Avenue Q kicked out of golden theater- Page 2

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 12:37am

I'll bet you're right, blaxx - even though Q has a low nut, there's been some tough times out there, but I'll bet Byron onto something. This probably is producer-driven, and I hadn't thought of that. Leave on a (comparative) high note.

[winston89]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:01am

Byron Abens, that sounds like the same tune as Disney's bogus made up rule saying that they couldn't have two princess musicals playing on Broadway as a way of justification for the closure of Beauty and The Beast. It's Disney, argo all of their musicals (maybe sans Aida) would be considered to be family friendly so I find your point to be moot.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:14am

Whether you like it or not, from a business model standpoint it would not have made sense for Disney to have been running two of their "Princess" musicals side-by-side. It is similar to the reasoning behind the New Coke fiasco of the 80's (eerily so if you look at the successes and failures involved in that as well). You pull the original product so that it can't be compared side-by-side to the new, and forcing your consumer base to transition over to your new product. Now, if only Disney had looked at that and remembered that New Coke was rejected by pretty much everyone then we might not have had to suffer through The Little Mermaid and been able to enjoy Beauty and the Beast for a while longer.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 12:55pm

Byron Abens, you're wrong. Disney couldn't close Mary Poppins for The Little Mermaid because it was still fairly new and was starting to make money. The Richard Rogers was too small for The Little Mermaid, so the choice was made to close Beauty and the Beast. The "no two princesses" rule was a lame attempt to explain it. It is true, though, that they were afraid of saturating the market. So they chose Beauty because it was the only logical choice. Once Mermaid was in Denver it started hemmoraging, and they were actually considering shelving it. They decided instead to close Tarzan, which WAS making a profit, and divert that money towards Mermaid instead.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:08pm

I didn't say they set it as a rule, but it's exactly like you said, fear of over-saturation and the logical choice. When trying to roll out a new product that is similar in style and drawing from the same consumer-base as your original product, you remove the original product to avoid comparisons, for better or worse, to the new. I think Disney knew that running Beauty and Mermaid side-by-side would have drawn comparisons. Do you really think Mermaid could have lasted even this long if people still had the option to go see Beauty and the Beast?

[TheatreDork2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:10pm

If they had run side by side then NO ONE could tell you that The Little Mermaid was better. You see sh*t at Mermaid & art at BatB. It's not a hard choice.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:13pm

I just noticed that in my original post I left out a word that really changes the tone of my post.

Beauty and the Beast wasn't solely closed so Mermaid could have a home. I do indeed acknowledge that facet did indeed factor in to the decision.

But at the same time I stand by what I also said in another post and I'm kind of glad that Disney did what they did, as it meant that Beauty and the Beast, which is one of my favorite shows, partly owing to the fact that it was the first show I saw on Broadway back when it first opened at the Palace, closed with a strong finish rather than struggling to get by and being remembered for playing to half-empty or worse houses during its final stretch.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:42pm

A 'stop clause' does not mean the running costs or nut necessarily.

The amount is a specific dollar amount and can be above the running costs. Shows can be evicted from a theatre even though they may be turning a diminished profit.

The reverse is also true: the amount of a stop clause can be below the weekly operating breakeven.

But until a show grosses less than the named amount for two consecutive weeks, the stop clause cannot be invoked. Once that two week period has happened however, there is no expiration. The clause does not have to be invoked immediately unless covered by another clause in the lease. It can be years down the pike.

Some shows have a no-stop-clause lease. Phantom comes to mind. Bernie Jacobs wanted that show bad and offered his best theatre, the Majestic. The Nederlanders were showing the Minskoff to Lord Webber. Jacobs booted out 42nd Street, spending a pretty penny to move it across the street, and then closed whatever was playing at the Broadhurst because they had to break through the shared wall for extra stage space. Plus the Phantom set needed some digging in the basement at the Majestic so all of this was begun 8-9 months prior to the load-in.

The no-stop-clause was a part of the incentive.

Of course it is thought that 42nd Street had a no-stop-clause at the Winter Garden and Majestic as well and that Jacobs had to pay for that move, pay for the ad campaign and pay the producer a chunk of change. David Merrick was the producer and he was also the sole investor in the original production of 42nd Street.

Updated On: 7/23/09 at 01:42 PM

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 1:57pm

I am still a little sad Beauty closed. Out of all the family-friendly musicals, it has to be one of my favorites. And to bring in the crap that is Little Mermaid...

I loved the Little Mermaid movie, and it was one of my favorites when I was younger. I had higher hopes for this.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 3:29pm

Thanks, WOSQ.

