding that people are searching it out amidst the digital age, in which our faces are in our phones seemingly every other hour of the day," he said.Explaining why he thinks that virtual reality cannot completely take over, in a rather crass example, Seller adds, "Do you want to have sex or do you want to have a virtual reality experience of sex?"

100 comments

  1. Just not affordable by OffTheLip · · Score: 2

    Priced Hamilton tickets lately?

    1. Re:Just not affordable by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Supply and demand. Economics 101.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in 21st Century America, only the Low Price matters!!!

    3. Re:Just not affordable by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      ain't that the truth, with wife and two kids I can confirm virtual sex would have been much more affordable

    4. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So not the antidote since there is virtually zero supply. Got it. Also this thing I sell over here is the antidote to everything that ails you.

    5. Re:Just not affordable by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't you watch south park?

      Broadway tickets will get your dick sucked.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Just not affordable by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Cheaper now. Miranda (writer/star) just did his last performance in the show, so ticket demand should decrease slightly. Still probably overpriced though.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

    8. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have to be Hamilton, or even a play.

      Other than for the big names, crap like Taylor Swift, you can get out for some live music dirt cheap.

      Small venues, bars, in Phoenix/Scottsdale, 10 buck or less. Sometimes as cheap as 3 USD.

      Medium venues, depends, but 20, may 35 bucks, depending on the band.

      And pretty much any major city is going to have tons of live music, free, somewhere.

      How many times have you gone out for live music and had a bad time?

    9. Re:Just not affordable by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There just are not enough theaters for everyone either. Seriously, if it's showing on Broadway then it's only accessible to a tiny minority of the population; the 1% of the 1%. Even then, nobody goes to the theater every single week. If you've got the time and money then maybe once or twice a summer. That's not going to do anything to fix digital overload.

    10. Re:Just not affordable by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So not the antidote since there is virtually zero supply. Got it

      Then increase the supply. Start your own theater production company, and offer alternative entertainment. For instance, you could tell the same story from Aaron Burr's viewpoint. I would pay to see that.

    11. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Priced Hamilton tickets lately?

      I used to live in Soviet Union. Theaters in my area had a play or two on nightly basis. In most cases tickets were relatively cheap (unless it was something long and special). I loved it. Cheaper plays were also generally less serious allowing actors to improvise and play with crowd adding to an overall value imo.

      Theater is totally doable. There just doesn't seam to be enough interest probably because TV shows have replaced casual aspect of theater.

    12. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Broadway tickets will also get you mugged and/or dead. Thankfully for the price of a virtual dick sucking, you only have to worry about virtual STDs.

    13. Re:Just not affordable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the price of Broadway tickets, you could have your dick sucked by a professional a few times over. Or once by a few professionals at the same time.

  2. Good Luck by tsqr · · Score: 1

    I strongly suspect that the intersection of the set of people who rely heavily on their phones for interaction with the world, and the set of people who enjoy going to the theatre, is minimal at best. To put it another way, I'm sure live theatre will be a big hit with the phone addicts, as long as they can watch it on their phones.

    1. Re:Good Luck by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Well something like that https://entertainment.slashdot...

      More so they can go to the theater and play candy crush on their phone instead of watching whatever it was they paid to see and degrading the experience of everyone sitting by and behind them.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  3. "virtual reality cannot completely take over..." by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    The rather crass example Seller adds pretty much says it all.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  4. When will somebody capture a Pokemon there? by BenJeremy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't help but think there will soon be an Instagram posting of somebody capturing a Pokemon during a performance.

    1. Re:When will somebody capture a Pokemon there? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think there will soon be an Instagram posting of somebody capturing a Pokemon during a performance.

      Ah, yes. The infamous Hamilton-Bulbasaur duel.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:When will somebody capture a Pokemon there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is the Bulbasaur dismembered using chainsaws and burned near the border between Norway and Russia? This is Hamilton we are talking about.

  5. Stream Live Theater to VR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do it now.

  6. My antidote to digital overload by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    I go deer hunting for a week once a year. Out in the woods in a remote area that has virtually no signal. My boss & coworkers know that they can't call me or email me for any immediate feedback. My phone seems to be able to fetch email, update notifications, etc. at around 2 AM in the morning or so. Not entirely sure why, but the moon & stars must be in just the right alignment. It's pretty nice to be able to unplug & enjoy nature for an extended period of time.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:My antidote to digital overload by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:My antidote to digital overload by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, I do hunt in the U.P. on Thanksgiving Weekend! :-D

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:My antidote to digital overload by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      My solution? Buy a home. If I don't put the electronics down every once in a while, the blackberry vines will swallow my house. Heck, they may manage to do it regardless.

