next up for the RICHARD ROGERS?- Page 4

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 8:54am

Why the heck should Hairspray move to the Rodgers? It should just stay put. On top of it, grosses have been falling. The movie might just change that, but within the next few years, this show will probably close. It doesn't make sense to move it now especially when that can happen.

It made sense to move Chicago, Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast - those shows had expected long runs and had the money to make the transfer. I dont expect Hairspray to run as long as those 3 shows.

On top of it, Rodgers would be a bad theater for Hairspray. I looked at the seating view guide on Disney's website, and those rear orchestra seats are horrible. The mezzanine cuts off about half of the stage view. Who knows, maybe it would work since Hairspray doesn't have a lot of action going on in the air. I don't think the Rodgers is appropriate for very flashy shows.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 8:58am

But regardless. Chicago moved to downsize. Beauty moved to downsize. Lion King moved bacause Cameron Mackintosh wanted the New Amsterdam for Poppins. It makes no sense to move to a house of the same size. If Hairspray were to move, it would be to another Nederlander house and the only one smaller is the Atkinson. Grease is there, so unless they were going to switch or something, which is unlikely since Grease has started loading in, they are not moving anywhere.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:04am

The Rodgers is about 100 seats smaller than the Simon. Moving Hairspray would give them a chance to spruce a few things up in the show, get it back in tip top shape. The sightlines at the Rodgers would be great for Hairspray. hairspray is a DANCE show. The Rodgers is designed to house dance shows... the seating is buolt to give you a good vantage point at the depth of the stage floor, and therefore, choreography.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:06am

I still think moving Hairspray to the Rodgers isn't a good idea. Keep it where it's at and put something else there.

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 9:09am

I will give anyone on this board $100 is this move is made or even seriously considered. When I say moving to a smaller house, I mean a significantly smaller house. 100 seats makes little difference. They can spruce it up at the Simon if they want to. Hairspray is not going anywhere.

[Ryan2]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 10:46am

Hairspray will not be moving. With the film coming out it is sure to improve sales and fill the Neil Simon. Plus it fits so well in that theatre and its not exactly a move to downsize or anything.

I really think we could see Witches of Eastwick come in. Or, a limited season of a show filling time before something like Guys and Dolls, 9 to 5 etc moves in. Be Great if Follies was that limited season.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 2:00pm

>Actually Smaxie, the Rodgers holds a total of 1400 while the Neil Simon holds 1334. Actually for some reason ibdb.com lists the Rodgers as 1430 and the Neil Simon at 1400, but I know for a fact that the capacitites are actually 1400 and 1334 as listed above.<

IBDB is in error. Hairspray has been reporting a seating capacity of 1,428 for its run at the Neil Simon - and I vaguely remember the Neil Simon getting a new seating configuration prior to Hairspray to get in more seats. Meanwhile, the Richard Rodgers has had less than 1,400 seats for years now. (Tarzan reports a seating capacity of 1,319, with 1,322 for Movin' Out, 1,334 for Private Lives, and 1,360 for Seussical). At any rate, in its current configuration, the Rodgers has 100 less seats than the Neil Simon, as I noted in my post.

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 6/24/07 at 7:20pm

How about the long anticipated Smile revival...