LV Trims Avenue Q- Page 2

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:35pm

They're desperate to make that show work over there, plain and simple. It's doing horribly. They barely fill up the orchestra and they've closed the mezzanine entirely to sales. I think it could be a lot worse.

[mominator]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:43pm

"Life Outside Your Apartment" really is a NYC song, so maybe it would not work for a LV crowd.

[MrBundles]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:46pm

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the people of Las Vegas. It's about the casinos and where they want you to spend your money. Audiences LOVE the show, and they have no problem with the running time...it is the casino exacutives..Kevin McCullom is very influenced by them, and the simple fact is....who wants to see a show at 6:30....regular times would be better.

Updated On: 1/19/06 at 08:46 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:51pm

I just don't understand how this happened? Didn't somebody associated with the masterpiece come on here and report that the show in Vegas was not I repeat not in trouble? And everybody believed him, although I suggested giving out free pizza to fill all those empty seats. And now THIS? HOW?

As an aside, when the show closes in Vegas at a loss will they be free to tour it?

[MrBundles]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:55pm

"The show had already lacked an intemission."

They got this one wrong here. Last time I saw the show in Vegas, there was a little 15 minute break between acts.

..maybe it was just my imagination.

[Corine2]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:57pm

Pizza Monster,
I request the pizzamonster icon in pink.
WE REQUEST THE PIZZA MONSTER ICON.
(Pizza Pizza)

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 9:01pm

Nope the had an intermission (or to the non theatre people: time to get more booze)

[Hairspraydoll]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 10:15pm

They definitely had an intermission. And it is all about the casinos not the audiences. Both times I went it was sold out.

6:30 is not a good time to see a show in Vegas. I'm glad they are changing it.

[mlsheehan]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 10:51pm

I believe they took the intermission out a week or so ago to try that without the cuts.

I guess an hour and 45 minutes is too long to be away from the slots. I certainly know that's the way I feel in Vegas.

[MrBundles]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 10:54pm

that makes sense. I saw it a little over a week ago. I will have to talk to one of my friends who work for the show.

One of my favorite parts is the video that introduces the intermission! hehe now im sad

[gustof777]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 1:21am

i saw it at christmas and it was the full show...hey lets not rip on the show...i thought it was an amazing production and my vegas crowd loved it and went wild. I think that the talent on the stage rivals the broadway version and was very impressed.

[ken8631]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 9:33am

Well, I live 15 min from NYC and go to Vegas a lot. I won't see the show in Vegas since I saw it here, but I have heard that it's just not doing well there and they are doing what they can to keep it open for the Vegas audience. It's a shame though that it's not it's full version for all to appreciate. Broadway is still the best!!!!

I'll go see Blue Man Group in NYC before seeing it in Vegas too...

[Barihunk]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 1:50pm

I second gustof... I saw the show back in early December and it was terrific. The orchestra section was full, the performances were top-notch (Tonya Dixon!)... the audience loved it. I enjoyed it as much if not more than when I saw it in NYC. As for the 6:30pm curtain... I loved it... allowed us to have a great 9pm at Daniel Boulod's restaurant at the Wynn. It was a great night out... shame they couldn't make it work, which is not a reflection on the show as much as it is on the Vegas clientele.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 3:56pm

"As an aside, when the show closes in Vegas at a loss will they be free to tour it?"

Yes, but I doubt it will. First, from what I know, some tour presenters wanted a few changes to be able to sell the show to audiences. Second, after the huge scandal after it won the Tony, I'm sure a lot of presenters will refuse to book it, especially since by the time it tours there will be more recent shows people will want to see. Especially with shows like Tarzan, Mary Poppins, and The Wedding Singer about to open. Who's going to even remember Avenue Q by then?

[MrBundles]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 3:59pm

http://www.broadway.com/Gen/Buzz_Story.aspx?ci=524109

[downtoearth]

Posted: 1/21/06 at 12:19am

What everyone here is forgetting is that Las Vegas--not the people living there, but the concept of "Vegas"--is not a bastion of art. New York will always be the American capital of art. Vegas, its casinos, and everything to do with it is designed to make money. They don't make money from ticket sales. Casinos make money when people gamble. The only reason casinos have shows is to draw people into their building. If someone has a good reason to enter my casino (say, to see a show), they will probably stay for some food and they will probably play some blackjack or slot machines too.

