Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 4/5/15 — Page 5

"Im outspoken, memorable, hot, and above all talented :) Agents and directors WILL want me."

To be honest, sometimes it gets tedious reading all this back and forth but then something amazing and hilarious like this gets posted and it's all worth it.

Also, while they aren't Hollywood stars or Broadway talent with the recognition of Idina or Kristin, I do think at this point that Brian d'Arcy James and Christian Borle can be considered stars for the theatre crowd.

I'm going on vacation at the end of April and you're getting me worried that when I come back Doctor Zhivago and The Visit will have posted their closing notices.

The percentage of attendance is only a factor. You also need to look at the amount of money they gross in a week, as well as the top ticket price.

I know it is appealing to have "rules" but they really don't exist. The health of a show is not a function of the percentage of gross at all, because it means nothing in the absence of knowing what the show's expenses are. In general, a show is usually healthy if it is in the upper quartile, but not necessarily. Since gross potential varies by theatre, but expenses are only marginally affected by the theatre, it is often true that a theatre is a large venue (e.g., On the Town) may not be in as bad a shape as it seems, if you are looking at the potential, and the reverse can be true in a small theatre. Also, today, the gross potential does not take premium sales into account, so it can be horribly skewed. Earlier, I alluded to the running costs of It's Only a Play, which we know has a sizable salary burden. Then there are shows like Hand to God, with a small cast that is likely earning near the low end, There are also shows with huge operational expenses (e.g., Spider-Man, most famously) that skew way up because of the need for a huge number of stage hands, high maintenance and, if I recall correctly, something like 8 stage managers. Finally, it should be mentioned that these numbers become more significant at the margin, because every show has a stop clause, and the landlord can force it to close (the ultimate unhealthy act) if the revenue falls below it. And that number sometimes conflicts with the producer's interests, such as when a show is not losing money, but it is not making enough money for the landlord. I hope this helps dispel the notion that there is a simple answer to this question.

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 01:33 AM

Yes - The King and I looks to be doing very well. It's sort of (correct me if I'm wrong) following the trajectory of South Pacific. Hope it runs as long, and helps LTC! (Last I heard, they were trying to recover from Women on the Verge, but that was a long time ago, so maybe they're good now.)

OTTC seems to be doing very well, especially in the last few weeks, it's been increasing every week in it's run actually, except for one. Is this because there are less subscribers and more of the general public buying tickets - so their are more higher priced tickets being bought?

Would the running costs of 'Fun Home' be very high? The cast doesn't seem to be very large - I haven't seen it so I can't comment on orchestra or other specifics.

"Still, I really hope it does well too. It's not typically Broadway fare, but that's exactly why it should succeed."

Why should inept, sophomoric stupidity succeed?

"Works this good and daring are rarely produced on Broadway, and I hope this one makes it so that happens more often."

Yes, just what Broadway needs: more infantilization --- and dirty words!

Re, the grosses. Glad to see about 400 empty seats at Fun Home this week. I wonder if those 400 potential theatregoers realize how lucky they were.

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 06:02 AM

"If you don't like a play, that's fine, but why can you not understand that other people don't feel the same way?"

I understand only too well.

But I don't feel the same way, and think it would be bad if it gets good reviews, succeeds, and causes more stupid, sophomoric plays to be written and produced on Broadway. Do you understand that?

I asked you why you wanted the play to succeed. You say you can't be bothered explaining it to me.

Then don't. But you certainly could be bothered vilifying me.

Oh, and based on your post, you're not one to be calling anyone else a nasty piece of work.

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 08:14 AM

Obviously, if the budget has been carefully planned beforehand then poor weekly grosses might not be a bad thing. But if low grosses have not been budgeted for the money (to capitalise and run the show) has to come from somewhere, so I don't think we can necessarily say the grosses don't matter for a NFP show either.

To an extent they do not matter.

The losses are almost always offset by private contributions -- directly from silent "angels" -- and a number of major corporate sponsorships. In certain cases, an underwriting grant (ex. a foundation might subsidize a month of a show's run) may also be secured.

And, if all else fails, the non-profit companies usually reach into an endowment, rainy day, or general fund to cover running costs of a production that has extended beyond its originally budgeted run.

After Eight: "I bemoan raising the mindset of a foul-mouthed, immature thirteen year-old as the ideal to which our theatre should aspire."

In essence, then, what you are saying is that the theatre should whitewash reality and bring us only fairy tales. (And only fairy tales that align with your own brand of prudishness.) If that's the world you want, then your misanthropy is quite explicable, as is your hatred of the theatre (and yes that's what it is, because sugar coating reality is anathema to the theatre).

I don't know why it took me so long, and apologies to anyone who had already pieced it together, but I just realized After Eight is one of Tony Kushner's Angels: "STOP MOVING"

Kad, I'm not surprised. It's sort of a blend of Victorian morality and American Puritanism. In the abstract, it is a sensibility that might seem quaint, but in reality it is-more than anything else-a form of bigotry: anyone who doesn't fit comfortably in a 19th Century lifestyle (which of course includes an unhealthy superficial repression of anything deemed unpleasant), especially if they do not emulate some self-annointed acceptable culture, is to be disparaged. Do the rest of us do the same thing in reverse? Yes, because we believe in our morality just as much, or more, and hence the culture war.

I noticed On The Town eeked out a couple more percentage points. 63%. There may be hope left.

"And it has nothing to do with wishing artists to fail.

You're positively gleeful about Fun Home not having sold those 400 seats. It's one thing to not care for a show (or go out of your way to express your loathing, as you do) but you don't want the show to do well. I have shows I don't like, but I'm not happy if they don't sell well. But of course, all of these shows are apparently contributing to some kind of moral rot in society, so I guess as self-appointed moral crusader this can only be a good thing for you. I'm just glad I don't get my happiness like you do.