ON THE TOWN Box Office Yikes!- Page 2

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 11:53am

For Growl.....
Hold Me

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 12:06pm

"it's time to face facts, the show sucks and nothing the critics can say can save this one!!!"

The only disconnect here is you are equating box office with quality.

That and stating opinion as fact.

[Brian Song]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 1:11pm

I am not stating my opinion as fact, my opinion is that the show sucks.

The FACT is simply that the box office has dropped from 80% to 58% so yes, regardless of what reviews the critics have offered up there is no guarantee that a show will do well with audiences.

[haterobics]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 1:15pm

Another FACT is that every show (except Disgraced) took a dive this week because of Halloween, which happens every year. So, if you're going to make broad assumptions based on weekly grosses, this is a bad week to do it.

Next week would be bad, too, since every show should go up as a result of this week's slide.

BWW doesn't provide a unique link to the same week last year, so you'll have to select it yourself, but pretty much every show had red ink then, too. Updated On: 11/5/14 at 01:15 PM

[SmokeyLady]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 1:20pm

But Roxy; you keep posting. So obviously you don't have a problem with it. Peoples problems with you are from years of your nonsense.

Back to OTT. Maybe they will film it and do a pay per view and make some money that way. You would think the producers have something up their sleeve. Everyone and their mother knew they were in for a struggle from the get go. I am hoping for a happy ending. But doubtful.

[bdn223]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 1:20pm

I was at OTT on Saturday Afternoon and the balcony was essentially sold out. I think the show was just hurt early in the week with Halloween landing on a Friday many bridge and tunneles were less likly to come in to see a show when they are already going out on Friday night.
Also no one is expecting OTT to sellout its nut is in the mid 600k range. so the show likely still hit its nut last week.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 1:32pm

I think so, too. The show has been popular and it will probably do well this coming holiday season. January is another story.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 1:49pm

I had heard that the production received a sizable sales boost after the Times review.

[Christoph]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 2:10pm

Quite surprised. When we saw it a few weeks ago the theater was filled to capacity. There was not a seat to be had and most of the feedback I was hearing was heartily positive. The only exceptions were the relic sitting next to me griping about having to stand for The Star Spangled Banner (and ominously defying anyone to expect her to stand for it again) and her husband who kept wanting to check out sports scores - although said relic forbade him from any further discussion on it because she thought the show was a "success" and he was trodding on her evening.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 2:14pm

The FACT is simply that the box office has dropped from 80% to 58%

Actually that's attendance. The box office itself in terms of gross potential only dropped 9%. The sky isn't falling... yet.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 2:16pm

"Quite surprised. When we saw it a few weeks ago the theater was filled to capacity."

That doesn't mean anyone paid for their ticket.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:16pm

I don't look at these things as closely as some of you do, so correct me if I am wrong on these points:

* Everybody talked about what a "barn" the theater was. It seems to have a $1.79 million dollar POTENTIAL gross, making it the 2nd highest potential gross after Lion King at $1.82 million, and even higher than Wicked at $1.68.

* Very few shows sell at their potential gross, right? And a show doesn't have to sell at 100% in order for it to be financially healthy. That's what "nuts" are for.

* Someone said On the Town has a weekly nut of "mid 600s"--not sure if that was a guess or not, but let's say the nut is $660,000.

* That means that On the Town survive running at 37%.

Is that correct?

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:18pm

Not only a “barn,” but also, in this very thread, an “airplane hanger.”

You know, the object on which one hangs an airplane.

[SmokeyLady]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:20pm

I don't know. @PalJoey I applaud your the attempt.to look for hope I am a fan as well. But anyway you look at it I don't think those numbers are a good indication. Lets hope for the best.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:22pm

Well if it's just making enough money to cover the weekly costs (the nut) then it's doing just that-- covering running costs and not paying back the initial investment or making any profit. So not sure how long the producers would be willing to do that.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:23pm

Partially correct.
That would still mean that the show is not paying back investors and could also spell trouble for future advertising budgets, etc.
That also does not cover what the stop clause figure would be. Even if they are making the weekly nut, two weeks of not surpassing the stop clause figure gives the owners the right to evict the show.
NO show survives at 37%.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:27pm

Does anyone have a guess at a stop-clause number?

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:36pm

For all the talk of stop clauses, the last time I recall a stop clause was actually used was in January 1992, when City of Angels fell below it and had to close to make way for Jelly's Last Jam at the Virginia. Not saying that it hasn't happened since, but it's not often used to force a show out of a theatre.

And regarding the "airplane hanger" and "barn" labels thrown at the Lyric, I'd say that On the Town plays well in there, better than most of the theatre's other shows have fared, and sound designer Kai Harada has worked some sort of miracle.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 3:41pm

Stop clauses are used, it's just not something that is really openly publicized and, to be fair, landlords can use that as leverage without strictly enforcing.
You can't really guess at a stop clause. It is something negotiated by the theatre and show. Could be a low number, could be a high number.

Personally, having seen an early preview, it sounds as though the show was tightened up notably, but when I saw it, the sound was not particularly great and the show felt swallowed alive. It looks like a bus and truck tour playing in a large tour house.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 4:06pm

The sound was amazing from my seat in Row P in the orchestra. I heard every lyric, and the Lonely Town chorale was one of the most gorgeous pieces of music I have ever heard in a theater. Not sure what credit the sound designer gets for that--but Kai Harada certainly gets credit for not messing it up.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 4:13pm

Since Harada also did the sound design for Follies at the Marquis - another excellent design for an acoustically dead space - I think he must be the one responsible for On the Town sounding as good as it does.

[Baileyboo]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 4:48pm

Folks-

The show is doing well. The advance is up well over 50% post opening. This show WILL run, and run well, for the foreseeable future. For me, that's into 2016. Doubters and haters can mark my words. This show is here to stay for awhile. Is the seating capacity ideal for this show? Probably not. But its a gorgeous, comfortable theater with leg room, room to walk in the lobby, and I am damn proud to have worked there for the past 17 years.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 4:49pm

Up well over 50% of what? They wouldn't tell the New York Times what the advance was.

[Baileyboo]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 4:52pm

Obviously if they wouldn't tell the NYT, I am not at liberty to divulge it here. But take my word for it...Its good enough.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/5/14 at 5:06pm

How did 42nd Street manage to survive there for so long? Obviously it can be done. They didn't start out with any big names.