Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 2/25/18- Page 4

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 9:43am

Let's face it, Broadway has been garbage in all the days since The Black Crook.

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 10:07am

"Brenda Vaccaro, who I always loved, had a supporting role in a terrible play that ran for 8 performances."

It was a beautiful play, she was wonderful in it, and it ran 7 performances.

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 1:28pm

After Eight said: ""Brenda Vaccaro, who I always loved, had a supporting role in a terrible play that ran for 8 performances."

It was a beautiful play, she was wonderful in it, and it ran 7 performances."

If it's a choice between taking your word it was beautiful and taking someone else's word it was terrible, the "it ran for 7 performances" has me leaning towards terrible unless it was SO beautiful, the producers decided the theatergoing public didn't deserve more than 7 chances to see it and profits be damned.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 2:01pm

The main deterrent for ticketbuyers for Angels is almost certainly the fact that you have to commit to two shows at once and not on dates of your own choosing. People with tight schedules and especially people from out of town can't really make that sort of commitment unless they want to sit through a marathon day.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 2:17pm

How is it that Angels had a pretty much sold out run in London? Is the National theatre it played in that much smaller than the Neil Simon Theatre? As I recall, the National has three separate theatres. I saw The Flick in one of the theatres two years ago. Were people required to purchase tickets to both parts and were the parts on separate days sometimes as they are here? Also, doesn’t the National have subscribers; therefore ensuring an audience for Angels? I know we just have receipts from the first partial week of previews so hopefully things improve. Just trying to figure out the reasons for the difference so far between the London run and the NYC run.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 2:25pm

The National is a subscriber based house.


Why are people making a big fuss about angles gross? I know it was supposed to be one of the big hits this season, but it only just began previews. Aren’t preview grosses already lower compared to post opening grosses?

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 2:35pm

Call_me_jorge said: "The National is a subscriber based house.


Why are people making a big fuss about angles gross? I know it was supposed to be one of the big hits this season, but it only just began previews. Aren’t preview grosses already lower compared to post opening grosses?"

You’re right. There’s room for the show’s box office to improve  It’s just that so many of us thought this would be the hot ticket of the season from the very beginning and we’re pulling for it to have a successful run. And what would BWW be if we didn’t allow ourselves to speculate and catastrophize. It’s practically built into BWW’s DNA. lol

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 2:39pm

Call_me_jorge said: "Aren’t preview grosses already lower compared to post opening grosses?"

For a new show, sure. But for a known play, with a solid cast (with only one new member added to the UK cast), including celebrities, there shouldn't be much need for them to find their footing. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 3:30pm

I'm sure most of us want it to succeed, and as I have said, it still may, but when a star-studded production of a major play that has a limited run comes out of the gate filling its houses with TDF tickets, and what appears to be an insubstantial advance, people are gonna make a fuss. There is a template for limited runs, and this is not it. That doesn't make it a catastrophe but it also doesn't support the notion it is doing fine, which is what started this. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 3:40pm

Uncle Charlie, there is probably no point.  It opened before 1970, which automatically makes it infinitely better than anything in at least the last 30 years, like Angels in America.

Perhaps one day After Eight will join an alternative site started by the late Phillie Pinto (or was it Philly Pinto), who was actually more annoying than After Eight.

[raddersons]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 3:52pm

I think the performance schedule of Angels in it's first weeks is messing with the numbers. Tourists who are only here for a week are less likely to buy a ticket when Pt 1 is a Saturday and Pt 2 the following Thursday... because they might not be in town by the time the Thursday rolls around. So, why would they buy a ticket? Once they move into consistent marathon days or consecutive days, I'm hoping the numbers will bump up. 

Updated On: 2/28/18 at 03:52 PM

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 3:58pm

raddersons said: "Tourists who are only here for a week mayonly see one part if it's a Pt 1 Saturday and Pt 2 the followingThursday, as opposed to a marathon day or consecutive days."

You can't buy tickets to single shows until a few days in advance, anymore beyond that, and you have to buy both shows.

[raddersons]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 5:24pm

^^ Yes, that's exactly my point. Right now performances aren't consecutive, so if you're only in town for one part... you still have to buy a ticket to both. Which would prevent someone from buying a ticket to either in the first place. 

Part 2 starts tonight, paired with Part 1 from last week. If you were only in town last week, you didn't buy  ticket at all because then you would have paid for a performance you won't end up seeing. The first consecutive performances of the show are this Friday / Saturday, then the first marathon is next Saturday the 10th. Once the typical schedule gets going, with same-week pairings and marathons, we'll have more ticket buyers. 

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/28/18 at 11:58pm

"If it's a choice between taking your word it was beautiful and taking someone else's word it was terrible, the "it ran for 7 performances" has me leaning towards terrible"

You can lean whichever way you want. But not too far, please. We wouldn't want one of the luminaries of BWW to take a tumble.

Happily for me, I'm not restricted to conjecture about the merits of the play in question; nor need I lend credence to the appalling aspersions of another.

