If _____ would have played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer.- Page 2
If _____ would have played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer.
WiCkEDrOcKS
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/13/04
#25re: If _____ would have played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longe
Posted: 3/11/09 at 8:00am
If almost ANY show would have played the Circle in the Square it would have lasted longer than it did at any other theater. Ditto to the Helen Hayes. They're very small theaters.
I agree about YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN in any other theater to be quite honest...it didn't need to be as big and over-the-top as it was and it could have been a big hit in a smaller theater.
Yankeefan007
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
#26re: If _____ would have played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longe
Posted: 3/11/09 at 9:09am
"If Tale of Two Cities had played the Hilton, it would have run longer, and here's why:
The show originally had large, grand design plans, which made it a truly epic piece of musical theatre. Making all of those designs as minimal as possible, in my opinion, was like telling the creators their show wasn't important enough. If they felt important about themselves, made their best effort to fix their mistakes, who knows, it may have infact run longer. Also, getting bigger names and more advertising would have helped tremendously."
Boy, you just don't have any concept of money, do you?
TheCharleston
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/18/08
#27mie mahmy sayz i is smaert
Posted: 3/11/09 at 9:30am
This thread is valid proof of how mentally-challenged many of the posters, on here, are.
I fail to find any shred of thoughtful intelligence in the majority of these suggestions and/or ideas.
TALE? [TOS]? LEGALLY? 13 (wishingwound's idea... soo expected) ????? The shows being mentioned were mostly terrible in both material and execution/production value. These shows clearly didn't belong on Broadway.
What the f*ck are you all smoking and where can I get it?
#28mie mahmy sayz i is smaert
Posted: 3/11/09 at 10:24am
Sorry but i have to agree with LB
The show was playing most weeks to more people than other shows, it was just the fact that the theatre was so damn big.
The show got mainly positive reviews and had a lot of fans, yet sticking it in that barn doomed it, they should have taken the smaller theatre when they had the chance.
I do agree with Charleston that shows like Title Of Show, Tale Of Two Cities and 13 were never going to have long runs.
#29mie mahmy sayz i is smaert
Posted: 3/11/09 at 10:59amI'm waiting to hear Charles Nelson Reilly's and Richard Dawson's answers.
KingKong
Broadway Star Joined: 2/28/09
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#31mie mahmy sayz i is smaert
Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:37pm
Taboo would have lasted longer at a different venue and if they had kept the show in its UK form....
Passing Strange at Circle in the Square....Eugene O'Neill, Barrymore....
#32mie mahmy sayz i is smaert
Posted: 3/11/09 at 12:46pm
Im just wondering (slightly off topic) but it seems that shows in London transfer from one theatre to another much easier than Broadway (where it hardly happens) Im just wondering if there is a reason for that, or is it just my imagination.
Broadway had Chicago, Lion King, Beauty and August. and they seemed to transfer just once. But in London you have shows like Buddy and Fame that seem to be hopping around all the time over the past 10 years.
#33RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/11/09 at 2:20pmIf A YEAR WITH FROG AND TOAD had stayed in an off-broadway house with off-broadway prices it would have lasted longer.
#34RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/11/09 at 3:29pm
"Sorry but i have to agree with LB
The show was playing most weeks to more people than other shows, it was just the fact that the theatre was so damn big.
The show got mainly positive reviews and had a lot of fans, yet sticking it in that barn doomed it, they should have taken the smaller theatre when they had the chance."
This would only make sense if being in a smaller theatre significantly lowered the running costs. But it generally doesn't. In a smaller theatre, they might have been able to use a smaller orchestra, but would they have wanted to go much smaller? Anyway, three or four fewer musicians doesn't make a huge difference to running costs.
I believe that most rental contracts on Broadway are still based on percentage of gross, though usually there's a minimum. I don't think if LB had been in a smaller theatre, it would have made very much difference at all to how long it ran. I certainly don't see why it would have.
Generally, the only real advantages to being in a smaller theatre are fewer empty seats if you're not a big hit (lots of empty seats always looks bad and may affect the audience's perception of the show — "This must be a flop!" — and consequent enjoyment) and that it's easier to sell out. For the latter case, though I'm not sure this is still such a factor, the "herd mentality" takes over among theatregoers. If a show is impossible to get tickets for, it must be a hit, it must be good, you gotta see it.
