Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 7/23/23 — Page 2

EDSOSLO858 said: "bwayphreak234 said: "Guess I'm in the minority, but I love the Marquis. I find it accessible and comfortable."

Me too! It's probably one of the theaters I've visited the most, and I've never had an uncomfortable seating experience."

The theater itself is so non-descript but I do agree that the seats are among the most comfortable of any Broadway theater

Yikes for OUAOMT! I don’t see that making it to the fall! It makes me feel so bad for the cast as they might be out of a job soon. The choreography I’ve seen looks incredible though, but the book seems to be a problem. I think people are tired of fairytale Cinderella stories lately! Especially after Bad Cinders!

Sauja said: "What is Once Upon a One More Time holding out for? Their numbers are just abysmal."

Well, I am sure if you had invested a ton of money, time and effort in a show you believe in, you would try to keep it open too.

And the entire theater staff, the cast and crew are probably happy the show is still open.

Updated On: 7/25/23 at 06:04 PM

Interesting to see The Lion King and Wicked back in the top two spots, with Hamilton slotting into third. Lion King seems to consistently be the top earner these days, with the next two slots rotating between a few shows. (Wicked, Hamilton, Sweeney)

kdogg36 said: "Luminaire2 said: "Lion King seems to consistently be the top earner these days"

It's kind of odd, when you think about it, that a show most of us (including me) routinely ignore is still the undisputed Broadway champion. This week,The Lion Kinghad:

- the highest ticket price

- the highest gross

- and, somehow, also, the biggest drop in gross

It's definitely positioned as a tourist destination sine qua non at this point in Broadway history."

Absolutely. It's also doing way better than Phantom was at its 25 year mark. It really is incredible.

My take on the Marquis is a little different.

In the theatre, very few things have a single cause.

In the theatre, the law of self-fulfilling prophesies is in full force.

In the theatre, most landlords and most producers are gamblers.

For a variety of reasons, experienced producers don't like the Marquis. The track record, at this point, provides plenty of foundation for this dislike because there are (a) multiple causes and (b) a ton of self-fulfilling prophecies.

The theatres that no one wants go either to someone trying to break into the business or to someone who feels like gambling. So tyros get the lousy houses, or else gamblers do. The first part is easy to understand. If you are a newbie, you will take what you are given because you are not going to start out getting the prime houses. (Also, you are convinced you have your hands on a winner.) The same process explains who gets a theatre at the times of year nobody wants them. If you are a gambler, on the other hand, you are betting on a property (almost always with OPM [other peoples' money]) that (a) will attract investment (e.g., a jukebox musical based on the catalog of a very successful person who is very well known, or written by such folk) and (b) because if it is actually good, you stand to make money, with no risk on your part.

So we have OUAOMT and Britney and it will either set the world on fire or (most likely) be gone by Labor Day. Why would the Nederlanders produce this? Because they have this albatross that they KNOW will sit vacant all summer unless they make a little money by "gambling." And they probably have some tyro waiting in the wings and who can get a show in that will last until at least January 2.

Yes my take is cynical but it is borne out over and over again.

But you also didn’t really say anything.


WHY is this theater such an albatross for them? Why did they sign off on its design and creation in the first place then?


I don’t think it matters to most tourists but I will say, for me, it feels like a road house and not the unique, historical Broadway theaters most would associate with Broadway. Sure it’s had some terrible shows in it but so has every house on Broadway.

RippedMan said: "But you also didn’t really say anything.


Actually, I think I said quite a lot but I will put a little more meat on the bones.

WHY is this theater such an albatross for them? Why did they sign off on its design and creation in the first place then?


Who is they? The theatre was designed by John Portman (the Marriott's usual architect for this sort of property). He was obviously not a theatre designer, and the decision to include a theatre was a semi-last minute result geared to satisfy the city's demand for a certain cubic volume, IIRC. So it was basically shoehorned into the available space, which left a great deal to be desired back of house (whatever one thought of the front). The size of the house was too big for most shows, and the economics was poor in terms of seat distribution etc. The original box office was on Broadway and was hard to find; signage was lost in the sea bright lights and attention seeking billboards that is Times Sq. The theatre itself, up escalators on the 3rd floor, is also hard to find. Back of house suffers from narrow wingspace and low fly space, oh and everything else coming in and out including load in and load out is costly, because it is on the 3rd floor without a freight elevator. It is monumentally insane as a construct. The list goes on and on.

I don’t think it matters to most tourists but I will say, for me, it feels like a road house and not the unique, historical Broadway theaters most would associate with Broadway. Sure it’s had some terrible shows in it but so has every house on Broadway."

I agree about the feel. Regarding terrible shows, I don't think it is comparable because, as I said, smart producers with good shows look elsewhere.

I don't believe it or any theatre is cursed but I think it is a design defect in the same way that products that get the attention of the CPSC are.

If I am understanding you correctly Hogan though (at least from your earlier post), are you saying that one of the major causal factors behind the Marquis being a flop house is that because it is seen as less desirable it tends to be the last resort for experienced producers who produce good shows that are less likely to be flops? So it's not necessarily because the Marquis itself causes the shows to be flops but if a less experienced producer wants to mount a show (or if the show itself is perhaps seen as problematic) it ends up having no choice but to go to one of these less desirable houses, such as the Marquis. To me this makes sense. Sure there might be things about it (e.g. the size) that help perpetuate this vicious flop cycle, but ultimately I agree with others that suggest arguments such as its location or difficulty to find are rather unconvincing, today at least.

------

For what it's worth (which isn't much lol), I know FOLLIES seemed like the LAST show that would suit the Marquis, but I must admit I absolutely loved everything about it there - the marquee being in prime real estate in Times Square visible to all, the weird glass-encased lobby that I had never seen before, the way they transformed the theatre to make it look old, the entire subtext that the show is about the tearing down and replacing of the theatre with a parking lot that kind of subtextual feels exactly what the Marquis Hotel/Theatre is. The novelty of Bernadette being there after Annie Get Your Gun and the Goodbye Girl. Unfortunately though, the theatre ended up being just too big - they managed to sell the prime orchestra seats throughout the entire run but could not shift the Mezz. Had they been somewhere a little smaller I wonder if the size would better match demand and the buzz inside of a full theatre would have helped keep the energy up in the audience and caused them to have a better time and maintain/increase demand (I can't imagine anything sucking the air out of a theatre experience more than being in a half empty theatre). But when you want to book a Broadway theatre just a couple months in advance again I don't think the Producers had the luxury of choosing the perfectly size house and to the Marquis it was.

Thanks that's the info I was more so looking for as to why a producer wouldn't want it.

What does that mean for The Palace? I'm guessing it has an elevator but that also means a lot of stuff has to be built on site.

Hairspray0901 said: "JasonC3 said: "The Marquis is arguably easier to find than some theaters precisely because it is part of the Marriott Marquis complex."
I will never forget the first show I saw there. 9 to 5. My Mom and I walked around the block twice (through the Marquis underpass) because we couldn’t find the theatre. Didn’t realize it was INSIDE the hotel. Still laugh about it today. I definitely don’t think the location is the reason shows flop, though."

One of the most common questions at the Marquis must be ... where's the box office?

Hairspray0901 said: "JasonC3 said: "The Marquis is arguably easier to find than some theaters precisely because it is part of the Marriott Marquis complex.

"

I will never forget the first show I saw there. 9 to 5. My Mom and I walked around the block twice (through the Marquis underpass) because we couldn’t find the theatre. Didn’t realize it was INSIDE the hotel. Still laugh about it today. I definitely don’t think the location is the reason shows flop, though."



We did this too when we saw Drowsy Chaperone!