Posted: 12/22/15 at 11:21am
VintageSnarker said: ""Unfortunately, we now live in a world where critics can no longer make or break a show."
I fail to see why that's a bad thing."
i agree plus it is not universally true in any event. shows that overcome/fail to live up to the reviews are a part of the history of theatre, going back as far as we have a record of their being critics qua critics.
Posted: 12/22/15 at 11:40am
Sauja said: "The grosses for Charles III and A View from the Bridge are really depressing. Both hovering around 50% of their potential gross with lots of empty seats in spite of nearly universal acclaim for both. They're also two of my favorites shows of the year, so I wish they were doing better.
I agree wholeheartedly. I am beginning to think that, unless it is incredibly unique like Incident of the Dog or War Horse, a serious show is going to need a star to breakout. King Charles III is one of the most exciting shows that I have seen in 50 years of theatre going; I was sure that it would breakout after the reviews. I haven't seen View (in Florida and it doesn't fall in a timeframe for one of my trips up), but if I had not seen it already, I would have gotten tickets the day the reviews came out. While their grosses are respectable, neither is going to return its investment is criminal and has to be discouraging to potential investors.
"
Posted: 12/22/15 at 9:35pm
I'm in the minority in that I really didn't enjoy king Charles. I could see why it's a hard sell though to many people even with some good reviews and word of mouth.
Posted: 12/22/15 at 9:47pm
In the history of Broadway, serious theatre has always had a tougher time attracting an audience than musicals. It isn't a new phenomenon.
Posted: 12/22/15 at 9:51pm
Maybe people have had enough of View being revived repeatedly. In addition, maybe people have had their fill of straight play English imports. Wolf Hall did not exactly set the world on fire.
Posted: 12/22/15 at 11:48pm
The 1997 revival of A View From the Bridge started at Roundabout Theatre Company, which is obviously a nonprofit organization.
The last revival obviously had some star power with the likes of Liev Schreiber and Scarlett Johansson.
This revival is a commercial production (even though Lincoln Center Theater is one of the producers) and has no big stars in it.
Posted: 12/24/15 at 9:39am
"Curious Incident isn't looking too hot"?? It's a play - so no orchestra line in the budget - with a large cast but no stars and has recouped. If you take out the anomalies of CHINA DOLL and MISERY, it's the best performing play on Bway right now.
There are only eight plays on Bway right now (if I read the list right) with some that are there due to close very shortly.
Maybe the audience for straight drama is shrinking. Serious plays don't seem to do well with CURIOUS being an exception. KCIII is a really good production but I think is hard to market. If you overplay the monarchy aspect, potential audiences may be turned off by a fear of not knowing enough history. WarHorse was, like Curious Incident, a theatrical event and, additionally, had family appeal. Wolf Hall was a two-parter which made it a non-starter (and ripe for bad word play). Probably only JK Rowling can get away with that now. DISGRACED didn't seem to find an audience.
Will none-star driven productions be forced to stay off the great white way? We could be heading that way.
Posted: 12/24/15 at 10:05am
^ To clarify, there are actually 10 plays on Broadway right now. 11 if you include The Illusionists.
Posted: 12/24/15 at 10:36am
"Nice bump in both capacity and gross for Spring Awakening, was there yesterday, seemed pretty full!
My daughters were at the same show, said it looked sold out to them, my wife and I went to BOM.
Updated On: 12/24/15 at 10:36 AM
Posted: 12/24/15 at 10:39am
"Maybe the audience for straight drama is shrinking."
Actually, just the opposite, unless you insist on pursuing a myopic tack in which Broadway is the only thing you consider. The audience for plays is very robust. In fact, these long run musicals and British import mega-plays are more about the touristification of Broadway than anything else. The length of runs of plays on broadway is likely longer today than it was historically.
Posted: 12/24/15 at 10:43am
Seems "Finding Neverland" is still hanging in there, not bad considering zero Tony nominations.
Posted: 12/24/15 at 11:21am
leefowler said: "In the history of Broadway, serious theatre has always had a tougher time attracting an audience than musicals. It isn't a new phenomenon.
