90-Minute Shows...Too Short?

[quizking101]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:10pm

I feel that a show that is under two hours in length is Theatre Lite. I really detest paying for shows at $75 a pop for only 90 minutes of theatre.

I'll admit some shows are a certain length due to the style of the show (i.e American Idiot is sung-through in 90 minutes). But seriously, is this a trend that will soon overtake all of Broadway??

[rmusic11322]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:11pm

I think that a 90 minute shows can be ideal for the children that have to go to beg early.

[tazber]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:13pm

"I think that a 90 minute shows can be ideal for the children that have to go to beg early."

I didn't realize that there was a prime time for begging. I guess I need to listen to my cast recording of Oliver again.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:15pm

My Mom always made us go begging before 10 because that's when a lot of people turn in for the night and don't like being woken up to give money. Later we learned that once they were asleep we could just go in and take what we wanted, so I don't think a 90 minute show would have much effect on that.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:18pm

I hate the current trend of 90 minute shows.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:20pm

I hate the current trend of thinking that everything is a trend that will soon overtake all of Broadway!!

[rmusic11322]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:21pm

Damn it! The first time for me to try to make an obnoxious comment and I misspell something. I really need to proofread before I hit Post Message. Eh, maybe next time.

On a serious note, I think 90 minute shows are not so bad. In my opinion, some shows really NEED to be 90 minutes.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:24pm

Sometimes I don't mind. Other times I do. Xanadu, which I loved, despite it being fast paced and fun felt longer than 90 minutes and I would have preferred an intermission. Usually I would prefer an intermission because I see it as being part of the ambiance, but there is the rare exception like Assassins, for example, that just doesn't seem to need one.

[lull89]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:25pm

Some stories only need 90 minutes. I'd much rather sit through a great 90 minute show than a too-long 3 hour show just to get more "value" for my ticket price. I think we've all been to shows that keep going on and have nothing else to say.

I'm actually a fan of the trend of 90 minute musicals, I think it helps to make the story telling go smoother, because they don't have to create a whole bunch of extra drama to bring us into and out of the intermission.

[Weez]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:27pm

I love 90 minute shows. Don't get me wrong, I love long shows too. Jerusalem, for example, is over three hours long and has two intervals, and I would willingly sit through it three times in a day. I have stamina, and I have (just) enough attention span. But after a while, it's nice to break up the 3-hour-3-act epics with a beautiful little 90-minute-1-act piece. You get one solid story without having to remove yourself at the interval, and you're out at a sensible time. And who *wouldn't* rather sit through 90 minutes of genius (like Ghost Stories at the Lyric Hammersmith) than 3 hours of dross (like, say, Gone with the Wind the musical)?!

[AC126748]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:38pm

Shows should be exactly as long as they need to be in order to tell the story in a complete fashion.

[tazber]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:39pm

^^^^
Bingo!

[quizking101]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:41pm

I do believe some shows only need 90 minutes to be completed in....however, some 90 minute shows I've seen feel like the toryline is barely off the ground, then it ends...(*cough* God Of Carnage)

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:44pm

tazber and jordan- I love you as a team. You just made me wheeze in this thread, from laughing!

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:46pm

I wish all shows were 90 minutes. that's the extent of my attention span, and we like that running time at work!

[Kad]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 6:49pm

There's not a 90-minute trend currently happening on Broadway. There have been one-act plays and musicals for decades, they're not suddenly burgeoning.

[Justin D]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 7:05pm

My thing is the price, they should be less.

Yes a 90 min movie is the same price as a 3 hour one, but the whole intermission thing makes theatre feel more like an 'event' so I dont mind spending a lot of money, but to spend the same price to just go in and stay 90 min, not for me.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 7:44pm

I actually prefer intermission-less plays, if they are realism, because I think that adhering to such a strict form forces the writer to pick a particularly heightened moment with which to begin the story: one from which 90ish minutes of uninterrupted drama can flow.

For other styles of plays, and for musicals, which (due to there being music involved, and in my opinion) never quite achieve the same level of audience submission to the reality of the work, I don't really care whether there's an intermission or not.

That being said, I don't think the length of a piece should determine the price of admission.

[AC126748]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 7:46pm

Why should the price be any less? You're paying for entertainment, not quantity of time.

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 7:50pm

Cirque du Soleil's Las Vegas production shows are only 90 minutes apiece, yet they charge exorbiant prices for them. Why?

Because they are ridiculously expensive and pack craploads of entertainment and eye-popping visuals into those 90 minutes.

Now let me ask you. Would you rather sit through a 3-hour long joyless slog like the Addams Family or a 90-minute mind-blowing spectacular like Cirque or American Idiot?

[Here I Am]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 10:18pm

I don't mind 90 minute shows as long as they tell the story in time. But we are forgetting the golden age of musicals where Act One alone was 90 minutes. lol. And I know it's not "golden age", but Les Mis Act One was close to two hours. And Billy Elliot was too, during previews at least.
Updated On: 4/13/10 at 10:18 PM

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 10:22pm

Movies are the same price regardless of running time. If I enjoyed myself, then Im not fretting over how much I spent. If I hated a show then Im irked I spent anything.

[jeffmiele]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 10:53pm

im gonna go see it regardless cuz i like seeing everything each year.. and i personally like 90 minute shows.. there really aren't too many of them like that and i kinda feel like it is a treat sometimes.. although i love going to broadway sometimes it isnt that bad a thing to be back at home an hour or so early

[singtopher]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:03pm

Maybe they could charge by the minute. The show could suddenly stop, then you have to pop in another few dollars of quarters to see what happens next.


In all seriousness, it doesn't cost any less to produce a 90 min show, so why the hell should they be less expensive.

[Patash]

Posted: 4/13/10 at 11:39pm

I'm convinced that much of this trend is because people just don't have the attention span they used to have. Three act plays with two intermissions make people wince with pain. People seem to want everything to happen so they can go home. Besides, when the show is real crap, a one act 90 minute show doesn't give people a chance to leave before the show is over.