you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Okay, but what about movie vs live theatre?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    It's like asking what about tennis vs soccer - they're different things with different contexts, seasons (of sorts) and contexts. I'd pick a new Chris Nolan movie over a community production of Hedda Gabler, I'd pick a professional production of a new Martin McDonagh play over the latest Marvel superhero flick. I'd pick almost anything over recorded theatre with few exceptions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure you understood my question.

    You compared live play vs recorded play. Then you compared movie to recorded play. I'm assuming you were comparing against the same story/intellectual property.

    Let's take the Cats musical for instance. (These are inequality sings, not arrows) Cats live > Cats recorded > Cats movie

    Or even the shreck musical, it's really good, but obviously wouldn't replace the movie, but you can absolutely want to see both for different reasons.

    I'm actually going to take it a step further and say that the BBC radio play is the definitive version of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

    So there is no "nail in the coffin". Or whatever you were trying to say. It's entirely circumstantial.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    But I did answer that. It would depend on the movie or the play.

    In this specific instance I do think the 1998 Elaine Page taping of the Adelphi Cats was better than the recent movie but I'd say that's the exception that proves the rule.

  • source
  • parent