Riedel on Hamilton making other shows close fast- Page 2

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 6:00pm

artscallion said: "I wanted to see Hamilton, but won't pay the ridiculous prices or endure the ridiculous lines. So my money went to three other shows this Summer, Waitress, She Loves Me and Fun Home. I'm sure there are more people like me than there are those that will pay $800+ for one ticket to anything.

 

"

Quoted for emphasis

[Hariku]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 6:04pm

Ridiculous.

If Shuffle Along or School of Rock wanted bigger advances, they should have made their shows better. Both were very mediocre, and despite Hamilton got more attention they deserve.

Neither were worthy of a Best Musical Tony nomination. That school of rock was nominated for Best Score is an insult to composers everywhere.

Let's not even get into Bright Star or Tuck Neverlasting.

I was a fan of American Psycho, but it was never going to be a Broadway smash, no matter whether Hamilton existed or not. I was glad I got to see it, glad some producer put up money to bring it to Broadway....but with the subject matter, it was NEVER going to be Cats of Mamma Mia...

 

 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 6:59pm

I know it's probably a typo but "Cats of Mamma Mia" should be a thing.

[Mike Costa]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 7:00pm

SFFrontRow said: "I'm sorry Hogan, but why resort to personal attacks? I do love theater. Do you? Or do you just get off on denigrating others for their views?

insulting other posters doesn't make your points more eloquent.

 

I too have often hoped Hogan could use his vast knowledge of theater history and law for good but for some reason he has feelings of inadequacy and feels it necessary to make personal attacks of others opinions, especially the young or less educated. It makes this board informative but an unpleasant place to visit when it need not be like that.

 

Personally,  I would rather give up his knowledge and have a more pleasant experience but hope he will feel better about himself in the future and contribute in a more positive spirit.

 

Updated On: 6/28/16 at 07:00 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 7:03pm

"his vast knowledge of theater history"

Vast knowledge of theatre history? Now THAT made me laugh. 

Best thing to do is to ignore him.

Updated On: 6/28/16 at 07:03 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 7:28pm

"Incorrect. When will he give up spouting lies about Hamilton in order to get views for his posts?"

You could have stopped after "lies". Riedel lies all the time to get views. He always has. He looks pretty stupid continuing to bash Hamilton, though.

 

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 7:41pm

Hamilton is quickly becoming the Big Bang Theory, Taylor Swift, and Anne Hathaway for Broadway.

It doesn't do anything wrong and has changed Broadway forever, but people hate it because it's popular.

These are also the people who wore the "You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because you're all the same" t-shirts from Hot Topic in high school.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 9:38pm

SFFrontRow said: "I'm sorry Hogan, but why resort to personal attacks? I do love theater. Do you? Or do you just get off on denigrating others for their views?

insulting other posters doesn't make your points more eloquent."

There is no personal attack at all directed toward you. I was not denigrating you, and certainly not insulting you. I think the idea you proffered is a rotten one, and I will attack your idea as vehemently as I can, but it's not at all personal. I think we should be celebrating the successes of the theatre, and praying there are more of them. In absolute terms, they are few and far between. So when you say what you said, I view it as a mortal attack on the theatrical corpus and react accordingly. 

Now perhaps you confused what I was saying about what you said and what I said about A8, a posturing troll that doesn't deserve anyone's respect, and will have none of mine. After Eight does not put forth ideas that can be discussed (either vociferously or calmly); you do, and I am happy to discuss them with you. Ultimately I hope you'll change your mind about what you said because (in case it's not clear) I think you are dead wrong. 

[SFFrontRow]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 9:44pm

I don't hate Hamilton. I just think it is changing the business end of things in a negative way. I think that was Riedel`s point in the article. Whatever percentage, it is pricing out people and probably taking business from other shows because a theater goer has to spend 25 times the face value for one ticket.

Fir those that say it is groundhbreaking, I say what difference does that make if you have to mortgage your house to see it? They keep pointing to the new audience tgey are building. Really? How many inner city kids who are into rap and hip hop are going to see it? When one ticket sells for 2 months of those kids` FAMILY income. Let's get real.

And it is pricing out even middle class people, never mind inner city. I've seen it, for $147. I bought a ticket 7 months in advance before resell hell took over. Now, I can't even get a decent ticket at face value 1 year out.

That is where I have a problem. And that is where it is changing things in a negative way. I hope you love theater, because this is what prices will be for ANY decent show going forward. Groundbreak THAT.

[ChildofEarth]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 9:52pm

I mean I think a lot of "inner city" kids get to see it through the the GROUNDBREAKING program they've set up in both New York and Chicago.