      Vacation time doesn't get spent going to exotic places... it gets used to work on our place.

      Hmm... I'm not sure if I'm offering a solution or just complaining...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  7. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, I want the Virtual Reality experience of sex.

    Until you've tried it, don't knock it. VR porn is the best thing ever.

    And it lets you experience things you might not ever be able to do in real life, and most importantly, lets you experience it with people or characters or anything you want that is not possible in real life.

    You wanna bone that hot night elf? What about that draenei? That succubus? Got a pony fetish? Wanna bend rarity over or twilight sparkle?

    It's better than life for real.

    1. Re:Actually... by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Funny

      get a real pony, you pervert

    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virtual reality anything is better in the same way that books are better than real life: Every adventure is effortless, every stimulus condensed, and failure without consequence. But it's also worse than real life, because no adventure is special, all excitement is without calm, and success without consequence.

    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure that's what they meant by "friendship is magic".

    4. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanna bend rarity over or twilight sparkle?

      But they're kind of already bent over, and fuck you for making me think about that.

    5. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got a pony fetish? Wanna bend rarity over or twilight sparkle?

      Those pony riding enthusiasts get a new dimension for their play. Just add the recently showcased backpack PC with AR or VR glasses or a Hololens and ride to the sunset while smelling fresh grass, leather and pussy. Yahoo!

  8. VR Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since I'm not getting any real sex... I'll take the VR experience, sure!

  9. Vaudeville is dead by doconnor · · Score: 1

    Live performance was devastated by motion pictures. It will never rise to the same level again.

  10. Sex or virtual sex? by xtal · · Score: 2

    ..depends on the quality of the former.

    More people might pick the latter than you think.

    https://www.thememo.com/2016/0...

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:Sex or virtual sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's see. Real (legal) sex involves finding someone whose self-esteem is low enough or sexual desire is high enough for them to consider having sex with you, actually speaking to them, and getting far enough in the conversation to get agreement, and getting over the fact that you and your potential partner are probably not the others' ideal. Then you have to arrange times and locations when both participants are available and in the mood. Then follow the various liquids getting in the bed sheets or other locations, clean-up, and post-coitus relationship-building to maintain the possibility of a next time. Good luck!

      Virtual sex is whenever you want, with high-class porn stars of the particular attributes you prefer; rule 34 is your oyster, You don't have to talk to anyone or agree to anything other than the EULA. Your own liquids are containable and relatively easy to clean up, and there will always be a next time, possibly with more participants if you can find someone who filmed/programmed it.

      Clearly, he will want to re-think his example.

  11. Re:"virtual reality cannot completely take over... by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Ask those who were turned away from that adult VR expo in Japan.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  12. Since you ask... by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Do you want to have sex or do you want to have a virtual reality experience of sex?"

    Both. At the same time.

    1. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeahh now this guy's got it!

    2. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what women will do when they're effectively made obsolete when it comes to sexual gratification. It's literally the only thing that gives them power over men.

    3. Re:Since you ask... by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder what women will do when they're effectively made obsolete when it comes to sexual gratification. It's literally the only thing that gives them power over men.

      If you ever find one desperate enough to sleep with you, maybe you can ask her.

    4. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a sociopath, and maybe one of the MRA losers. VR sex will never offer an emotional connection, or the joy of making a woman orgasm.

    5. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like a sociopath, and maybe one of the MRA losers. VR sex will never offer an emotional connection, or the joy of making a woman orgasm.

      She faked it that one time.

    6. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like someone who's never met an actual woman, and just project your perverse fantasies on anything and everything (hopefully not animals or children)

    7. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VR sex will never offer an emotional connection ...

      If an emotional connection was the priority, women wouldn't date strangers, nor fuck on the second (or third) date. A woman's choice is driven by emotion, yes but it's not an "emotional connection" that most women seek.

      ... the joy of making a woman orgasm.

      I want my woman to achieve orgasm too. But I also want sexual pleasure for my self and my pleasure, unlike a woman's, lasts only 7 seconds. A fixed reward means I can only bear a fixed cost in socializing, entertaining, being responsible for sex, and foreplay. Anything more is working for free and not a pleasure.

    8. Re:Since you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lasts only 7 seconds.

      You're doing it wrong. Seriously 'coitus interruptus'.

      Try 'fappus interruptus' first. You're not going for the nut, you're trying to see how close you can get and still stop. Repeat until control fails. An hour should be easy, at the end it should be much longer than 7 seconds.

      Once you give a woman a whole body orgasm your world will turn, especially if your GF is foolish enough to tell her friends.

