Fantasticks vs The Phantom

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 8:59am

I got to thinking this morning as The Fantasticks put out the PR on their new people. . .do we think that The Phantom of the Opera will out run The Fantasticks?

[Weez]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 9:36am

Probably. 'The Fantasticks' ran for 42 (sorry, don't know where 36 came from) years non-stop, right? Then it started closing and opening and closing and opening (or something), and that has to count against its continuous run. POTO is still selling, and ALW is only 60; I doubt he'll let anyone close it while he's around to say anything about it, and there's always people willing to see it. It's a sad thought, but I can see POTO making it to the 42 mark. Although I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

It'd be nice if there was some kind of interntaionally agreed cut-off date for shows. I don't mind 'The Mousetrap' running forever because it's a total tourist attraction despite not being stunning theatre, and I'd be happy to see 'The Woman In Black' run forever, but I don't like the idea of 'Les Mis' running forever in the West End just because Cameron Mackintosh doesn't want to lose the long-runner-musical crown, or POTO running forever in the West End on the offchance Mackintosh does one day close 'Les Mis', thus giving it the chance to overtake. I like how 'Cats' closed on its 21st birthday. Classily done. More shows should do stuff like that.

Updated On: 7/22/08 at 09:36 AM

[sparrman]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 9:50am

The Fantasticks ran for almost 42 years at the Sullivan Street Playhouse, amassing a total of 17,162 performances. That's the official record. Whether you look at years or number of performances, Phantom isn't halfway there yet. And of course it's a MUCH more expensive show to keep open.

Not saying it won't happen... but it'll be 2030 before we know.

Updated On: 7/22/08 at 09:50 AM

[sparrman]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 10:21am

I wonder if anyone has ever been quite so obsessive on this point... but I did a little math about The Fantasticks' run. Using an online "number of days" calculator that I'm going to assume is accurate, The Fantasticks ran 15,231 days. Divide that by 7, and you get about 2176 weeks. Multiply that by 8 (shows a week), and you get 17,408 shows. That's 246 shows more than the "official" number, 17,162. And that's more than half a year's worth of shows they didn't do. Spread that out over the run, and that's about 6 shows per year.

Maybe that's normal, and I don't know what the rules are to keep a show's run "continuous" (or if there even are "rules"). Can't a Broadway show go dark for a week while it switches theatres, without it technically closing? Of course The Fantasticks can't use that excuse... but there's an interesting (to me, at least!) disparity between the length of run and the number of shows.



Updated On: 7/22/08 at 10:21 AM

[jewishboy]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 10:38am

"I figured it out
With a pencil and a pad I figured it out!
Seven and a half cents doesn't buy a hell of a lot,
Seven and a half cents doesn't mean a thing!
But give it to me every hour,
Forty hours every week,
And that's enough for me to be living like a king!..."
(The Pajama Game) Updated On: 7/22/08 at 10:38 AM

[Jon]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 11:39am

Of course, it's all irrelevant, since the Sullivan Theatre had 120 seats, meaning it would take roughly 13 performances of Fantasticks to eaqual the audience of one performance of POTO.

[sparrman]

Posted: 7/22/08 at 12:07pm

I wouldn't say it's "irrelevant" exactly, but that's another way to look at it.

The two shows are/were operating on completely different economic models. The Fantasticks ran Off-Broadway, was cheaper to operate, had lower ticket prices, and a smaller capacity house. But 42 years is an amazing run on any scale, and if Phantom should run as long, I don't think it will be an achievement 13 times as impressive.