[schubox]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 9:59pm

I'm not saying he's right, but people on here saying it didn't make them see fewer shows doesn't really mean anything. The people on this board aren't your average Broadway fans 

[10086sunset]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 10:01pm

schubox said: "I'm not saying he's right, but people on here saying it didn't make them see fewer shows doesn't really mean anything. The people on this board aren't your average Broadway fans 

 

"

Tend to think this is a very good point. The majority of us will see the majority. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 10:24pm

SFFrontRow said: "I don't hate Hamilton. I just think it is changing the business end of things in a negative way. I think that was Riedel`s point in the article. Whatever percentage, it is pricing out people and probably taking business from other shows because a theater goer has to spend 25 times the face value for one ticket.

Fir those that say it is groundhbreaking, I say what difference does that make if you have to mortgage your house to see it? They keep pointing to the new audience tgey are building. Really? How many inner city kids who are into rap and hip hop are going to see it? When one ticket sells for 2 months of those kids` FAMILY income. Let's get real.

And it is pricing out even middle class people, never mind inner city. I've seen it, for $147. I bought a ticket 7 months in advance before resell hell took over. Now, I can't even get a decent ticket at face value 1 year out.

That is where I have a problem. And that is where it is changing things in a negative way. I hope you love theater, because this is what prices will be for ANY decent show going forward. Groundbreak THAT."

I didn't think you hated Hamilton, and honestly it wouldn't matter to me if you did. This is not about our individual take on the show but the objective sense of what it is. I don't think Hamilton will dictate the price point of premium tickets for future shows any more than I think its facilitation of 20k inner city kids seeing it for $10 will be followed by those future shows. This is a special case, and if we find another show in the next decade that gets to half its level of achievement, that would be wonderful. 

Nobody is thrilled by the price of scalper tickets or even premium tickets, or the hassle of getting more reasonably priced ones, but that frenzy will subside in due course. What we have to hope will NOT subside is all the good that comes from Hamilton-from the exposure and increased and broadened interest (and really, the legitimizing of musical theatre as a cultural force), to (equally importantly) the raising of the bar for what one needs to do to make musical theatre. Wouldn't it be nice if writers got the memo that lame books won't cut it anymore, and songwriters who know how to write songs people actually want to hear found out that this is a way of getting attention. So when I hear you hoping it falls hard and fast, I hope you can understand I think you are stabbing the theatre in its heart. I hope you think about this and I'll leave you with this to ponder: if Hamilton falls hard and fast, what are we left with? Not just what does the musical landscape look like, but what message does that convey to the next wave of writer who dare to make something amazing?

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 10:37pm

100,000 public students are going to see the show practically for free. Has any Broadway show ever done that? And the cast recording is very popular among teens and is  how most Teens consume the show (currently #4 on iTunes) all you have to do is look on YouTube to see the new audience the show has reached. They parodied it at the BET awards for goodness sake. 

Updated On: 6/28/16 at 10:37 PM

[mariel9]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 10:54pm

Now, I can't even get a decent ticket at face value 1 year out.

Everything you're complaining about is the direct and sole result of the limited number of tickets available for any live theater event, coupled with this show's wild popularity. Neither of those things are Hamilton's fault, unless you think they should have tried to be less good, less popular. You can't get a ticket because it's sold out. The secondary market went nuts because it's sold out. What is it that you think Hamilton should do so they don't "change the business end in a negative way?"

Also, since you seem unaware of the outreach to low income public school students: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/about/hamilton-musical-and-rockefeller-foundation-announce-partnership-with-Gilder-Lehrman

They will be continuing the program in Chicago and on tour.

 

 

Updated On: 6/28/16 at 10:54 PM

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 10:55pm

I don't agree with Riedel.  I think that the media in general can help out other shows by giving more exposure to their respective shows aand less to H.  It seems that everywhere one turns, all sorts of media exposure is bestowed on H.  Clearly, many, many people want to go see H.  It is a cultural phenomenon.  I would much rather see other shows.  

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 11:11pm

I don't know how many of us actually sell theatre tickets for a living, but I can tell you in my experience in the last 6-7 months, it's been harder to translate a sold out Hamilton request to another show than any other "hot ticket" in at least a decade. Even compared to The Book of Mormon or The Producers, which were monsters. Hamilton is more than a show, it's a movement. And it's bragging rights. And I say this as no detriment to the show itself, it's the circus outside the doors. 

[LLJ3]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 11:18pm

Such BS. I saw Hamilton (bought a ticket from Stubhub an hour before the show) and 5 other shows last month, including American Psycho. Wasn't interested in seeing Tuck Everlasting or Shuffle Along. Would have wanted to see Bright Star but not over the other shows that I saw. 

My friends who live in New York have been wanting to see Hamilton but are unwilling to pay premium prices / scalpers. This hasn't deterred them from seeing other shows. 

Just curious. What does Riedel have against the show? I don't follow his column so only going by the threads in this forum. He also predicted backlash at the Tonys, right? Obviously didn't come true. LOL

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 11:29pm

@LLJ3 "What does Riedel have against the show?"