  13. Re:"virtual reality cannot completely take over... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Just an allusion to south park. Spend your money on my show...get a blowjob from your date.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. Affordable for a select few by ranton · · Score: 2

    This hints at the real reason why Broadway has seen growth in the past couple decades. The growth of the wealthy and upper middle class. Two thirds of the shrinking middle class is moving upwards, and these people are the ones who can afford Hamilton tickets.

    My guess is a smaller percentage of the population wants to see musicals today than in 1996. But a much larger percentage of those who want to go can afford it now. This is driving up prices. I am certainly among those who have always liked musicals but wouldn't spend my money on it until I hit the upper middle class. $300 per ticket would have been lunacy in my 20's, now it is just a few hours of work.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Affordable for a select few by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      All costs are opportunity costs.

      You can't find anything better to spend $300 on? Really? You could get 1000 rounds of ammo for that kind of money.

      Ask yourself: What would Alexander Hamilton have done? Buy the ammo.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Affordable for a select few by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      $300 per ticket would have been lunacy in my 20's, now it is just a few hours of work.

      Wait until these productions go on tour out in the boonies. I don't think I've paid more than $65 per ticket to see a production that was insanely popular a few years earlier.

    3. Re:Affordable for a select few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on the type of ammo. I just picked up 1600 rounds of .22 lr for $110 (still too much, but at least I only feel slightly ripped off).

    4. Re:Affordable for a select few by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      What's your definition of the "former middle class"?

      If you mean to say, of those persons previously in the 2nd quartile of income (top 20-40%), 2/3 are moving up and 1/3 are moving down, in terms of relative wealth, then I'd say the historical numbers are on your side. If you are implying that 2/3 of the middle 1/3 of society is experiencing an increase in disposable income, sadly that is not the case.

      The upper 33% are pulling away from the pack, and it's an exponential gain from there, the higher you go, the faster they are pulling away.

      So, in the greater New York City area, rough population 10M plus roughly 50M tourists per year, a Broadway theater might sell something like 0.5 to 1 million seats per year, making those seats available to roughly 1% of residents+tourists per year. And yes, indeed, the 1% have gotten quite a bit richer over the past decades - even the top 10% have.

      I think you are confusing 2/3 of your friends and acquaintances with 2/3 of the actual middle class.

    5. Re:Affordable for a select few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in that quartile. I'm still recovering from increases to my share of healthcare two and a half years into making things more affordable.

    6. Re:Affordable for a select few by ranton · · Score: 1

      All costs are opportunity costs.

      You can't find anything better to spend $300 on? Really? You could get 1000 rounds of ammo for that kind of money.

      There are diminishing returns for any purchase or activity. My cable bill for instance is far more economical than theater tickets, but I can't get much more value out of buying two cable packages. I also get a lot of value from a McDonald's meal, but arguably negative value from eating there too much.

      Live theater is similar to taking a vacation. The expense of these entertainment options are grossly higher than almost all other options, but they cannot be replicated in any cheaper form.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    7. Re:Affordable for a select few by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Average broadway ticket price passed $100 in 2014. In 1996, the average was $36 and the highest price was $55.

      With inflation, modern tickets are 83% more expensive... if one is affordable, two should be half as affordable, ne?

    8. Re:Affordable for a select few by ranton · · Score: 1

      Middle class is generally defined as between two-thirds and double the local median wage. Depending on the context that local wage may be within your city, county, state, region, or country. In 2014, that put the middle class at about $42k-$125k nation wide.

      According to Pew Research the percentage of people in the middle class has dropped by 11.3% from 1971-2014. 2.3% (20% of the total) went to a lower income level, and 9% (80% of the total) moved into a higher income level.

      So I actually remembered the numbers incorrectly just not in the direction you thought. Four fifths of those moving out of the middle class were moving upwards, not two thirds.

      I think you are confusing 2/3 of your friends and acquaintances with 2/3 of the actual middle class.

      I grew up in a small farm town (12k population), so far less than 2/3 of my friends moved up into the upper classes. Probably closer to 10% of my former and current friends have moved into the upper middle class or higher, because those on the lower end of the opportunity spectrum tend to do worse in their careers. Things didn't turn around for me until I got at least 70 miles from my former home, where you basically had to be a local business owner to have a nice income.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    9. Re:Affordable for a select few by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You're saying you already have enough ammo?

      I can get far more live entertainment value for $300 at the local strip club vs broadway shows. To be fair; I should compare costs of Manhattan nudie bars, which are insane.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Affordable for a select few by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      If you are implying that 2/3 of the middle 1/3 of society is experiencing an increase in disposable income, sadly that is not the case.

      It's slowed down since 1980, and still marches forward.