HOWEVER. If a show is two hours long, those customers aren't out there gambling. They are watching a show. The shorter a show, the more time they have to go and gamble. One hour to 90 minutes is the optimal length for a show because the audience still feels like they're getting something for their money, but it's short enough that they have more time to spend on the casino floor. NOTHING in Las Vegas is about art. Everything is designed with the intention of attracting more people to gamble. If attracting people today was as easy as it was in the 1950s through the 1980s, casinos wouldn't even have shows.

Next, the authors are not selling out. They have their original vision playing in New York, where it matters. Film is art too. By your logic, having movies play on network tv is selling out. After all, a two hour movie is cut to 1:15 so it fits in 2 hours with commercials. Believe me, these cuts are more disastrous to the film than cutting a few songs is to a stage musical. Either way, a show that makes money for the casino will in turn make money for the authors. And face it, they need to feed their families. As much as we'd like to downplay the importance of money in our society, money is a very important thing. Money can get you anything you want except for good health and love (and even those, to some extent, can be gotten with money). As long as the authors have their original playing in New York, the Las Vegas thing is just a side-venture to make some more money. They are lucky to have the opportunity to make more money with their musical.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/21/06 at 12:30am

"Next, the authors are not selling out."

Yes, they are. It's all about money. They obviously don't care about the integrity of their work. They partly agreed to the Vegas sit-down because they wouldn't have to trim the show. They should have closed in Vegas and toured instead. Now they are just selling out. Artists, generally speaking, want their work to be seen. The creators of Avenue Q have become arogant in saying that "Avenue Q doesn't come to you, you come to Avenue Q." While very funny and relevant to people my age, the show isn't THAT good. They should have toured. Or at the very least opened smaller companies in cities like Chicago, LA and San Francisco...which have small theatres that can accommodate the show. But they sold out to Vegas. I mean, yes it's true that Next, the authors are not selling out.egas is a large tourist destination (but it's not the largest at all), but only a small percentage will even see Avenue Q. Personally, I think it's the two shows a night that's the problem. They really shouldn't have double cast the show.

[downtoearth]

Posted: 1/21/06 at 1:44am

Selling out would imply a Las Vegas producer approaching the authors with a "money-making" scheme to write a new musical. In this case, the LV producers have taken a good work, and said "this can make us some money." The authors are making some side money--more money than they would have ever made in a NYC staging by allowing this. This allows them, also, to write new material for the Broadway or Off Broadway stage without thinking about the money that THEY need to make to survive. When GOOD writers can do things that will make them money, it is good, because it allows them to try new things without thinking about the money.

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/21/06 at 4:31am

hmmmmmm this is true. When I went to see avenue q I ate at the wynn!

[Horton]

Posted: 1/21/06 at 9:33am

Personally, I have never seen Q in Vegas so I don’t know how much my opinion should count, but I saw and loved it in New York. I think the main problem with it in Vegas is that it is playing at the HUGE Wynn Theater. One of the great things about it on Broadway is that the house is small enough that you really feel so involved in the action; btw this is one of my problems with Wicked. So I think it will be much more successful if they move it to a smaller house, I also think that they should follow spelling bee, and instead of having tours in huge houses across America, open a series of productions in small houses, because the show just works so much better that way.

[Popular]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 10:29am

I haven't read most of this thread yet but just wanted to add that I saw it yesterday. There was no intermission, the show was still enjoyable even with the cuts, and if you want to get in 2 for 1 get a local to buy your ticket for you cause they get a deal!

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 10:43am

"Selling out would imply a Las Vegas producer approaching the authors with a "money-making" scheme to write a new musical."

No. selling out is trading your artistic integrity for money. By trimming the show, there reason for agreeing to go to Vegas, they have put the almighty dollar ahead of the show's artistic merit.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 12:06pm

Better to cut the songs than close the show.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 1/23/06 at 1:34pm

how come a trimmed hairspray is fine, but trimming this is a sin? Moving "fine, fine, line" back to the "i wish i could go back to college" spot, its now the 11 o'clock number, leaving it as the act one closer in a now intermissionless show loses something. Also "there is life outside your apartment" makes no sense outside of new york, i'm sure for london it will be altered radically (just like gary coleman is being) so it makes sense to them.

Posted: 1/23/06 at 2:00pm

Gary coleman is being altered for London?

Makes sense, but what are they doing? Cutting out some of the gags, or a whole new character entirely?

At one point they actually wanted Gary Coleman to do the part. If he did, imagine having to constantly find old child actors when he left?