I was able to experience both the beauty of the play and the unique gifts of its wonderful cast firsthand. Together they wove magic, and filled me with that special glow that only the theatre can provide when everything goes right.

I will be eternally grateful for that.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 12:05am

Miles2Go2 wrote:


"It’s just that so many of us thought this would be the hot ticket of the season from the very beginning "

Remember that like Angels in America, The Heidi Chronicles and Six Degrees of Separation were highly-touted must-sees when they first opened. They both failed to find an audience when revived.

Yesterday's must-see can quickly turn into today's "been there, done that."

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 12:16am

After Eight said: ""If it's a choice between taking your word it was beautiful and taking someone else's word it was terrible, the "it ran for 7 performances" has me leaning towards terrible"

You can leanwhichever way you want. But not too far, please. We wouldn't want one of the luminaries of BWW to take a tumble.

Happily for me,I'm not restricted to conjecture about the merits of the play in question; nor need Ilend credence to the appalling aspersions of another.

I was ableto experience both the beauty of the play and the uniquegifts of its wonderful cast firsthand.Together they wove magic,and filled me with that specialglow that onlythe theatre can provide when everything goesright.

I will be eternallygrateful for that."

 

I also saw it from a very good (TKTS, I assume) orchestra seat, and was bored for most of the performance.  I did think the last three minutes were very effective, and was favorably surprised by Milton Berle's performance.  I remember Vaccaro, who I really liked in other shows, shouting her way through her featured performance.  

But, we all are entitled to our opinions...I just don't know why you need to be so nasty and dismissive when describing shows you don't like, which appears to be virtually everything since 1970.  We are all more than willing to share views on shows we don't like; the tone that you use in dismissing both terrible shows and modern masterpieces -- because they are not as good as Henry Sweet Henry, a mediocre musical which ran for about 80 performances in early 1968 (and which I saw and actually enjoyed) -- is both vicious and exhausting.  The closest analogy I can think of are Trump's Twitter tirades.

We were all disappointed when Mr. Roxy left the cite, apparently because he was tired of the negative energy.  I suspect that the cumulative impact of all other negative energy but yours does not approach the sheer concentration of negative energy you put out.  Why don't you cut us all a break and try to be a little more constructive in your criticism, vs. purely dismissive.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 12:22am

After Eight said: "Yesterday's must-see can quickly turn into today's "been there, done that.""

Wow, seems like A8's guard is down. Hard to maintain that troll pose you've worked so hard to create when you say things like that.

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 12:49am

Aaah. I just blocked After Eight. Why didn’t I do that ages ago? Imagine if everyone did that! All that snark would be go out into a black hole never to be seen or heard.

Disqualifier: I’m an amateur theater lover, not an astronomer. I have no idea if that is how black holes work. Lol. Let’s ask Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 8:41am

After Eight said: "Poisonivy2 wrote: "His tiresome, repeated "You liked it? You have no taste, it was awful"

Nonsense. I never said anything of the kind."

Actually, you have called other people's character into question many times because they liked one of your disfavored shows. I just googled one example that was easy to find, but there are many others if I cared to spend more than a minute on it. (The show under discussion was Passion.)

-----------------------------------

"but I was elated by the sheer audacity of its refusal to be "attractive" or otherwise condescend to audience expectations. " 

That speaks volumes about you. 

"That Eric appreciated the show at 13 (I was 40) probably tells us everything we need to know about him!" 

Everything and then some.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1072543&page=3

[Great Dame]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 9:09am

LesWickedly said: "Frozen almost broke a million with four shows."

Great to see it previewing well!

[carnzee]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 10:39am

After Eight said: "Miles2Go2 wrote:


"It’s just that so many of us thought this would be the hot ticket of the season from the very beginning "

Remember that like Angels in America, The Heidi Chronicles and Six Degrees of Separation were highly-touted must-sees when they first opened. They both failed to find an audience when revived.

Yesterday's must-see can quickly turn intotoday's "been there, done that.""

Which is exactly what people would say if anyone was foolish enough to revive Forty Carats.

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 10:55am

Carnzee wrote: "Which is exactly what people would say if anyone was foolish enough to revive Forty Carats."

Personally, I'm just grateful I saw this wonderful show when I did, and got to experience the radiant, luminous performance of Julie Harris.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 7:15pm

HogansHero said: "And Nathan. For that matter, I am not convinced Radcliffe would be that much different currently. He has not been that much of a draw even closer to his heydey."

Point taken. But I was saying that Garfield isn't even at Radcliffe's level based on the popular movies on his resume so I don't understand why anyone would assume he would be a draw to a general audience. This isn't meant as an insult. Rather, he should be excused of responsibility for not selling a ton of tickets because the assumption that he would doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/1/18 at 8:38pm

I don't disagree with any of that. My sense is the rationale for the transfer was (a) it did well in London, (b) it's a great play that people will want to see and (c) this cast (which to me has a bit of one from column A, one from column B-ness to it) is interesting.