      The upcoming automation thing will either occur over a stretched time span (humans stay competitive with machines) and create a technical renaissance (1950-1980 on that chart), or they'll occur compacted (rapid wage increases, increases in payroll taxes, sales and middle-class income tax increases, etc.) and cause a technical revolution (Industrial Revolution: 80% unemployment for 100 years, massive economic destruction).

      A lot of people want a sort of Universal Basic Income in the mistaken belief that it will allow an 80%-unemployed society to continue functioning; that won't happen, because the sharp loss of employment stems in large part from a compounding loss of jobs (loss of jobs leads to loss of consumer demand, which leads to further loss of jobs), which means lost production and, ultimately, a loss of a tax base from which to direct production toward welfare.

      A viable UBI can preempt a Technical Revolution by supplying a sort of Universal Social Security, migrating payroll taxes to income taxes, and providing a basic standard benefit by a non-wage income rather than minimum wage increases. This decreases the cost (thus risk) for businesses to wait for even-cheaper machines, ultimately staggering the replacement of workers over a wider span of time, giving the market time to adjust to the lowered production costs and the consumer time to use the increased buying power to buy more goods and create replacement jobs.

      That process of production costs filtering to the consumer is guaranteed for mathematical reasons (goods can't universally keep even with inflation), and is demonstrated continuously--not just leading up to the 1980s, but even so much as in food falling from 13% of the middle-class income in 2000 to 11% today, and by computers and cell phones becoming ever-less-expensive, while jobs continue to normalize to the 4%-8% band and consumers spend larger and larger fractions of their income on an increase in luxury goods and healthcare. Jobs are lost by progress, and *eventually* replaced by the same number of jobs (proportional to the population) making more things in total.

      That "eventually" is important: if jobs are lost in too-rapid succession, the unemployment rate piles up, and the consumer base shrinks. Recovery from this takes a lot longer, and a lot of people become very poor.

      So, provided we can avoid the economic collapse of a technical revolution, we should see something similar to the sharp increase in purchasing power of the middle- and lower-classes over the long years of conversion onto a more automated service base. If we *don't* avoid that kind of economic collapse, we'll see severe damage that doesn't care about uneven income distribution among workers because the collapse came when most of the jobs went away.

      Notice this isn't an argument to sit back and see who's right: I've described factors which influence whether we move into an era of great wealth or a failed state. As you must readily understand, we *need* to minimize the risk of an economic collapse in a period of accelerated technical progress.

    11. Re:Affordable for a select few by ranton · · Score: 1

      $300 per ticket would have been lunacy in my 20's, now it is just a few hours of work.

      Wait until these productions go on tour out in the boonies. I don't think I've paid more than $65 per ticket to see a production that was insanely popular a few years earlier.

      Most things wealthier people can enjoy today can be enjoyed by those with lower incomes in a few years. That holds true for entertainment options, electronics, car features, etc. But in many cases it will never truly be the same. For instance my wife has seen Wicked played by Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth, and by a new cast about eight years later (with me). She said that while it was still very enjoyable, seeing it with the original cast at the Gershwin Theater was the better experience. I'll obviously never know but I still greatly enjoyed the musical.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    12. Re:Affordable for a select few by ranton · · Score: 1

      You're saying you already have enough ammo?

      Ammo would have almost no value to me since throwing bullets at things seems quite boring.

      I can get far more live entertainment value for $300 at the local strip club vs broadway shows. To be fair; I should compare costs of Manhattan nudie bars, which are insane.

      I never got the appeal of strip clubs since frat parties were quite similar but with the option of sex most nights. And much cheaper. A few years after college, $300-$500, a Match.com profile, and a car / clothes which show off your income also has a much better outcome than a strip club. Although the one night I went to strip clubs in San Diego I realized I would probably like them far more in California than in the Chicago suburbs.

      Sadly now that I have two daughters the appeal of strip clubs has been diminished even further.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    13. Re:Affordable for a select few by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You don't go to nudie bars expecting to get laid. You go for entertainment. Same as people who go to broadway shows.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re: Affordable for a select few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also it's the exception not the rule. Also your like 300 million in that country...

    15. Re:Affordable for a select few by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Everybody has graphs backing up their views:

      http://www.advisorperspectives...

      I will point out that analyses of workers in specific fields absolutely neglect the unemployed. That pattern of needing to be a local business owner (or otherwise financially not-dependent on your neighbors to grant you a decent income for your labors) repeats through all small towns I have known from Florida, through Alabama to Texas. The free market directly implements the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules.

    16. Re:Affordable for a select few by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I suppose a better statement would be: the middle 1/3 of society is not experiencing an increase of disposable income nearly on-par with that of the upper 1/3 of society.