[jagfkb]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 4:34pm

Let me set the record straight: Tarzan set a closing date NOT just because Mermaid was spilling over budget, and NOT because it had bad ticket sales. Around the spring of 07, Disney planned to, slowly but surely, begin to take sequences and ideas which had worked in the European version of the show (Which did suprisingly well) and mix them into the New York production, then having a big press conference that it would be a revised production, thereby attracting critics to relook the production and for those who initally did not like the show to give it a second look. Then, Mary Poppins won one Tony Award (Disney was expecting atleast two more awards (Costumes and choreography)) and Little Mermaid (Not even having played a single performance in Denver) began to go over budget. Suddenly, Disney was in debt, and as Tarzan had already begun to incorperate new ideas into the show and had spent quite a lot of money to do so (Not to mention new operating costs), Disney closed the production before it could increase it's already large operating costs. Little Mermaid had not begun performances, and was doing as expected, until the extra costs couldn't be covered by a SOLD OUT DENVER RUN (Most people forget how well it did there) and an excellent advance sale (Remember when tickets were sold out for months?). Also, an interesting side note, the Palace, once All Shook Up closed, was considerred for BOTH Mary Poppins AND Tarzan. The original plan called for one show to take residence at the Palace, while the other went to the Minskoff, leaving Beauty to TRANSFER in 07 to the Richard Rogers using it's 3rd National Touring Set, and LION KING transferring, using it's 1st National tour set, to the Lunt Fontanne, with Little Mermaid, using a MUCH larger set than what went into the Lunt, to take residence at Disney's personal theatre. THEN Cameron Mackintosh demanded the New Amsterdam for Mary, and the Palace closed up. The Richard Rogers was then used for Tarzan, as Disney decided to quickly open up a show to cover the costs of this new plan, and suddenly, Beauty was left without a new home. Then, to make matters worse, Julie Taymor refused to put her show into such a small theatre as the Lunt, and DEMANDED the Minskoff. Mermaid was still in pre production mode, but without anyother options, Disney forced Beauty to close to make room for their new show. George Typsin nearly had a stroke when he saw how small it was and the budget was moved over to Mary Poppins. Thus, we ended up with two badly designed shows, a closed Beauty, and an overbudgeted Mary Poppins. Thank you VERY MUCH Cameron... and Julie... and Legally Blonde...

[jagfkb]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 4:35pm

And btw, what ever happened to the planned La Cage revival? Wasn't THAT supposed to fill up the Golden?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 5:35pm

Thanks, jag. that is the best description of the Disney fiasco that I have read. I only knew part of that as fact, but had heard buzz of the rest and, being so confusing, generally just gave up on sorting it out in my head..


Edit to add --

I could just imagine the backlash had Disney transferred Beast again, using that Tour set.. it was SO small.

Updated On: 7/23/09 at 05:35 PM

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 5:38pm

That would have been rather unfortunate if Beauty had moved to the Rodgers with the second national tour set...

But everything else would have worked much better.

[TheatreDork2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 5:44pm

So Legally Blonde, Macintosh, & Taymor are to blame for the Disney abortion in 2007?

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 5:44pm

I guess I hadn't seen Beauty's second national. I assume the set then was scaled back even further than the first had been, which was the design used at the Lunt, corrrect?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 5:48pm

Yes, the basic set used at the Lunt was that of the First national Tour for "Beast". By the time the show had run it's course in its various tours, it was VERY small indeed. The castle, for example, was reduced to one (small-ish) stair unit and several sliding columns that were set in front of a painted drop. The small stair unit was refaced with plates for "Be Our Guest" and the castle's west wing was a wagon that rolled on.

[TheatreDork2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 5:49pm

The second first national went to the Lunt & the third is being rented out by NETworks for the upcoming tour.
Updated On: 7/23/09 at 05:49 PM

[Gobstopper]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 7:06pm

This thread used to be about Avenue Q, right?

[jagfkb]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 7:10pm

I'm pretty sure that there's no difference between the second and third national tour.

[saveusmike]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 7:15pm

"This thread used to be about Avenue Q, right?"

Once upon a time.

and this wasnt dont by the Producers. I am 100% sure of that.
they were "kicked out"

[theatreguy]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 7:52pm

And so what if they were? I don't get why this really matters. Are you implying there's been something shady going down at the Shubert offices and they've somehow violated their contract with the Avenue Q producers?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 7:57pm

Of course it wasn't the choice of the Producers. We have hard evidence of that... Avenue Q hasn't seen the typical "Save our show" casting emplloyed by Sellers and McCullum.

In their true fashion, had 'Q' been in THAT much trouble, we would have seen THIS cast ::

Priceton / Rod -- Drew Lachey
Nicky / Trekkie - Joey Fatone
Kate / Lucy -- Mel B
Gary Coleman -- Tamyra Gray
Brian -- Matt Caplan
Mrs. T /others -- Karmine Alers


THAT'S when you know a Sellers - McCullum production is in trouble..

[Corine2]

Posted: 7/23/09 at 10:37pm

Sniff Sniff.
It will be missed.
;-(
September 13 will be a sad day over at the Corner.
I love Avenue Q. Updated On: 7/23/09 at 10:37 PM

[Myglass989]

Posted: 7/24/09 at 10:53am

anyone think they should change the lyric in the finale to "This Show!" is only for now?

Anyways, kudos to Ave Q for staying around so long. Many critics didn't really like the idea of it that much initially, and didn't expect it to be around for any length of time.

But even more kudos to Wicked, which should've definitely won Best Score (if not Best Musical) and is still selling out the Gershwin :)