• funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Spice Hoarder@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours 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.