chernjam said: "OK - I've not seen Great Comet and wasn't planning on it during Grobans run, when Oak took over -and certainly not with Patinkin (had I really wanted to, I would've seen it with Groban)
Some thoughts or questions:
1 - I wonder how close/far away is GC from recouping? I'm assuming that during Grobans run they did good business (particularly at the start and end of his run) to cover the weekly nut and chipping away at the investment. If they are close to recouping, then this probably was good sense as it will help increase business till Patinkin takes over as Oak fans run to his defense, will bring a new audience who will rush to see Patinkin (which if that happens, and BO increases, he probably will be persuaded to extend his run). If they're not - then this was really, really stupid. They will have the costs of marketing, rehearsing, etc to add to the already existing debt and weekly costs. And how many people can they keep bringing in to make this new model work of limited actor-driven runs?
2 - I wonder if Oak has a few "sick days" coming up? If he was fired - and he's not talking... taking a day or two off for a whole host of mysterious illnesses will only add to the intrigue and be a way of saying how un happy he was with this situation
3 - Yeah this will generate some buzz and ticket sales, but it's not like Hugh Jackman or Jake Gyllenhall is coming in. Patinkin is known on Broadway - and yes TV - but I doubt he's going to be a substantial draw. Particularly since this seems like a bit of a niche type of show. It's fans adore it - and it has generated some buzz. But at least among my friends who saw it - most went for Groban and were happy to see him, but were somewhat mixed about the show in general.
No way of knowing until the stories come out after it closes, but I will bet that the show is nowhere near returning its investment. There are a few famous shows that lost significant portions of their investments because the producers didn't focus on determining how long the shows would have to run, non-discounted, to return their investment, given their extremely high operating costs. Ragtime has often been criticized as Drabinsky's folly because (this was before premium pricing), the combination of initial investment, weekly operating cost,and weekly potential gross could not be turned into a workable formula without lengthy sellout periods. I seem to remember that it would have had to sell-out for 2 years to have a shot; and, while it had a respectable run, it did not sell-out for two years, and the weekly nut was just too high to sustain a non-sell-out run involving lots of discounted tickets. That was also true of Follies. Follies should have run longer -- I remember reading shocked traditional news stories 45 years ago when the producers announced its closing, because that info was even less available than it is today. it was simply too expensive to run with non-sell-out audiences paying for too many discounted tickets. There was no margin for error.
I suspect that may be the case with TGC, although I have no facts. I know what I saw when I attended a performance. It was over the top...and that HAS to be expensive. On top of that, they were working at the Imperial Theatre, but not really. So many seats were removed that the gross potential was dramatically reduced. I was really surprised the first time I saw what their potential gross was, until I saw the number of seats being sold. Fast forward...it never reached the level in which it sold lots of really high-priced premium seats up until Josh was getting ready to leave, and was selling a lot of discounted tickets as well. With what I guess are extremely high operating costs -- again, don't know but it certainly feels that way -- I have to believe that it is going to be incredibly hard to reach break-even, given the size of the investment and weekly nut.
So, unless they are focused on trying to figure out how to really re-energize the box office (and Patinkin is not the answer for an extended run), I am betting that their most realistic assessment is figure out how they can keep it energized enough to reduce investment loss and extend its life (and along with it, employment to a decent number of very hard-working people).