While I think your statement is absolutely valid, I do think at straight plays have a harder time today. Forty years ago, you would have traditional dramas that would last an entire season -- not to mention comedies -- and they did not depend on stars. Just good reviews. Limited engagements with big stars is not a new phenomenon, it has always been around, just not on the scale that it is today. It amazes me that so many of these star vehicles -- the majority of which I suspect are revivals (although that is not the case this minute) which are safe -- come in, do great business for 16 or 18 weeks, and close. Forty years ago, The Audience would have lasted a season, without benefit of a huge star like Helen Mirren; it needed two things: good reviews and very good star reviews.
I think the Disnification of Broadway comment is a very apt one, although I don't view it as necessarily a bad thing overall. I can remember times in the sixties when there were only 12 or 13 shows running during the summer, mostly musicals; that certainly is not the case anymore in tems of numbers, which is a good thing.
Perhaps the drama challenge it is more due to the great quality of television that is available, certainly more than ever before. In the last week, I have watched episodes of The Leftovers, The Knick and Rectify, and Homeland, all of which IMO are more substantial than 99% of what was available years ago. With that quality available on TV, maybe the theatre goer from Jersey or Long Island or Connecticut wants even less than ever to come into the city for a drama, unless it has a big star.
"
Posted: 12/24/15 at 12:10pm
television is not a substitute for live theatre regardless of how good it is.
The big difference regarding plays is off-Broadway, which did not exist in the heyday of plays on Broadway. Who would want to see a play on Broadway when you can see it off-Broadway? The plays we get on Broadway are the limited runs, the rare off-B transfer and the UK transfers.
Posted: 12/24/15 at 1:20pm
I stand corrected. GreasedLightning is right. There are ten plays and I can't count today...
To avoid the splitting of hairs, while I was posting on the "Broadway Grosses" thread, I should still have said "Maybe the audience for straight drama is shrinking - on Broadway." The off-Broadway world seems to be in fair shape with some great productions at the Public, Signature, Playwrights Horizons, etc.
Here's a link to a Terry Teachout article on long running plays with dates and number of performances.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608050367561388
There was a recent article I saw which gave length of run for the last 15 years of Tony award winning plays which was a little depressing and, of course, I can't find it now so I can post a link...
Updated On: 12/24/15 at 01:20 PM
Posted: 12/24/15 at 1:26pm
yankeefan7 said: "Seems "Finding Neverland" is still hanging in there, not bad considering zero Tony nominations.
The only reason it's still hanging in there is becuase of the star it has
Posted: 12/24/15 at 2:30pm
Comfy,
I'm not understanding your obsession with how long plays run on Broadway. As Teachout's list underscores, that never correlated to the best plays. And nowadays the best plays are usually not on Broadway so what exactly is the point? Broadway (other than the nonprofits) is where shows go to make money for producers by selling tickets to tourists. Why is that an important focus for your attention?
Posted: 12/24/15 at 2:44pm
Here's the quote from an earlier post that prompted my "obsession."
"The length of runs of plays on broadway is likely longer today than it was historically." HogansHero. 12/24/15 2.30pm.
There is some amazing work being done off and off-off Broadway but Broadway is regarded by many actors as a highlight in their careers and the people I know who say that that are well aware of what Broadway is in terms of quality of production but still... When they were in their teens, Broadway was their dream.
Now I'm done with this thread as I'm now on holiday
Posted: 12/24/15 at 3:22pm
enjoy your holiday (and the same to everyone else) but nothing you have said contradicts the fact that the avg length of runs is longer today
and the fact some actors aspire to work on broadway doesn't have anything to do with how long the runs are, now does it?
Updated On: 12/25/15 at 03:22 PM
Posted: 12/25/15 at 12:08am
HogansHero said: "television is not a substitute for live theatre regardless of how good it is.
The big difference regarding plays is off-Broadway, which did not exist in the heyday of plays on Broadway. Who would want to see a play on Broadway when you can see it off-Broadway? The plays we get on Broadway are the limited runs, the rare off-B transfer and the UK transfers.
I agree with you, although when I lived in NJ and took 90 minutes to get into the city, 45 of them at the Lincoln Tunnel, I became more selective than when I lived on 79th Street. nothing can replace live theatre, but...
"
