Posted: 1/24/16 at 6:03pm
ive narrowed down the places Natasha Pierre can play down to five theatres based on size and availability. They are the Walter Kerr, Belasco, Booth, Lyceum and Hudson. Any thoughts?
Posted: 1/24/16 at 9:28pm
BroadMagTech said: "ive narrowed down the places Natasha Pierre can play down to five theatres based on size and availability. They are the Walter Kerr, Belasco, Booth, Lyceum and Hudson. Any thoughts?
"
I'm so tired of unnecessary rude statements of the likes of BroadwayConcierge.
BMT, those are all very good choices and having seen both the Kasino (sp?) and Boston productions, I think pretty much any smaller sized Broadway theater would do. I'd add the Golden to the list.
Updated On: 1/24/16 at 09:28 PM
Posted: 1/24/16 at 10:16pm
Apologies. Was in an overly sassy mood.
To be clear, I think you're right on the money with your picks, BroadMagTech. Wouldn't be surprised if it winds up in one of those houses!
Posted: 1/24/16 at 10:31pm
Thank you, I think it is all about maintaining the intimacy from the previous productions, but also making sure they can make as much money/sell as many seats as possible while retaining that intimacy.
Updated On: 1/24/16 at 10:31 PM
Posted: 1/24/16 at 11:20pm
I think it will go to the Kerr. It just seems like the show that would look good in that space. But I don't know the design that well, so not sure how deep the stage goes, etc. You wouldn't want any partial view seats for this show.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 2:51am
I'm thinking the Hudson, just because it already has to go through an overhaul, so why not for this.
If it's going to look a lot like the ART production, the official stage area is very deep. At the ART, it was built out over the first 7-10 rows of the house.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 7:43am
...but how would they deal with the balcony? Can't imagine how anyone sitting there could see or appreciate what is going on below.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 8:07am
I'd posted this idea in another thread- they might try to build a sort of stadium seating thing similar to Hollar if ya hear me that would connect the mezzanine to the orchestra.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 8:17am
A balcony would trash the show. Maybe they could put up curtians and make the balcony into a bar? More than 400 people would make the show fall flat.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 8:35am
RippedMan said: "I think it will go to the Kerr. It just seems like the show that would look good in that space. But I don't know the design that well, so not sure how deep the stage goes, etc. You wouldn't want any partial view seats for this show.
The Kerr is full of partial view seats- the extreme sides of the orchestra and that balcony are quite obstructed (to say nothing of how frightening that balcony is).
Posted: 1/25/16 at 8:42am
KCW said: "A balcony would trash the show. Maybe they could put up curtians and make the balcony into a bar? More than 400 people would make the show fall flat.
A Broadway house, by definition, must have at least 500 seats, and the majority of theatres have several hundred more than that. I agree that closing off the balcony would be a wise solution.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 8:58am
I am starting to feel more and more that while this is one of my favorite shows ever, it also maybe isn't the best fit for Broadway. The tourist crowd would most likely not get into the mood required to enjoy the bouncy, fun yet layered show. I could not imagine there being double the number of seats seen at the ART, what was that, 200? 250?
Posted: 1/25/16 at 11:26am
The Loeb Drama Center has 540 seats if I recall. But I dont know what the capacity was adjusted to in order to account for the staging of Natasha. Circle in the Square would be a perfect fit for this, but obviously Fun Home isnt going anywhere.
Its situations like this that make me wish the new theatre they are building over the parking lot/pop up shops between 45/46 was a more intimate broadway venue. It seems like shows are always fighting for those spaces. And they get scooped up and tiny shows wind up in gargantuan houses they were never designed for (Side Show in the St. James a prime example). I hope the Great Comet finds the right space.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 5:56pm
At the loeb, about 1/5 of the seats in the mez were taken over into table / lamp things. I think they cut out the stage and orchestra for the stage, and there were about 150 seats there. So I would say there were around 250 seats at the loeb.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 6:02pm
do you mean the rear orchestra? the loeb has no mezzanine.
My understanding based on the seating charts was that the rear orchestra remained intact with a few tiny cabaret tables interspersed. The front orchestra section was completely overhauled with the stage and banquettes taking up that entire space.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 6:14pm
When you're up in the very back row at the Loeb, and the front orchestra and stage are where they usually are, you can feel a million miles away from the action particularly if it's a lugubrious Robert Wilson production or a moribund play about reality TV by Anthony Rapp's brother.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 10:40pm
Even though it definitely will not play there, I wish that it could play at Studio 54. I think that would be an excellent venue for this show. I'd like to see it at the Golden though.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 11:11pm
Oh dear I fervently hope it doesn't go into the Golden. Of the smaller Broadway theatres, it has one of the worst rear-mezzanines. I always feel miles away from the stage when I sit up there.
Posted: 1/25/16 at 11:47pm
Ugh just move Fun Home back into a proscenium theatre and put Natasha in Circle in the Square. That's the only theatre that will truly do it justice.
Posted: 1/26/16 at 12:49am
I think the Jacobs or Shoefeld aren't terrible ideas. Sounds like it goes pretty deep into the audience. Something like the winter garden (on a smaller scale) would be ideal.
i do wish we had more flexible houses on Broadway. Doesn't allow for very creative stagings.
Posted: 1/26/16 at 2:42am
KCW said: "At the loeb, about 1/5 of the seats in the mez were taken over into table / lamp things. I think they cut out the stage and orchestra for the stage, and there were about 150 seats there. So I would say there were around 250 seats at the loeb.
"
You are waaaay off with your numbers. They did not lose 1/2 of their seating, especially since the stage build out provided seats as well. So they didn't lose ALL the seats for on the front orchestra. There are at least a hundred seats on stage.
Updated On: 1/26/16 at 02:42 AM
Posted: 1/26/16 at 6:36am
Re rear orchestra and orchastra and mez, yeah, no balcony, so no mez nvm. Anyways I said there were around 150 on stage in my earlier post, not less than 100, and I suppose at max, there were 150 in the rear orchestra but I doubt that (there were whole rows taken out by platforms and alot of seats had lamps and tables on them). So 300 max, but I still stay around 250 as the number.
Posted: 1/26/16 at 8:03am
And you'd still be wrong. There is at LEAST 25 people in EACH full row, so even if there were ONLY 10 rows still left (and there were plenty more than that) that alone would be 250 people.