      Those graphs that show costs of food, clothing and shelter decreasing over time neglect the realities: to buy the same food you would buy from an ordinary grocery store in 1960, today you have to buy organic, housing costs per 1000sf have indeed declined, while sf of housing occupied per person has skyrocketed... sure, if you want to live like it's 1927 with 4 people in a 1 bathroom 800sf bungalow, you can do that pretty cheap today - though nobody does, and if all you want is clothing - absolutely you can shop at Wal-Mart and buy Hanes brand socks that last 25% as long as the same Hanes brand socks used to 20 years ago, for the same sticker price, but not adjusted for inflation. Buying equal quality clothing over decades is a very slippery thing to try to trend.

      Things are changing, quality of home construction is simultaneously increasing and decreasing depending on how you measure it: better insulation, better initial resistance to natural catastrophe, insect damage, etc. but: also exceedingly fragile. Some homes in northern climates will completely self-destruct after just a few days without heat in the basement. Once the outer envelope is breached, water damage is much more devastating to modern construction than older styles. Kids can stick toys through the walls today much easier than they used to...

    17. Re:Affordable for a select few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2/3rds? Fuck off, that's not even remotely believable without some twisted definition of "moved up".

    18. Re:Affordable for a select few by ranton · · Score: 1

      2/3rds? Fuck off, that's not even remotely believable without some twisted definition of "moved up".

      You're right. After I fact checked the numbers I was recalling from memory, I found it was closer to 80% of middle income workers whose household changed in fact moved up into a higher income class.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    19. Re:Affordable for a select few by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I suppose a better statement would be: the middle 1/3 of society is not experiencing an increase of disposable income nearly on-par with that of the upper 1/3 of society.

      It's more like the upper 10% (which is people over $142,000/year).

      if all you want is clothing - absolutely you can shop at Wal-Mart and buy Hanes brand socks that last 25% as long as the same Hanes brand socks used to 20 years ago

      Uh, those are spending shares. It's the amount people are actually spending. That means if they buy 10 times as many socks and spend 1/3 the money, those socks MUST COST 1/30 AS MUCH PER EACH.

      housing costs per 1000sf have indeed declined, while sf of housing occupied per person has skyrocketed...

      Yeah, people are living in big luxury homes now, pretty much.

      to buy the same food you would buy from an ordinary grocery store in 1960, today you have to buy organic

      I actively avoid organic food because of its unsustainable environmental practices and its higher level of toxicity. Modern farming is intensive, targeting high yield per land area, which reduces water lost to evaporation, fertilizer lost to run-off (pollutes streams and bays), and sheer volume of pesticide used; the pesticides and herbicides used are highly-targeted synthetic compounds, affecting a relatively narrow range of species, and breaking down in the environment rapidly. Organic farming takes more space, loses more water to evaporation, runs off more fertilizer (notably manure, which must be applied at the beginning of planting, in major excess due to continuous run-off), and uses high amounts of tank mixed pesticides like copper sulfate and pyrethrins--compounds with varying (often high) toxicity to humans and pets, long soil life, broad toxicity to a variety of insects and soil organisms, and heavier bioaccumulation. It's a fucking toxic waste nightmare.

      Once the outer envelope is breached, water damage is much more devastating to modern construction than older styles. Kids can stick toys through the walls today much easier than they used to

      Wood and drywall can last as long or longer than brick; brick is harder to repair. I had a gutter issue that ran water down my wall for a year, and the brick at the base was completely and utterly destroyed (it crumbled into thin plates of chipped stone); the vinyl siding and tyvek-covered wooden sheathing took no damage, except in an area below a window which leaked, where I simply cut out and replaced that wooden sheathing--and honestly, an epoxy reinforcement would have been sufficient.

      The window needed a bead of silicone, which the builder forgot.

  15. numbers. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1
    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  16. 45% growth in broadway attendance over 20 years. by SNRatio · · Score: 1

    Would he care to speculate on the growth of viewership of movies based on broadway musicals over that same period of time?

  17. Re:"virtual reality cannot completely take over... by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His mistake is believing something that cannot completely take over cannot disrupt an industry. Virtual sex will never replace sex, but it will impact our sex lives. Just as porn has. If you think the sexual exploration of today's 15 year old is no different than it was in the 1950's, or even the 1990's, then you are in denial.

    And VR will also affect live theater to a greater extent than movies and TV does now. It won't destroy the industry, but it will have a large impact. Lucky for them the growth of the upper middle class will possibly offset this disruption.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  18. When? by skinfaxi · · Score: 1

    But, when will I be able to watch Hamilton on Netflix?