At the beginning, at the Public, it was just a typical case of him picking on a show that had mojo and that conveniently was being put on by a nemesis of his producer buddy. Then, Riedel published a lie about purported bad blood between the producers and also between the producers and the creatives. The production called a press conference at the Public to set the record straight, show that there was no such discord and basically humiliate Riedel in front of the rest of the press corps. Since then, Riedel has been seeking his revenge, which has only made it worse for him. 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 6/28/16 at 11:35pm

I can't wait until we have a new hit show that Riedel can blame all of Broadway's problems on.

Shuffle was doing very good business and I truly believe that if Audra wouldn't have had to leave so soon it would have run for at least the year she was contracted. Who could have predicted she would get pregnant?? all the other shows that have closed this season...no offense to them but most wouldn't have been a hit with or without THE SHOW.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 6/29/16 at 12:15am

He is wrong.  There may be some who limit their purchases, but that is not the reason.  The reason is straightforward: there was limited interest in Psycho...it should have been Off-Broadway.  Tuck should have been produced 50 years ago, when it would have possibly run for a season and likely have gotten better reviews, e.g., Half a Sixpence.  Bright Star also would have had a better chance Off-Broadway...there were just not enough people -- outside of those who go constantly, regardless of the details -- who wanted to see a show with Bluegrass music and an unknown in the lead...and mixed reviews.  Disaster was a disaster for most people who saw it and should have stayed Off-Broadway.  It NEVER belonged on Broadway even at TKTS prices.

The only one that still shocks me is Shuffle Along; I guess that people just didn't want to see it without Audra MacDonald, just the way they disn't want to see Oz without Jackman and The Producers without Lane and Broderick. Still, I would have thought that there are enough people in the NYC area who would be excited enough to see a George C. Wolfe / Savion Glover production with Mitchell and Porter to allow it to survive through the summer until Audra returns.  

As for School of Rock, I happened to see it Monday night and I enjoyed it quite a it; but as I was leaving, I remembered thinking to myself that now I know why it is not a bigger hit than it is...why spend $150 (or $100, as I did via TKTS) when it is not better than the movie.  

If Reidel wants to single out a reason, I think he should focus more on ticket prices...they just keep on going up and there are a lot of people out there who are not going to get tickets in advance unless they see the show as a sure thing.  Psycho, Disaster, Tuck and Bright were far for sure things; and, I guess that Shuffle was just too associated with Audra.  

Finally, I am increasingly thinking that tourists -- who I seem to infer from this board constitute a significant portion of ticket sales -- don't go to see shows as much as they used to...they seem to go to Tourist attractions that just happen to be shows.  Phantom; Chicago; The Lion King; Wicked; Mormon; and now Hamilton.  (Il eave out Jarsey Boys, because I think it is on its last legs, whereas Chicago will continue to run as long as the Weisslers can keep the nut down...annual grosses haven't changed much in a decade...just don't know what the nut is.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 6/29/16 at 1:19am

While Hamilton certainly has the highest ticket price for a Broadway musical, it also has the lowest. $10 lottery seats, the amount of which will soon be doubled. Other lotteries/rush charge at least double that and often up to $40. Hamilton could easily sell those lottery seats for whatever price they want. That along with the school program suggests to me that there are indeed ways for kids to see it. Now yes the lottery is difficult but that is down to one thing only and that is demand, which can't be controlled by the show itself.

[dissimilate]

Posted: 6/29/16 at 4:54am

I think Riedel is forgetting that not all the money that goes to Hamilton will definitely go to other shows had it not been around.

First, Hamilton sells tickets at crazy inflated prices because of the cultural phenomenon it is. No matter what, the other shows wouldn't be able to bring in such prices. $500 spent at Hamilton would likely only translate to $100 for one other show (for curious tourists/Broadway newbies at least). Second, Hamilton's volume of tickets sold, i.e. their 100% advance for the next year, is driven in a great part by people who would otherwise not watch theater -- so trying to convert them to other shows is a moot point.

Now let's look at the usual theatergoing crowd, which is also part of Hamilton's audience, who might otherwise spend $500 on multiple tickets. But this audience isn't that big, and splitting them across all other shows, the % capacity increase for each show's advance wouldn't be all that much, let alone the increase in profits (because many ardent theatergoers also take advantage of discounts). The small boost wouldn't be able to save weak shows. Maybe Shuffle Along, but not the rest.

The only thing I agree with is this line: "I think “Hamilton” will cool once several members of the original cast depart July 9. But the cooling will be gradual. “Hamilton” will be the big kid on the block for a few more seasons." Please, please let the hype fade, if only for our sanity and safety, really.

Updated On: 6/29/16 at 04:54 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 6/29/16 at 8:18am

"Please, please let the hype fade, if only for our sanity and safety, really."

Unfortunately, there's no one to hear your pleas, much less heed them.

Moreover, there are too many people, including some people on this board, who have too much invested in the show, whether emotionally, financially, or politically, to ever want the hype to fade. Indeed they only want it to grow even further, and will do their utmost to make that happen.

In other words, we're in for it.

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 6/29/16 at 8:20am

School of rock does not need to worry about closing anyway. It will do great with tourists and families.