Is Broadway A Dying Venture?

Now that the 05-06 season is over, I was looking over the show list on IBDB. Of the 39 shows to open, only 4 shows from the '05' part are still open (Sweeney, Jersey Boys, Odd Couple, and Color Purple). Other shows, like Caine Mutiny, are on the bring of closure. The only financial hits we've had this season are Sweeney Todd and Bridge & Tunnel (excluding 3 Days of Rain and Odd Couple). The highly anticipated shows, like Barefoot in the Park and Festen, were critical flops.

For every Sweeney Todd, there are 5 In My Lives and Rings of Fire.

What's coming up in our future? Musical versions of Catch Me If You Can, Cry Baby, High Fidelity, and Legally Blonde. Those are the only original musicals planned thus far for next season.

It's got to be cheaper to close a show than pay to keep the lights on.

Is Broadway a dying venture? Are star vehicles the only key to being successful? Will Broadway ever go back to the good old days?

Updated On: 5/12/06 at 10:11 PM

Sales have gone up, yes. But they're not for little shows like WELL. They're for the star vehicles.

Are star vehicles the only key to being successful?

Clearly not, if things like Sweeney, Jersey Boys etc are doing well -- if you're making comparisons to the likes of Julia Roberts, Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, I don't think I'd call Patti LuPone that kind of star.

---

No matter who's cast, will the population really want to see Legally Blonde the Musical? Shouldn't the critical (and soon to be financial) failures of Lestat and Wedding Singer be enough to stop them? One would think.

yeah but look at the success of Color Purple and Jersey Boys, they were both based off of prexisting storys/songs, and they're hugely successful. I don't think its the material in Wedding Singer's case (I loved it), but with Lestat, some things just don't need to be musicalized.

What population are you talking about? Tourists or serious, avid theatregoers? Surely if there's a huge star in it, someone's going to want to see it -- aren't you arguing that star vehicles *are* successful, even if they're not that great? Whether people will want to see it and whether "the world," meaning the state of the theatre, I assume, will benefit from it are two totally different things -- look at what shows are popular.

---

A work of art is an invitation to love.

Well, then generally speaking, probably not. Though I do think it's pretty obvious that the population of this board is too diverse to even be generalized that way. Plenty of people here care about stars, and like fluff; some even like it more than the "serious" stuff.

Say Tarzan DID close and retool, and suddenly became better. Would the nose-in-the-air theatre snobs still skip it because of what it is? I think it's fair to say they probably would. So, if the philosophy is that tourists at the like are going to see it anyway, why would they do that?

---

But everyone is going to see the big stars. Substancial shows like WELL (even though I detested it) and CAINE MUTINY are dying. Wouldn't they be smart to just not produce them at all?

Caine Mutiny has a big star; that doesn't work toward your point at all.

Wouldn't it make sense NOT to produce substantial shows? From a financial standpoint, but thank God producers don't have that philosophy; at least people are still trying to produce things of substance and aren't giving in to the commercial pressures.

---

Updated On: 5/12/06 at 10:46 PM

Then wouldn't that mean it's not the star alone that draws the crowds? I think it's a combination; yes, people want to see stars, but Three Days of Rain and The Odd Couple probably sound more appealing to many than does The Caine Mutiny. The stars are a factor, but they aren't *the* factor.

I'm confused, because you're using a lot of examples that seem to go completely against the point you're trying to make.

---

Updated On: 5/12/06 at 10:50 PM

Why bother? Because you care about producing something good? (And you have the backing to take that risk for the sake of producing good theatre.) Pretty simple.

---

And that was the answer I was looking for, Emcee.

In the case of Tarzan, during previews, do you think there could have been someone who could have said "This completely sucks, go back to the drawing board?" Would Disney have listened? Would Joe Brooks have listened if his anonymous backer said "wow, this is garbage?" I understand Broadway is about the dream of success and your name in lights, but could everyone involved really think these are good shows? Even the cast of Good Vibrations knew they were in a turkey.

Updated On: 5/12/06 at 10:59 PM

What a dumbfounded post.

Firstly, there are TONS of new shows slated to open next year.

Broadway is an ever-evolving business.

I am not gonna go in depth as I have stated what I believe many times before, but, bottom line, shows like Three Days of Rain, and Odd Couple, and even Color Purple some argue may not be "shows worthy of a house." But those are the shows that get people to Broadway. If a tourist couple who who never see a Broadway show got tix to The Color Purple cause Oprah told them to, and they walk by the TKTS booth and end up buying tix to another show, God Bless Them, and thank you Oprah.

Whether it is directly or indirectly, The Color Purple and even Three Days of Rain makes shows like Spelling Bee and Avenue Q and Drowsy Chaperone possible.

So what if there are a lot of flops in a season, makes the season interesting and memorable.