  19. Quote made more honest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explaining why he thinks that virtual reality cannot completely take over, in a rather crass example, Seller adds, "Do you want to rub one out, or pay to have sex and maybe catch an incurable STD, or do you want to have a virtual reality experience of sex?"

    VR sex please!

    Can we watch Hamilton on Periscope? ;>

  20. Of course he'd say nonsense like that. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Anything to pimp his product, right?

    His antidote to sitting in front of a screen is sitting in a theater. At least the screen allows some form of interaction.

    My antidote - walking the dogs - is cheaper, healthier, and I'm allowed to talk to everyone I meet without having people shushing me.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Of course he'd say nonsense like that. by rpresser · · Score: 1

      His frickin' name is SELLER. Of course he's pimping it.

  21. I suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no chance of a 3d camera to capture a show for me to watch in VR so I can see it in my lifetime?

  22. You have to realize... by ThisIsAnonymous · · Score: 1

    Seller adds, "Do you want to have sex or do you want to have a virtual reality experience of sex?"

    The reality is that most people don't want to spend the time or effort to accomplish [insert random thing here]...and even if they did want to spend the time or effort, some things are unaffordable or impossible. Consider...

    1) Think about having sex with some person (movie star, model, celebrity)
    2) Have VR sex with some person (movie star, model, celebrity)
    3) Try to actually meet the movie star, model, celebrity and have sex with them

    I have a feeling that most people are going to choose the second option instead of the other two.

  23. "Just not affordable"? WRONG! by BobC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are MULTIPLE ways to see lots of live theater without breaking the bank!

    1. Purchase subscriptions. This cuts the per-ticket price by 10-20% while guaranteeing you a good seat for each performance. Plus they will endlessly nag you to contribute to their foundation (many theaters are 501c3 non-profits).

    2. Purchase discounted tickets via TIXS or Goldstar. Many theaters want a full house, but more importantly want to always avoid an empty house (it's tough on the artists to give their best in a nearly empty theater). You do get to choose your seat, with typical discounts of 20-60%. Check what's available in your town.

    3. Purchase SRO (Standing Room Only) tickets, which are often discounted by to 75% or more. While you won't get to choose your seat, if you attend the less-packed performances (the box office will tell you which they are), you will ALMOST always get a seat. But you typically must show up in person well before the performance to buy your ticket: I typically get the SRO tickets on my way to dinner. I've attended even sold-out performances via SRO tickets!

    4. Attend dress rehearsals and previews. While the play may not yet have all its rough edges smoothed, this is actually the best way to learn about how theater really works, what it takes to pull a production together. These tickets are either free or heavily discounted, though they may not be mentioned on the theater's web site, so you may have to call or physically go to the box office.

    5. GO FOR FREE! Be a volunteer! When my theater addiction exceeded my budget, I bought a black suit, black dress shoes, white shirt and black tie, and became a volunteer usher. While small theaters may need only 2 ushers per performance, large theaters may need 20 or more, and EACH performance is handled by a DIFFERENT usher crew, which means each theater needs hundreds of volunteer ushers, with the largest needing over 1000. The opportunities are there!

    I now see 20-30 plays each year (I usher for several theaters), and my total cost is gasoline, parking, and occasional suit dry cleaning.

    Better yet, once I became known to the theater staff I was offered special perks, such as ushering for opening and/or closing night (with an invite to the after-party!). I've also ushered for one-night-only performances, including comedians (such as Billy Crystal, Second City, etc.) and special seminars and workshops held by visiting directors and artists (generally intended as perks for major donors).

    But best of all I've been able to meet and interact with thousands of theater patrons. Some are rich or famous, most are old, but the vast majority are just normal folks who love live theater. As an usher, my favorite patrons are the disabled (who need me to get to/from their seats, not just point out the row), and the children (who have endless streams of great questions, especially ones adults may be too embarrassed to ask).

    As a volunteer usher, I've also become an ambassador for local live theater, a relationship I treasure.

    Theater is far more than just a great way to enjoyably pass a couple hours: It's an entire world with a unique and very diverse culture that also thrives off-stage.

    NEVER let money be your reason for not attending!

  24. Re:"Just not affordable"? WRONG! by BobC · · Score: 1

    Sure, the above discounts or volunteering will NOT be available for popular first-run Broadway productions like Hamilton. Just be patient, and excellent local productions and/or a touring company will become available soon after the Broadway run ends.

    The vast majority of live theater exists far, far away from Broadway. Complaining about Broadway ticket prices is like complaining about the cost of a Lamborghini: If you can't afford it, you're simply in the wrong market!

    That said, I do save up for Broadway tickets every time I travel to New York. I have always been able to find creative ways to get seats for even the most popular performances, sometimes even at a discount!

