Is Broadway A Dying Venture?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:11pm

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

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:14pm

Of course not. Big musicals like Color Purple take months, years even, to recoup. You can't expect Jersey Boys and Color Purple to recoup in a single season. Also, the producers know they can make a lot of money through touring, so they'll be fine. I don't think Broadway is dying at all. Shows are begging to get into the Broadway houses. There haven't really been any cases where a Broadway house has gone dark for too long. Isn't it like the best Broadway season? Like, hasn't Broadway gone up, in terms of sells since last season?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:14pm

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

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:19pm

Well, Wicked, Lion King, Color Purple, Jersey Boys, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Hairspray, are all doing great business and I wouldn't really call any of them 'star vechiles.'

And some shows just aren't made for Broadway houses. A Broadway house is rather large and some shows just get swallowed up in them. Not to say it isn't worth of the Broadway recognition and all that stuff that comes with having your show on Broadway, but some shows are better off in smaller intimate spaces.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:19pm

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.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:20pm

Good old days? Last year was the strongest year in Broadway history! Just beacuse musicals are evolving doesn't mean they are becoming any less successful. It was a weak season. It happens. Every Tony nominee from last June is still running strong. Is that a dying venture to you? Broadway is coming back stronger than ever.

Updated On: 5/12/06 at 10:20 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:23pm

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.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:23pm

I think the style of musicals and the way Broadway runs is changing, which might frigthen some people. Every new musical this season (excluding Drowsy) was based off of something, but I people don't realize that an idea has to come from somewhere. Every show is based off of something whether it be something totally obscure like Sweeney or a popular film like Wedding Singer.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:25pm

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.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:25pm

That's exactly what I mean. Will the world benefit from a musicalized version of Elle Woods?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:27pm

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.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:36pm

Emcee, I'm talking the people on this board, who see all of the shows playing and come back with scating reviews of most. Of course the tourist population is going to see something familiar or a star vehicle, which the people here could care less about.

I keep thinking....would a show like TARZAN benefit from closure to retool? Rather than having the show dwindle down to no audience (virtually all of the tickets from the new block are still available), shouldn't they just close it now, save the electric bills, do a complete overhaul of the entire thing and produce it again in a year or two? They're Disney - they have the money to do that.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:39pm

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?

[Piazzaslight]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:41pm

I agree that a show doesn't need a big star to sell it. I mean, look at DOUBT. It was a somewhat obscure show that got postive reviews, good word of mouth, Tony Awards, and had no big stars in it, and it recouped after 15 weeks.

And just because a show has a star in it doesn't necesscarily mean that it will be a hit (Christina Applegate in SWEET CHARITY, anyone?). I believe a show can be a hit no matter what, whether it has a big star in it or not. I mean, WICKED had a little star appeal emanating from Kristen Chenowith, but that was pretty much it. And it also had a familiar background story, spectacular sets and an interesting plot, and look what happened to that. You see, I shows don't need to have stars in them to be hits. Just good word of mouth. That's the most powerful thing in theatre success.

Updated On: 5/12/06 at 10:41 PM

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:43pm

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?

[zepka102]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:45pm

yes emcee, they WOULD turn their noses up to it cuz it's Disney.... duh

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:46pm

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

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:48pm

David Schwimmer isn't a big star. He's a recognizable name, but nobody's going to see the show for him. Nobody's going to see the show, period. Caine wouldn't be on the brink of closure (it was granted a week's stay of execution, I heard from a friend) if Schwimmer were a big star.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:50pm

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

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:54pm

My overall question is this: What happened to the Broadway that embraces new things? A show like WELL could survive, if it were in a smaller house. A show like THREE DAYS OF RAIN would never survive without a star, given that nobody knows the plot or have even heard of "the play Julia's in."

Why bother producing a show, any show, knowing that the most common result is failure?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:55pm

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.

[LouW95]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:58pm

Just go to the 1940s, 50s or 60s Broadway listings in any newspaper and count how many musicals and dramas were on Bway during one season. It wasnt even close to the small number we have today. There are fewer shows but the theatre grosses are quoted as record breaking due to the higher ticket prices. As far as quantity and quality, I dont think anyone can say that the theatre is doing better now than in past decades.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:59pm

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

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 10:59pm

Anything COULD happen, but you have to pose the same question of "why bother?" You're looking at the "why bother" in a completely different way, but it's the same concept. In this case, it's just that it's not necessary for what they're dealing with.

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

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 5/12/06 at 11:49pm

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.