Broadway shows are becoming embarrassingly cheap-looking- Page 2

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 9:59pm

mememe said: "Anyone would think we’ve been through a global pandemic, and new production budgets reflect this."

And yet they are charging astronomical prices to pretty much anything. I get it. Many don’t care about sets. But fyi, many do, and many do not follow theatre as close as we do and will be extremely disappointed when they find out they paid $299 to see Jessica Chastain sitting in a chair on a bare stage for an entire show. 

[The Bittersweets]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 10:04pm

I fear there was a bit of cherry-picking in this article… Life Of Pi, Between Riverside and Crazy, and (speculation) the upcoming Here Lies Love all feel rather ‘large’ to me. Even the current production of Death Of A Salesman, which is arguably minimalist, still had a visually arresting set in my eyes. I feel Salesman is a perfect example of the difference between minimalism and ‘not trying’ in terms of set design. 

Even thinking about last season, we had Skin Of Our Teeth, Hangmen, Lehman’s rotating ‘ice cube’, the sprawling set pieces of Flying Over Sunset, American Buffalo’s clutter, and the working showers of Take Me Out. Quite a few of the above could be described as ‘minimalist’ productions in some capacity, and yet these shows were (rightfully) praised for their sets.

[Chase Miller]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:19pm

There was a time when new Broadway shows would open with gigantic sets and critics would knock the new musical for being "soul-less" and "Just about the design". Or "Pretty to look at but not much else going on". It seems to me that Broadway shows shy away from the "Garish big sets" these days because they get knocked for them sometimes. 

 

The article is accurate though. You don't see big sets anymore and with how expensive tickets are these days, you expect to see your money onstage. 

 

Some shows really have gone the cheap route. Recent ones off the top of my head are: Frozen, Camelot, Sweeney Todd, Funny Girl, Charlie and the Chocolate factory ( the sets in London were fantastic. The sets we got on Broadway were awful.)

Updated On: 3/22/23 at 11:19 PM

[DearTheodosia]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:28pm

Updated On: 3/22/23 at 11:28 PM

[DearTheodosia]

Posted: 3/22/23 at 11:31pm

Dolly80 said: "American set design, particularly on Broadway is often cheap looking, whether there is lots of scenery or not. - hello Pretty woman, Tootsie, anything by David Rockwell generally.


I do think that questioning high ticket prices when there is no set like Into the woods is completely valid, and it’s blatantly obvious that these shows that look cheap but have expensive tickets are just lining producers pockets.


how can you equate paying the same for Moulin Rouge as Into the Woods?"

 

Into the Woods boasted an incredible roster of Broadway stars and a wonderful orchestra. Comparing it to Moulin Rouge, which admittedly has a beautiful set and some great talent, as well, is apples and oranges. I was thrilled to pay for Into the Woods several times and will always remember it as the experience of a lifetime.

 

[chewy5000]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 5:03am

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Phyllis wore a red jumpsuit/pants in the original production which would seem too dated nowadays, hence a c****nay-colored gown."

Thank you SO MUCH for reminding me of this website's hilarious language filter!

[Impeach2017]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 9:22am

Why do people on here keep falling for the vitriol of the fascist press?  

[KKeller6]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 10:25am

On the other hand, if you want to make the argument that certain *producers* want to minimize scenic costs to the extreme, there's evidence of that."

Yes. This is exactly the argument I'm making. I believe, the article is as well. I don't think anyone is denying some shows are better sparse, and some plays can have a much more dramatic effect that way, and are necessary to the production.

     That's certainly fine. Does everyone remember a decade or so ago, when staircases were the big thing? Now it's chairs. And no backdrops. These are all just cost saving moves. They have nothing to do with the director's vision or artistic license, or anything like that. They're cheating the audience and charging full price. And they're getting it. Why should they go the extra mile?

 Take Come From Away for example. Very successful show. Good show. No sets. Probably wouldn't have run any longer, or made more money had they added this. But, they're in the coffee shop? They're sitting on chairs. They're in the plane. Sitting on the same chairs. At the Dover fault? Standing on the same chairs. No change in backdrop in any of these scenes. That's fine. I miss the time when the theater took you away. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 10:40am

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Though I'm not a great fan of David Rockwell's set designs, even I have to concede that his designs for SHE LOVES ME, ON THE 20TH CENTURY and THE NORMAL HEART were in fact superb."

Adding his delightful turntable for that great Roundabout YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU revival to that list.

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 12:19pm

She Loves Me was GORGEOUS. 

I'm also a huge fan of the set right now for Life of Pi...wow. wow wow 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 3/23/23 at 6:50pm

Agreed. Pi is a brilliant example of great design, but only what’s needed to perfectly serve the piece.