    Google is your friend. Plan early!

  25. Re:"Just not affordable"? WRONG! by BobC · · Score: 2

    Forgot to mention my favorite example:

    I saw "Rent" on Broadway, and loved it. Years later the La Jolla Playhouse (a multiple Emmy-award winning regional theater) did its own production, with Neil Patrick Harris playing the lead.

    To me, it was significantly BETTER than the original Broadway production!

    First, I was in a smaller theater, seated much closer to the stage. Second, the director, Des McAnuff, simply did a better job with the play. The stage was also smaller, which the set designer and lighting director turned into an opportunity and challenge, and their sensational result knocked it out of the ballpark.

    Finally, it is vitally important to understand that most Broadway plays don't start on Broadway! They start in smaller regional theaters, or even on a college campus that hosts a theater program.

    The La Jolla Playhouse is located on the campus of UC San Diego, my alma matter. They have sent more plays TO Broadway than almost every other West Coast theater!

    And as a volunteer usher, I see all their productions for FREE!

  26. Non-monetary costs are still costs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Non-monetary costs are still costs. Especially opportunity costs.

    What you describe sounds horrible, time-wasting, frustrating, intrusive and would generally ruin the experience for me. Not to mention all the ancillary frustrations - parking, cost of dining out, public restrooms, dealing with horrible people - cell phones, texters, and general obnoxious assholes like the certain ethnic groups that love to talk loudly all through a performance.

    I'll wait for the movie version on CD at the local library. Cost to me: 0 marginal, few bucks a month if you count library taxes and late fees.

    1. Re:Non-monetary costs are still costs. by BobC · · Score: 1

      Wow. You make it sound like you perceive only easy instant gratification as being worthwhile. I hope that's not the case!

      Having to work toward a goal brings its own rewards, especially when the payoff is an awesome artistic experience. Personally, I view it more like a detective search, where buying a diamond for the price of a beer warms me to the cockles of my cheapskate Yankee heart. Which is pretty much the way I shop for everything online.

      Movies have their place, but I find them confining: You can see only what is framed by the camera, and each shot lasts only moments, flickering back and forth many times in most scenes (which is why some directors are revered for their long continuous shots filmed without cuts or edits). Most films also lack visual subtlety, since the pace of the story dictates everything on the screen.

      Aren't movie audiences the worst? The audiences for live theater typically show great respect for the cast, the production, and their fellow patrons (it typically falls to the volunteer ushers to gently educate those not understanding this). It's really a great experience just being part of the audience. I've come to despise most movie audiences: I will wait for the disk (or stream) for anything other than movies that genuinely require and make great use of "the big screen". Basically, I go to the movies to see the cinematographer's work writ large: Everything else works fine on my TV.

      And I hate the smell of fake popcorn "butter".

      In live theater, you have lots of time to appreciate all the details of the performance, including the sets, lighting and costumes, the movement of the actors, and so on. I find this is particularly helpful when I can't connect with the script: There is still a ton of art on the stage to appreciate. (In my case it's Bartok that I always fail to grasp. WTF? Yet I keep going.)

      Best of all, live theater is unique and non-repeatable. Unlike a movie, each performance is unique to that night. Other nights may have cast substitutions, or a different "vibe" between the actors and the audience, or maybe one or more actors gives an especially terrific performance. It's a uniquely human condition and connection.

      Plus, "seeing a play again" never really happens. Change the theater, cast, director and crew, and you have a new experience. My personal favorite in this aspect is Chekov's "The Cherry Orchard". The tight script would seem to leave little room for creativity, yet each of the different productions I've seen has "opened up" the play for me in ways I couldn't have imagined beforehand.

      It's like pop music: Sure, we often adore what the original artist did with a song. Then you hear a cover that changes everything. Or go to a concert and find the artist has done their own changes (probably to stay sane). My younger brother was a Dead Head, where his main hobby was getting to every Grateful Dead performance he could possibly attend. He'd collect bootleg recordings of the performances he missed (something The Dead encouraged). He reveled in the nuances of each performance, what each band member did with his solo, or how someone improvised and took the band and the song in an entirely new direction.

      Yeah, it's like that.

      Now, there is one change to the movie experience that I love: Establishments that combine restaurant-quality food and beverages with the movie, requiring reservations, and providing seat selection. Basically, you are seated for dinner, and after the meal you get to have a movie for desert! Best of both worlds, greatly simplifying the logistics for date night!

