Moving Theatres?

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 2:01am

I'm just wondering why it seems like nowadays, not too many shows move theatres.
If you look at some of the great musicals of the past, they moved theatres once, or twice. Was it because of money, or space?

Example:
Bye Bye Birdie:Martin Beck Theatre, (4/14/1960 - 10/22/1960)
54th Street Theatre, (10/24/1960 - 1/14/1961)
Shubert Theatre, (1/16/1961 - 10/7/1961)

My Fair Lady:Mark Hellinger Theatre, (3/15/1956 - 2/24/1962)
Broadhurst Theatre, (2/28/1962 - 4/14/1962)
Broadway Theatre, (4/18/1962 - 9/29/1962)

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 2:10am

I'm thinking that it's cost. Nowadays shows are often designed to fit the particular theatre they are in. Moving would have the regular cost of moving on top of having to redesign the sets.

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 2:27am

Would that then mean that the sets from the earlier shows were designed to move if needed?

I remember there was an article in the Playbills in July 2007 talking to a man who was a set builder, and he said that when they were building the set for 42nd Street when it moved from the Winter Garden to the Majestic, they built a totally new set so that the show could close at the WG on sunday, and open at the M on tuesday...

Oh, if you didn't know, the producer who wanted the sets built/moved the show was David Merrick...I know he was a mean, and cruel man, but the stuff he gave to Broadway. He was a smart man, crazy, but smart and I do admire him.

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 2:31am

It was easier for shows to move when the physical productions were made up of backdrops, wagons and a couple of set pieces, rather than the more physically complicated sets these days.

Shows moved for any number of reasons - the theatre was promised to another producer or production, a show nearing the end of its shelf life moving to a less desirable theatre or a show trying to move to a better theatre.

My Fair Lady spent most of its run at the Hellinger - almost six years, and then its final six months at the Broadhurst and Broadway. No idea how it could have fit into the snug Broadhurst, but it sure didn't stay long there,

It's a little more odd with Birdie. The Martin Beck (now the Hirschfeld) has always had the stigma of being on the wrong side of Eighth Avenue, but still, it was a better theatre than the 54th Street, which had a rep as the home of flop musicals and where old musicals went to die. Seems they wanted to get to the Shubert and probably had to wait for Take Me Along (the Shubert's previous tenant) to close.

Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 2:34am

I wouldn't say "designed to move" but shows now are built on a gargantuan scale. Because of the size they have to fit the theatre they are in like a glove. Older shows didn't have as complex sets with automation & flys so they could move much easier. Not to mention that the producers of the show leaving the theatre have to restore the theatre to its state when it arrived.

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 8:07am

How come it seems that shows in London tent to move alot easier?

There have been some over the years that keep hopping around.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27199361@N08/ Phantom at the Royal Empire Theatre

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 8:53am

Both August and 39 Steps have moved theaters. That's pretty recent.

Lion King moved as well...but that's some time ago now.

Since the only reason I can think of that makes sense for a show to move is to SAVE money, I think it's hard to rationalize SPENDING money to either physically move a set (I'm guessing IATSE rules would charge the same as moving in a set the initial time) as well as the costs that incur to make necessary design revisions.

It's all about the $.

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 9:04am

the coolest thing about August's move was definitely seeing the two marquees right next to each other.

Chicago has been in three theaters since it opened, but I'd imagine that's a fairly easy show to move.

When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain. -Kad

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 9:15am

Musicals in London rarely move theatres. A few plays tend to hop around- 'The Woman In Black' is now in her 4th West End home.
The revival of 'Chicago' has had two homes, the Adelphi and now The Cambridge. The Cambridge is where it played its original run in the 1970s.
'Les Miserables' recently moved from the Palace to the Queens but only after 18 years and had a new set as the Queens is avery small theatre.
Shows like 'Fame' have had different seasons in London that have ben broken up by a national tour and then came back to play a different house.
So, yes, shows do transfer but not as often as you seem to think.

Updated On: 7/7/09 at 09:15 AM

#10

re: Moving Theatres?

Posted: 7/7/09 at 5:03pm

Avenue Q has just moved in London after a brief 'vacation' (announced closing and a replacement then sales picked up enough to justify it is my understanding).
The recent Little Shop of Horrors in London moved from the Duke of York's Theatre to the Ambassadors Theatre after originally starting at the Menier Chocolate Factory.
Mamma Mia moved from the Prince Edward to the Prince of Wales before Mary Poppins moved in.

I don't know how much it happens on Broadway but it isn't that frequent in London. It seems mainly for the reasons already given, especially moving to a smaller theatre.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95