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

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 6:50pm

EVERYTHING. You can compare recent grosses on this site.

BSO. I've got facts to back up my statement.

I think everything in this thread needs a lesson on FRAN & BARRY WEISSLER.

They kept WONDERFUL TOWN open for over a year, and the shows attendance was in the 50's and 60's most of the time. These two try to milk every last cent out of their show. And they will with CHICAGO, it was/is the production of their career as producers. It's their gem. 6 Tonys, 5 Drama Desk Awards, 5 Outer Critics Circle Awards, 2 Oliver Awards, It's also the longest running revival in HISTORY - this is definitely their gem.

These two also know how to stunt cast. Even with a mediocre talent like Melanie Griffith in the show - she brought up the grosses. They know what they are doing.

I see several years left for this show. Plus, the Ambassador hasn't had such a hit show in years! They don't want to lose CHICAGO. So with Fran & Barry producing this show has quite some time left, and it deserves it.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 6:53pm

LJAY - I was agreeing with you that Chicago will last longer.

EVERYTHINGisRENT said that she likes RENT better, so it'll last longer.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 6:54pm

But just because the Weisslers have the money to keep things running doesn't mean their productions deserve it. I liked Wonderful Town a lot, don't get me wrong, but the a lot of the shows the produce thrive on star power. Power, not necessarily with the right talents. You can say they know what they're doing financially, and use Melanie Griffith to back up your statement. But in a case such as that, they certainly don't know what they're doing artistically or theatrically. Putting Melanie in that show was basically integrity suicide, in terms of anything but box office draw. They know how to stunt cast for money, but that doesn't mean they know how to stunt cast well, in my eyes.

Updated On: 8/7/05 at 06:54 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:20pm

BSO. Woops, sorry. anyway, that whole rant wasn't directed to you. It's just people don't understand - when you got money hungry producers like Fran & Barry, they are bound to keep a show running as long as they want.

And Em, yes, Griffith was not a good choice for stunt cast. But look at all the good stars they did cast in the show..

-Paige Davis
-Wayne Brady
-Marilu Henner
-Jasmine Guy
-Chris Mcdonald


There is so many, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

and they got Brooke Shields, Huey Lewis, and possibly John O'hurley coming. And they are all very talented.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:21pm

Then again, look at Rent's stunt casting...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:22pm

But for each good one, I'm willing to bet there were two bad ones. I'm not saying that RENT has done a flaw-free job of stunt-casting either, by any means, but the quality of the casting shouldn't be purely measured on the monetary gain.

Updated On: 8/7/05 at 07:22 PM

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:26pm

Oh, no.

Some shows need stunt casting - and stunt casting isn't always bad.

If you can find a name with talent - say Wayne Brady - it could improve the show and attract people.

But anyway - I think Chicago is much more of a tourist attraction. But look what the movie did for it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:28pm

Well, look at Hugh Jackman. It's certainly do-able, but more often than not, it's a bit of a train wreck.

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:31pm

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.

[Cages or Wings]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 7:57pm

I had a long response (Bullet points even) but alas my computer sucks.

The bottom line is that neither the producers of Rent nor of Chicago have anything to lose with these shows. Both have long since recouped and continue to bring in money. They will both milk these shows for all they're worth that is not exclusive to the Weisslers. But Rent has a big advantage in that the Nederlander (as much as I love it and find it charming) is a **** hole. Which works because its Rent and its "about poor people", but if another show were to be put in there the theater would need a large renovation. Such a project would be very expensive and not nearly as attractive as stunt casting a show to milk it past its earning prime.

p.s. That said 18 year mark is out of the question. Won't happen

edited to aswer original question and fix a horrible spelling error.
Updated On: 8/7/05 at 07:57 PM

[emerald monkey]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 8:54pm

>>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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 10:44pm

Actually the Ambassador is a Theatre that producers try to stay far AWAY from.

If you've been in it - It's not a very nice theatre. It dosen't really have a lobby, the sidelines are horrible, and the seats are uncomfortable with barely any leg room. The Theatre is in a good location, but producers consider it like the "death house" for a production.

But anyway CHICAGO opened in the Richard Rodgers, and had a very healthy run in the Shubert - before coming to the Ambassdor.

[almostxfamous]

Posted: 8/7/05 at 11:40pm

The title is somewhat insulting.

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

[Swiftynifty15]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:22am

I will change the title.

[emerald monkey]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:48am

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.

[ashley0139]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 8:25am

Ok, I'm gonna kind of play devil's advocate here.

First of all, I love RENT. I think it's a great show with an amazing story and message. Didn't like Cats so much, but I was eight and it was my first Broadway show. Maybe it was the lyrics that went: Jellicles can and Jellicles do jellicles can and jellicles do, etc. (Then again RENT has: rent rent rent rent rent. we're not gonna pay RENT. Cause everything is RENT.) Alright, so those are my biases straight up.

RENT is becoming dated. That's true. The East Village is very different, the whole structure of the AIDS medicines are different. It's all true. And maybe some people don't want to see it because of that.

But (and this is where I play a little devil's advocate), who's never seen a period piece? Just because the way they do things isn't how we do it today, the themes of love, friendship, survival, etc live on. Are any shows completely up to date and change with the years and advances of medicine and everything? Just because it's dated doesn't mean the subject matter isn't still relevant. So while some may not see the show for that reason, I know I will not stop seeing the show because how they portray the East Village isn't completely accurate. I know I'm not going to go see a show to see if the AIDS medicines are up to date. You're not supposed to focus on that, you're supposed to focus on the themes of love, etc.

Overall, I would like to see RENT pass Cats, but I don't actually think it will. And come on, who can predict that now? It still has to double it's life span of now to even compete. That's too long to predict.

Just my 2 cents.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:46am

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

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:58am

that's a weird thing to say with the movie coming out and all, but, to each his own.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 09:58 AM

[leon1489]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 10:03am

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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:39am

If the movie of RENT hadn't been in the works, I think the show would probably have closed by the end of 2005. I think 18 months - 2 years is significant interest based on the film. The show will be as dated as HAIR by 2007.

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:46am

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.

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:54am

Michael, haven't you been reading this thread? RENT has a good 4-5 years left, and it would definetely not close even without the movie.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:56am

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

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:25pm

I don't think RENT will outlast Cats (Phantom) because it is less accesible generally ie. not tourist/family friendly.

Chicago is another story as well, I find the Ambassador to be the most deplorable theatre in which I have seen a show, and the production was devoid of any life when I saw it in April. I can see it lasting, but although I love Chicago this production's time, for me, has passed.

Rent has something I think has been missed in the posts, it relates the timeless alienation of YOUTH, along with the pain of Death. It will always be relevant to those who find those themes relevant, yes like Chicago's dealing with Fame and Press. The audience for Rent keeps growing into it, and out of it. But today it has very little to do with the East Village or the Early 90's (late 80's) that that time is gone does not effect the feelings a 17 year old has when they hear "no day but today"
With that and a film, and the low cost of production the show almost certainly can pull a few more years.

[Broadway_Bound_Star]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:41pm

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.