Once upon a time, there were movies, television and theater. And we all knew the difference between them.

Movies were what you saw on a Saturday night with popcorn in your lap and a date at your side. Television was something you watched in your living room or bedroom, several nights a week. And theater was human-to-human communication. You know, a live show with a costly ticket.

For the most part, America’s dramatic entertainment industry has been organized around these divisions. Each had their own labor unions (SAG, AFTRA and Actors’ Equity) and awards shows (Oscars, Emmys and Tonys). Writers would specialize in one branch even if dreaming of another. And for decades the Chicago Tribune and other fine news organizations employed separate film, TV and theater critics, presumably on the theory that the dramatic disciplines all required separate specialists.

All of that has been tottering for a while. But the coronavirus crisis has blown those barriers to bits.

Just consider the last few days.

First off, Disney announced that it would release on Sept. 4 its postponed and much-anticipated live-action version of “Mulan,” not to movie theaters but to its own streaming service, albeit for an additional $30 in rental fees. The decision is a terrible blow to reeling movie theaters, hastening the growing sense that those giant, barn-like multiplexes that dot cities and suburbs across America are never coming back at scale. Even after people are unafraid to go out. Why bother when the best and newest titles can be viewed on a device of your choice?

That would mean, of course, that the food courts that depend on the theaters in malls are toast, too. And the restaurants outside.

Sure, a few theaters will survive, especially those that offer a special experience. And one very smart Hollywood producer I know insists that three categories of films will still attract people to movie theaters because people will want to see them with other humans: horror, superheroes and musicals.

But everything else? No different from television now.

But what about theater? Surely, live is live.

Not so fast.

Two bits of relevant news came out Tuesday and Wednesday. One was that “Hamilton,” a Broadway musical, attracted a massive audience when it was broadcast on Disney Plus, blowing out the Netflix competition to become the most-watched streaming show of July. This was not a movie but a Broadway show with a live audience. And a few cameras. “Hamilton” is its own beast, you might argue. Well, sure. “Hamilton” is “Hamilton,” backlash and all.

But on Wednesday, the producers of “Diana: A New Musical” announced a truly singular plan for a show that saw its original spring opening nixed by the pandemic and the ongoing Broadway closure.

“Diana: A New Musical,” a show based on the life of the late Princess Diana and penned by Joe DiPietro with music and lyrics by DiPietro and David Bryan, will now rehearse in an empty Broadway theater (no shortage of those) and be recorded in a multi-camera shoot and then streamed on Netflix at some point before its new opening date in May of next year.

In terms of standard operating procedure on Broadway, this is a true disrupter.

For decades, musicals have been rolled out slowly — workshop to out-of-town tryout to Broadway theater and a flashy series of press performances for a few powerful critics, celebrities and influencers who, crucially, will have attended the show before almost anyone else. Even weeks into the run of a hit Broadway musical, only a few thousand people will have actually seen what everybody seems to be talking about. And from the producers’ point of view, that drives demand for scarce tickets. Such is, or used to be, the bedrock of the Broadway economic model.

Over time, that number of people exposed to the show increases. A musical might tour Asia or move to London or clone itself in Chicago or license itself to local theaters, then amateur theaters and high schools. If it’s an iconic hit like “Hairspray” or “Rent,” it might get filmed or remade for television. But that always has been years down the line.

All of that assumes the show is a hit. If it gets a thumbs down from those critics, celebrities and influencers, it can die in weeks. Or days. In that scenario, most people never get to see it at all.

I haven’t yet seen “Diana: A New Musical.” It might be great. Sure hope so. But it’s fair to say, back before a certain virus took down everyone, that the Rialto was not expecting an artistic masterpiece from this particular attraction.

But here’s the rub. Princess Diana is an iconic figure across the globe and this could be one of those shows that appeal more to the regular folks than the snobs on the aisle. It would not be the first in that category, but the perennial complaint of the people involved in such shows is that they started out tainted by the snubs of the Broadway elites.

This is a clever hedge against that problem. Assuming the Netflix streaming reaches a large audience, there could be a groundswell of popular opinion mounting for the show in advance of its actual live opening night.

In other words, the influence of critics might well be yet further reduced which may well transform the fortunes of the show — like a politician opening a window in a smoke-filled room. For the first time in Broadway history, a review of a new musical will land in an environment where hundreds of thousands of people already will have seen the show. Expect the knives to come out if opinions differ.

But will these folks really have seen the show if they have only seen the Netflix stream?

Not in my old-school view. But this is powerful evidence that Netflix, Disney and what we think of as live theater have all begun to fuse.

When have you ever before heard of a Broadway opening on your computer screen?

You have now. And maybe not for the last time.