How long do you think Rent will stay on Broadway? Longer than Cats? — Page 2

RENT seems like a musical that's very specific to a certain type of people. Eventually, there will be such a small audience that it appeals to that it won't be able to support itself. And the people who do can only purchase so many tickets to keep the show running. Wicked is in the same situation. RENT will not run as long as Phantom or Cats or Les Mis, but it'll run for a decent amount of time.

---

>>Plus, the Ambassador hasn't had such a hit show in years!<<


Actually- The Ambassador Theatre had a 1000+ performance run of Bring in the Noise in the 1990's.

Using IBDB.com (and searching back past the 1970's) I can not find another show that ran anywhere near the same amount of time at the Nederlander before Rent moved in in 1996. The closest we get is 'Sherlocks Last Case' which ran for 124 performances in 1987.

The Ambassador is in a MUCH better location and shows feel much more intimate there than in the Nederlander, making it a much more sought after theatre for small scale musicals and plays.

The same can not be said of the Nederlander, it is the Southern most Broadway Theatre on 41st Street, and its size (1181 seats) makes it not a prime house. It is also badly in need for a renovation, so the Nederlander Organization is probably very happy to have the house occupied with a hit that has lasted 9+ years and will probably be able to pull out another 4 or 5 and which still grosses between $350-$450,000 a week, which if it is paying the rent (so to speak) and no other high profile show is banging down the door to get in, why not let it run as long as it can... If that is another 9 years, great...if it is only 4...great.

And for the record more people saw Rent last week (7963) than saw Chicago (7796). The percentage for Rent is lower because the Nederlander has 101 more seats than the Ambassador does, thus making the average percentage smaller.

And yes, Chicago had a higher Average Ticket Price, but I do believe Rent has the lower weekly production cost than Chicago does. (Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that).


that was long enough.

The title is somewhat insulting.

Oh God, if RENT ever becomes like Cats, you might as well shoot me.

The Ambassador has been open to more shows (that have had longer runs) recently than places like the Cort, the Lyceum, the Longacre....

I agree with you that The Ambassador is not a very good house, the seats ARE uncomfortable, there isn't much of a lobby...but in the comparison between the Ambassador and The Nederlander Theatres, most people (and producers) would give the edge to the Ambassador for its location alone, despite what the inside of the house is like. Obviously most people would prefer a show goes into a better play house (the Schoenfeld, the Jacobs, the Eugene O'Neil, the Brooks Atkinson, the Barrymore), but when those are all full, the Ambassador is not that different in size, seating capacity and location.

I have always wondered how successful or unsuccessful Chicago would have been had it stayed at the Richard Rodgers and not moved to the Shubert. And subsequently, if Chicago had stayed at the Shubert and not transferred up to the Ambassador, would it still have the life it it that it does now.

Yes, the movie would still have boosted sales, but even with the movie boost they were never really filling the Ambassador much past 97%-99% capacity, except in tourist heavy weeks, meaning that it would have been at 65-75% capacity at the 1450 seat Shubert.

Luckily for all involved the Shuberts helped finance the move up to the Ambassador so Chicago can run another couple of years and provide thousands of people a great night out at the theatre.

what a fun discussion. its my first time posting here (LOOOONG time reader), its nice to be able to discuss the real ins and outs of NY theatre with people who understand what i am talking about.

Rent will play another 18 months - 2 years on Broadway. Then it's done. Bring on the regional theatre productions.

I don't think RENT will reach Cats.

How Cats made it that long, I don't know. People are seriously deranged.

But anyways, RENT is a good show, but it's not one that the general public is going to go see. When you think of the tourists from the midwest, they're going to see something like Mamma Mia!, which is conservative and still entertaining (I guess.) RENT, on the other hand, as Aigoo said, attracts a very specific audience.

I think the movie's going to be good for the show, but again, I don't think it's going to surpass Cats... or Phantom, which is definitely going to become the longest running musical on Broadway.

RENT is in excellent shape, cast wise. The show's attendance is far from horrible. But I just cannot see it going past the mark of Cats. It's just too long. And there's going to be ear-piercing screams and sobs from the Nederlander and protests to "Save RENT" once it closes, but it will happen, inevitably. Like MB said, I think it has a couple of years left in itself. But we'll have to see.

---

The Nederlander does need some renovations, but truly the main reason the theatre was for many years not a desirable one was because of it's location. Even 10 years ago 41st Street right by Port Authority was one of the last remaining dive spots of the old Times Square. That, has, of course changed.

I'm sure when RENT vacates, they won't have trouble finding another tenant. It's not a bad theatre at all.

EDIT -- Yes, I have been reading the threads, and with respect to the other posters, as a knowledgable theatre professional, it's my opinion RENT will not play 4-5 more years on Broadway. It will live on in regional productions though, so don't worry. If anything you'll just be able to see it more often.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 11:56 AM

Well, cats lasted so long people everyone could relate to it, but Rent will probably close in a few years to months, even with the movie. It will just be a dated show.