    2. Re:Non-monetary costs are still costs. by jpatters · · Score: 1

      Good lord. If your priority is to avoid public restrooms, then that would rule out doing anything outside the house. Hardly a problem particular to Broadway Theater.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
  27. Re:"virtual reality cannot completely take over... by mlts · · Score: 1

    The thing about theater is the low tech element and the interactivity. It also is a type of acting that is harder than movies. Theater has no retakes, no bloopers. Once a show starts, there are no directors shouting "cut!"... the show runs until it finishes.

    Same reason why renaissance faires are popular. Not everyone wants to channel all their entertainment time by using a device.

  28. They should make a video and put it online by myth24601 · · Score: 1

    Then more people can watch Hamilton!

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.
  29. Re:"Just not affordable"? WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just might want to, you know, have a spontaneous night out and take in a live show. It should not require me, as a customer, to google my way to affordability. F-that.

  30. Live Theater is the antidote for insomnia by rpresser · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I've seldom been to any play that didn't put me to sleep

  31. VR sex vs the real thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explaining why he thinks that virtual reality cannot completely take over, in a rather crass example, Seller adds, "Do you want to have sex or do you want to have a virtual reality experience of sex?"

    Well, VR sex does come with an off switch... I'm torn.

  32. Re:"virtual reality cannot completely take over... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I hear you.

    I was minding my own business, sitting in gyno row, the stripper finished her dance and came around to get her dollar.

    Tampon string, inches from my face...I went Kinison on her. Talk about bloopers.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. Re:"Just not affordable"? WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an entire world with a unique and very diverse culture that also thrives off-stage.

    Couldn't agree more. And theater is not even on top of the list of my favorite things. I think anyone can find interest in theater provided they find right plays and indirectly right people to watch it with.

  34. NO by gosand · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of when my brother asks me if I saw the latest golf tournament. Even though HE loves golf and I don't. When I say I didn't and don't like golf, he proceeds to tell me all about it in excruciating detail.

    We get it. You are into live theater. You're on Broadway, in New York! How can everyone NOT like live theater?! We're still relevant! We're still relevant!

    ugh.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  35. Re:"virtual reality cannot completely take over... by ranton · · Score: 1

    We have already fixed all of those limitations with our live sports broadcasts. There is no technical limitation to doing the same with live theater. Everyone could be given the best seat in the house, with the best possible sound if they are willing to pay a few hundred for their headphones.

    The real reason theater will be okay is because they don't sell video rights of popular productions. This is because they feel it would cannibalize sales of life performances, which I completely agree with. I saw 3-4 live Broadway performances per year before the kids came (and will probably do the same when neither are breastfeeding), but I doubt I would ever see one again if I could get 95% of the real thing in an IMAX theater or from my own living room.

    Broadway will be fine as long as they produce good content and keep full control of how that content is displayed. It will almost certainly always be a small niche entertainment offering, but an enduring one.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  36. Numbers are not on his side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The number of annual visitors to New York has nearly doubled since 1996, so the Broadway numbers actually make it sound like they're becoming relatively less competitive.

  37. thry are affordable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My friends will put on s performance of Hamilton for $5 a head. So much for your assertion.

  38. Live sex show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Jeffrey Seller's Hamilton a live sex show? On Broadway? No wonder he's doing so well :P

  39. So says... by e432776 · · Score: 1

    ..the guy producing live theater. Live theater also a cure for baldness. Must be true.

  40. Hes right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded Hamilton off a torrent site and it totally helped me decompress.

  41. Re:"Just not affordable"? WRONG! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    While you mention volunteering, I'd take a major step further: Join your local amateur theatre!

    There's a high demand for "geeky" people in theatre, for things like light and sound tech. Most people only think of the acting bit, and consequently there's an oversupply of the acting type. But there's a lot of interesting and important work behind the scenes, and you get to experience the entire production from the inside. More artistic background work includes things like poster graphics, set design and music/sound design.

    The light and audio setups in most amateur theaters are relatively small and simple, and anyone can learn them to a basic extent, but it helps if you have a more systemic understanding to begin with. However, it usually happens in a small, tightly knit group that everyone does a bit of everything, and you might end up in a completely different role.

    Disclaimer

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  42. Re:"Just not affordable"? WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BRAVO!

    And I want to mention your quote >...a relationship I treasure.
    You seem to be using one of humanities most instinctive features, being able to relate, making friends where ever you go, and 'working it'. Sadly this is a talent being lost on newer generations because of life's path now being based on Templates Of Success. Our role models now are pre-packaged, and as such, social techniques such as adlibbing and interacting with others has lost its edge. Instead we see combo meal numbers, digital accounts and profiles that work in modular environments, consumer loyalty programs, and a myriad of other 'things' that format & box humans in to the detriment of imagination & flow. I know folks that won't order a meal because it's listed as having (pickles for example), and I saw 'well ask for none. It amazes them!