Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 7/24/22 — Page 2

Updated On: 7/27/22 at 09:15 PM

Sometimes a little context and a little proportion are called for. The producers of ASL did not set out to make a killing. They fell in love with a show that they felt deserved a broader audience and a higher profile, both of which it has achieved because of this. The aspiration was a hope it would break even and make a little coin but if you look at the producing consist, these are not people doing this for the money. That said, it is a commercial production and financial assessments are not out of line, particularly in relation to the two shows being mentioned comparatively. I would call it a harder sell. I would also call it better than the other two. Finally, I think the pandemic only takes you so far. There are a number of shows doing great financially. In the same pandemic.

suzycat said: "In fairness, one major difference between ASL and the other Tony winners is that ASL is performing during a global pandemic."

I think that argument would hold more weight if there weren't 14 shows, including shows that premiered in the pandemic, doing better in terms of capacity. I'm not saying A Strange Loop is in imminent danger. I just think it's looking a little soft for having won the Best Musical Tony so recently. I assumed it would do great numbers through the summer and then tail off and have a similar run to A Band's Visit/Fun Home but I think that might be the most optimistic view. We'll see!

David10086 said: "the death watch"

You grievously misapprehend the activity in this (and related) threads. Perhaps you are not interested in the business side of Broadway. Perhaps you are not interested in the stock market. Perhaps you are not interested in horse racing. Perhaps you are not interested in baseball which, after this weekend, will witness the spectacle of the trade deadline. That's fine. But what we are doing here and in all of these cases is analysis, sometimes just for sport, sometimes for more. If it is not interesting to you, take a seat, but do not try to make it into something that it is not and do not ever imply that you somehow love theatre more than those of us who analyze it intently. Because you don't.

JBroadway said: "It is possible for an individual show's numbers to be influenced by the pandemic, even with many other shows doing well under the same conditions. The demographics could be different, and/or the pandemic could have people prioritizing "good time" shows with/about stars, over prestige favorites that could be more polarizing.****
Hogan, of course I agree with your sentiments about the general value of these gross threads, and the value of analysis/discussion. But I don't think it's entirely incorrect to say these threads have a tendency to harp on the same points week after week, particularly where it comes to a specific show that's doing badly. I mean, how many of this spring's gross threads were devoted to discussing Paradise Square, despite the discussion being exactly the same week after week?"

No question that, in general, the pandemic can affect shows differently. Most obviously, perhaps, shows with an "older" demographic where a good chunk of the audience has not returned to the theatre at all. (I think the folks at MTC will be happy to tell you about this.)

Also no question we sometimes focus on shows at the extreme like Paradise Square where staying open made no sense. There was a lot more going on there than just how absurdly low the grosses were; I think we can all plead guilty to rubbernecking. Beyond that, I think we are just interested in what's going on, can they turn it around, etc. Similarly, Funny Girl was not really about the grosses as much as the train wreck we were witnessing. Another show that comes to mind along these lines was Great Comet. The discussion was indeed about grosses but it was really about incompetent producing, what did they do wrong, etc.

I think the language that set off this mini discussion was the employment of "target." I don't think people made these shows targets (we have no power here); I think the shows made themselves targets and we started snooping around to see what we could learn.

ASL's sexual frankness also makes it something I wouldn't outright recommend to a good chunk of the people in my life. In fact, there are very few people I can think of that I would say "you have to go see this!" without some sort of qualification or reservation. And this comes from someone who thinks it's quite great.

In terms of the question about plays towards the end of the summer, over the past 15 years or so, Broadway has become increasingly star-driven in terms of plays, and those stars generally aren't around for all that long. Harry Potter is rare in being a recent multi-year play. Aside from Harry Potter, there have been a number of years where there are zero plays or one play running as of Labor Day.

HogansHero said: "David10086 said: "the death watch"

You grievously misapprehend the activity in this (and related) threads. Perhaps you are not interested in the business side of Broadway. Perhaps you are not interested in the stock market. Perhaps you are not interested in horse racing. Perhaps you are not interested in baseball which, after this weekend, will witness the spectacle of the trade deadline. That's fine. But what we are doing here and in all of these cases is analysis, sometimes just for sport, sometimes for more. If it is not interesting to you, take a seat, but do not try to make it into something that it is not and do not ever imply that you somehow love theatre more than those of us who analyze it intently. Because you don't.

"

To address a few statements you make:

1, I do not analyze the grosses for investment purposes, or for sport. I fall into the 'sometimes for more' category.

2. I never said it's not interesting to me.

3. I never said I love theater more than anyone else on or off this board. (Me thinks you're projecting in those last two sentences.)

David10086 said: "To address a few statements you make:

1, I do not analyze the grosses for investment purposes, or for sport. I fall into the 'sometimes for more' category.

2. I never said it's not interesting to me.

3. I never said I love theater more than anyone else on or off this board. (Me thinks you're projecting in those last two sentences.)"

It's fine that you follow grosses for different reasons than some of us, but you are still misapprehending our reasons for our interests in them and making what I would characterize as an erroneous implication from our interests.

Your responses to JBroadway demonstrate this. First, it is manifestly untrue that each week there is a focus only on the lowest grossing show. Second, it is preposterous to conflate bad faith and business interest. As I more or less asked, do you do this with stock market analysts?) Third, re " We start taking guesses," who is we? People post and yes some of those posts include educated guesses on when a show will close. That's not a death watch. As I pointed out, "we" have no power. Finally, regarding Paradise Square, yes there was a lot of vitriol, but it was not based on the grosses but rather on Garth. There are many, including yours truly, who think he should never have been able to return to Broadway. Aside from everything else, some known at the time and some not, the numbers on this show make staying open defy logic and there is a back story on who got conned to keep it running that we do not yet know. But that show is sui generis and not part of some custom around here.

uhhh Phantom is the only one playing on Mondays?



inception said: "It will be interesting to see what grosses are like in next week's report.

Monay night I went to Phantom, and it seemed a full house. The lady next to me was French, and there were many Asians. Despite the threads claiming that "tourist" shows are full of poorly behaved audiences, my experience Monday was that everyone was in rapt attention & waited to applaud at appropriate moments. - unlike Into the Woods on Sunday with an audience of Locals.
"

Updated On: 7/27/22 at 05:04 PM

mikem said: "In terms of the question about plays towards the end of the summer, over the past 15 years or so, Broadway has become increasingly star-driven in terms of plays, and those stars generally aren't around for all that long. Harry Potter is rare in being a recent multi-year play. Aside from Harry Potter, there have been a number of years where there are zero plays or one play running as of Labor Day."

I know it won the Tony, but IMO HP is less a play than a spectacle. The play itself is hopelessly uninteresting, though the packaging is outstanding, very rare for a ‘play.’

yyys said: "uhhh Phantom is the only one playing on Mondays?



inception said: "It will be interesting to see what grosses are like in next week's report.

Monay night I went to Phantom, and it seemed a full house. The lady next to me was French, and there were many Asians. Despite the threads claiming that "tourist" shows are full of poorly behaved audiences, my experience Monday was that everyone was in rapt attention & waited to applaud at appropriate moments. - unlike Into the Woods on Sunday with an audience of Locals.
"

Of course, one can argue strongly that that is brilliant work on the producer’s part…pretty much a guaranteed sellout for a show that opened 34 years ago in one of the largest Broadway theatres. Those Thursday performances are also very well attended.