But one thing being in a smaller theatre doesn't generally do is greatly reduce the running costs, especially for a big musical. LB was an expensive show to run and it would have been just about as expensive in a smaller theatre. Too many weeks it wasn't bringing in enough people, it wasn't grossing enough.
If anything, being in a smaller theatre might have hurt it because it wouldn't have been able to sell as many tickets on weekends during good weeks. Thus, it might have made smaller profits during good weeks, leaving it less of a cushion to cover it during bad weeks (and, of course, reducing the percentage of production costs that would have been returned when it closed).
If it had a smaller cast, much simpler sets, smaller orchestra, and so on, that would have reduced running costs some. But would people have liked the show as much as they did (those who liked it) if the production values had been lowered? In a smaller theatre with comparable production values, the running costs would not have been greatly reduced.
johnnyg
Understudy Joined: 7/30/07
#35RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/11/09 at 10:13pm
actually Song and Dance Man,
Tale of Two Cities, despite the bad reviews and no advance, was still selling more tickets and making more money on a weekly basis than several other shows that are/were considered successful. And most weeks they sold more tickets than a Best Musical winner or two (or three) and a Pulitzer Prize winning Best Play. The bottom line for Tale was just that - the bottom line. The costs to run the show each week were too high. Unfortunately the reviews and other factors conspired to give the false appearance that the show was not liked or even loved by the majority of its audience - hence the quick closing. But the sad truth is they could not afford to continue running the show at a loss in order to build an audience and word of mouth (which was actually excellent among average (i.e.non-industry) ticket buyers. So It had little or nothing to do with the size of the theater or even the size of the audience - primarily the one insurmountable problem was the size of the show.
#36RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:34pm
But, johnnyg, I think (or hope) that we all know that. (I'm not sure why you're responding specifically to songanddanceman2. I don't see what in his posts prompted your specific response.)
Of course, big shows have to bring in bigger audiences than small shows or they close.
And musicals generally have to bring in bigger audiences than plays.
The highest gross for A Tale of Two Cities any week during its run was 462K. The next to last week was 303K. The last week, when the gross might have been expected to go up substantially, it only went up to $334K. That would be a bad gross even for a small musical. Only the very smallest can get away with many weeks like that. SA, for example, had a few weeks near the end of its run when its gross was 303K or lower (not counting preview weeks).
johnnyg
Understudy Joined: 7/30/07
#37RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/11/09 at 11:49pm
i was responding to Song and Dance saying Legally Blonde was playing to more people than other shows even though they weren't grossing enough to run - because he then somehow sought to contrast A Tale of Two Cities saying it wouldn't have run no matter what. And I'm saying it could have run with a smaller cast, orchestra and production costs. I was pointing out that it was actually similar to Legally Blonde in that regard. That's alls I'm saying.
Tale didn't get a big bump in their sales because they were doing absolutely no advertising at the end and because they decided to close on the Friday before the Sunday they closed. There was no time. You can't sell tix without advertising and there was no money for advertising. There were no NYTimes "last week" ads or anything. only hard core theater people were aware it was closing.
WishingOnlyWounds2
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/25/08
#38RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/12/09 at 12:09amI didn't say '13' was going to be a hit at the Helen Hayes, but it would have lasted longer.
TheCharleston
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/18/08
#39RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/12/09 at 12:12amThat terrible mess? There's no way.
WishingOnlyWounds2
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/25/08
#40RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/12/09 at 12:16am
That's your opinion.
But, more than 600 seats were filled at the Jacobs for more than 50% of the performances.
#41RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/12/09 at 1:49am
Thanks, johnnyg. I forgot that Tale only announced its closing at the very last minute.
"But, more than 600 seats were filled at the Jacobs for more than 50% of the performances."
That may be true, but it was under 50 percent of capacity for seven of its sixteen weeks at the Jacobs. It was at 60 percent or above only three weeks (and one of those was 60.2%). I have no opinion on the quality of the show, but people simply weren't going to see in anything like necessary numbers. About that, there's no question.
TheCharleston
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/18/08
#42RE: If _____ had played the _____ theatre it would have lasted longer
Posted: 3/12/09 at 10:08amThat is because it was one of the worst shows to grace the Broadway stage.
Videos