BOM to launch in another theater?

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:23pm

I know we aren't all busness people here but its true that you make money by supplying what is in demand. BOM seems to be the new IT thing that everybody wants. It seems obvious to open an LA production.

Heres another idea. Why not put Book of Mormon in another theatre in New York too. There are enough theatres and enough talented actors. That way, 2x the people could see the show. 100s of theatres in New York sell out Harry Potter shows, so why can't Broadway have two of the same shows running at once?!?

It makes sense.

[thismyshow]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:25pm

oh my god if one more person starts a thread about this im going to have a serious freak out!

[Patash]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:26pm

"It makes sense."

That's a matter of opinion.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:27pm

Can you even begin to imagine what a nightmare that would be? People showing up at the wrong theater, upset (name actor here) is in the "other" show and so on and so on.

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:30pm

You guys are just upset because you didn't think ofit first. Its not right for the producers to only let a certain number of people see the show. If somebody found a medicine for cancer, shouldn't as many people get it as possible?!?

[thismyshow]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:32pm

are you freaking serious did u just compare the cure for cancer to people seeing BOM!

[JP2]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:33pm

Holy ****ing ****, lets also open a production on the moon.

[jamiekennywicked]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:33pm

^ But this ain't a life or death matter. I agree with a post above, the confusion would cause more problems than having two shows running would solve

[Patash]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:34pm

You're right. I forgot that Book of Mormon is exactly like a cure for cancer. Where was my brain? In fact, I should see if I can turn my ticket expense in to my health insurance for payment.

[Johnnycantdecide]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:34pm

Awful idea.

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:36pm

^Thank you Patash. It's nice to know my idea has a fan.

[JMPlayer6]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:38pm

Hasn't this been discussed to death already?

"It makes sense [to move it]."

Does it? There's short term and long term. Factor in the long term, and it's not that simple.

[singtopher]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:41pm

Am I the only one who is convinced this is a sock puppet?

[artscallion]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:43pm

I hate waiting in line at the M&M store. They wouldn't make cancer patients wait in long confusing lines for a cure, if they had one! I demand a second M&M store!!!

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:46pm

You did not think of it first. It has been discussed ad nauseum on this board. It also does not make any sense at all from a business stand point.

By playing in the smaller theater with fewer tickets the tickets are in higher demand. This means that you can stretch out your run for a longer period of time while you are the hot ticket.

The next problem is cost. For a brief period they would be renting two theatre for the load out and load in, the load out and load in its self is expensive, then you have to do tech rehearsals all over again in the new space, all while not performing so money is lost on that as well. Also keep in mind some aspects may have to be redesigned for the larger space. You also have to refund at least a full weeks worth of tickets to those who are supposed to be seeing the show during the transfer. This show is booked for months already. The cost of changing theatres is in the millions.

Another important thing to take into consideration is the intimacy of the space and how the show plays in the space it is in. Theatres are chose for a reason. This show may not work as well in a more cavernous space. It is really time to let this idiotic idea of moving theatres go. It will not happen, it is not logical, it is not cost effective. It would be too big of a gamble. This is not The Lion King with a long run already with no time of slowing down. This is still just the hot ticket of the season for now. Would you want to throw millions into moving something that is doing just fine where it is?

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:50pm

Why would you use such a stupid analogy about MandMs?

Theatre saves lives in ways a lot of you wouldn't understand. If it weren't for shows like American Idiot, HAIR, Glory Days, BOM, Wicked, N2n I bet a lot of kids would end up turning to drugs and suiside. You can't pretend it isn't as important as medicine.

And I'm sick of getting PMs asking who I am and being accused of being a sock puppet (lol)?

I'm here because I love theatre. I post because I feel like I have a unique perspective you guys should listen to.

Do I like disagreements? Yes, I am on JV debate.

Does that make me a monster/ troll? No. It makes me proud of who I am!

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:53pm

Welcome back Steel Pier Fan. This is getting ridiculous. Please - don't feed the trolls, everyone.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:54pm

After that, I am sad I offered a real response. Now I too am now convinced you are a sock puppet.

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 1:59pm

THis is getting OLD

I started posting because like the rest of you I love Bway. I thought I should post because I have a unique perspective on theatre.

I thought this was a place to express ideas, not a place to shut them down. If you guys only want some people posting that's fine, I'll stop. If you want a message board open to debate, than I'm here to stay.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 2:03pm

I don't think Broadway should adopt a "multiplex" business model.

Aside from many of the issues raised above, it only manages to deglamorize it one step further.

Plus, think about it. What multiplexes have done is remove the excitement and anticipation of having to wait to see a hit film. Just look at box office intake now as compared to that of 30 years or more ago. Now, audiences can see a blockbuster the weekend it opens in 3 bazillion theatres across the country. The initial weekend grosses are enormous. The second week, it falls off dramatically. And even a huge film that brings in $200-300 million at the box office will be gone from most theatres in six weeks (max). The biggest hit of the year comes and goes like a flash in the pan.

Thirty years ago, we had to queue up at one theatre (or a few more in bigger cities), sometimes waiting as much as two hours or more in advance to see a blockbuster movie the first week or so. The mega-hit films (Jaws, Exorcist, Star Wars, E.T., Indiana Jones) would usually run in theatres anywhere from 4 to 6 months, in even a small town. And the advance excitement and anticipation were palpable.

Broadway also has a disadvantage in that an entire separate production has to be mounted in a second venue. It's not like taking the master and striking a new print from it for a film. You're basically having to "remake the film" at the second location. Pretty cost-prohibitive when you think about it. Plus you'll see shorter runs by at least half, and Broadway is all about "number of performances" as well as weekly box office receipts to judge the success of a show. You'd be killing that if you turned it into a multiplex experience.

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 2:05pm

Thank you Best12bars for presenting a solid arguement with out being a bully. I see your point now.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 2:07pm

Here's someone who thought of it first.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 2:08pm

This one, too

[broadwaynoitall]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 2:12pm

WRONG PHYLIS!!!!!

I was thinking of having BOM running at two theatres, side by side. So 2x the people could see it. It's called reading, you should have learned it when you were 11.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 6/20/11 at 2:13pm

I would go see it if in the other theatre, every role was played by Patti LuPone.