ON THE TOWN SUCCESS- Page 2
ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
A Director
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/18/07
#25ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 5:45pm
Pal Joey, You state,
"
I needn't remind anybody on this board, that neither of Shakespeare's theaters ever made a "profit."
The Globe Theater was dependent on the contributions given it by Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton, who may or may not have been "the Fair Youth of the Sonnets." And the theater at Blackfriars was dependent on Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.
At any rate, they were both independently wealthy, and many of Shakespeare's plays would never have seen the light of day without them."
What's your source? The financial records of the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men did not survive, so how can you claim their theatre's did not make a profit? Southampton had nothing to do with the company. As for Edward de Vere, at one time, he did lease the Blackfrairs, but he had been dead four years when the King's Men started to perform there. Also, he squandered his fortune.
#26ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 5:46pm
There's no way that they turned a profit from ticket sales. For nearly a year the average ticket price being paid per week was $45-$65 and they've been playing to a half-empty house. No Broadway show can stay alive with those figures. Someone with deep pockets must have been dumping into the show throughout the run to keep it afloat. The week following the Tony Awards they suffered a -11% so the nominations and the performance did nothing to help them. Misty Copeland has helped a little bit in the final week to bring patrons in, but not significantly. What probably hurt the production was deciding to stage it at the Lyric. I think that theatre is far too big for a musical like that.
"Mostly, I loved the size of these people's emotions. Nobody has emotions this size anymore. Outsized emotions. Operatic emotions. Kushemski and Vanda are like Tristan and Isolde, they're Paolo and Francesca. Nobody's in total thrall like this anymore. Nobody's overcome by passion like this, or goes through this kind of rage." Thomas, Venus in Fur
#27ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 6:14pm
@adam.peterson You are correct that closing off part of the theatre might have made some sense, but that is something the producers could have done. I do think that until the current owners, there was an obliviousness on the part of the owner, and we are now seeing someone who will likely "solve" the problem, one way or another. Obviously, the desire would be to exploit the real estate to its maximum potential.
@ggersten agreed although I do not know whether or not OTT got a rent break. Reducing the fixed rent would be of minimal benefit, and reducing the percentage rent on any already reduced gross seems (perhaps) counterintuitive.
@Adirector no I did not. In fact, as soon as it was announced I recall posting that it was designed to lose its investment. I am not raining on anyone's joy including my own. (The other thing I said at the tme was that I was looking forward to seeing it multiple times because cheap or papered seats would undoubtedly be available. In fact, I am told, the show ended up giving away more paper than any show in Broadway history.) But I find dumping an extra $5mil into a show to keep it running and losing money week in and week out for this long not only insane but also offensive. You don have to agree but I think it is deserving of ridicule and, more to the point, something that people who ask about the show's finances should have explained.
@atuomala you are exactly right. The total loss is well documented and was unavoidable based on the characteristics of the show and how it was produced.
#28ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 8:00pm
HogansHero said: "@adam.peterson You are correct that closing off part of the theatre might have made some sense, but that is something the producers could have done. I do think that until the current owners, there was an obliviousness on the part of the owner, and we are now seeing someone who will likely "solve" the problem, one way or another. Obviously, the desire would be to exploit the real estate to its maximum potential.
@ggersten agreed although I do not know whether or not OTT got a rent break. Reducing the fixed rent would be of minimal benefit, and reducing the percentage rent on any already reduced gross seems (perhaps) counterintuitive.
@Adirector no I did not. In fact, as soon as it was announced I recall posting that it was designed to lose its investment. I am not raining on anyone's joy including my own. (The other thing I said at the tme was that I was looking forward to seeing it multiple times because cheap or papered seats would undoubtedly be available. In fact, I am told, the show ended up giving away more paper than any show in Broadway history.) But I find dumping an extra $5mil into a show to keep it running and losing money week in and week out for this long not only insane but also offensive. You don have to agree but I think it is deserving of ridicule and, more to the point, something that people who ask about the show's finances should have explained.
@atuomala you are exactly right. The total loss is well documented and was unavoidable based on the characteristics of the show and how it was produced.
It is sad but true that artistic integrity and distinction to do not necessarily equal dollars and cents. And it is also true that ON THE TOWN survived for over a year, generally at a very low level of income. But it is not therefore HogansHero's right to continue to take the producers and their investors to task for keeping this show running. Yes, it would probably have done better in a smaller theatre, but John Rando and his creative team filled the theatre brilliantly, and thousands of theatergoers adored it (including me, who saw it four times at the Lyric). Stop complaining, HogansHero, you got your wish, and we're all tired of hearing from you about this.
"
#29ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 8:12pm
jayinchelsea said: "But it is not therefore HogansHero's right to continue to take the producers and their investors to task for keeping this show running."
If everyone wants HogansHero to stop commenting on it, why keep replying to him and telling him why he should be quiet. Has that strategy ever worked on here?!
#30ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 9:09pm
"But it is not therefore HogansHero's right to continue to take the producers and their investors to task for keeping this show running. ... Stop complaining, HogansHero, you got your wish, and we're all tired of hearing from you about this."
Actually it is my right and I did NOT get my wish. My wish would have been for it to have been well-produced and still running instead of having its merits overshadowed by being the laughing stock of the theatre district. And yes as Haterobics wisely states, the best way to get someone to shut up is to disengage. You can also disengage yourself by simply not reading anything else I write on the subject (although I assume this subject is nearing its logical conclusion anyway).
#31ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 10:04pm
The only place I see the merits of the production being overshadowed by being the laughing stock of the theatre world due to the producing is from you. NOWHERE else is discussing it in articles about the closing--not even Musto. I'm not saying that you're not wrong about the huge money lost, but you do have a warped perspective on it.
#32ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 10:10pm
The original poster sort of introduced this element by saying "I assume that since this ran almost a year the investors either made a profit or secured a good return."
If HogansHero just came into a thread that was celebratory and everyone saying how much they enjoyed the production with no one discussing the investment/grosses/profits/etc, and he just kept saying "But it was a money pit!!!!" then perhaps the point would be stronger.
#33ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/7/15 at 11:37pm
Eric,
Even were I the only one here making these points (I'm not, many others have), I was not referring to BWW as the place where this sentiment is prevalent. People in the business have been rolling their eyes at what's been going on (not just with OTT but Honeymoon before it and Amazing Grace since) since this phenomenon of running shows that are bleeding money started. It is, as I said before, a fairly recent "thing" and this decade will likely be remembered for that, as well as 1-2 exemplary shows.
#34ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/8/15 at 1:23am
I've never understood peoples aversion to this "barn". Yes it's larger but basically because most Broadway houses are tiny. In Toronto phantom played ten years in a 2800 seat theatre. Several other long runs at the 2200 seat princess of Wales. Most of our theatres are 2000 seats except the royal Alex and winter garden. With the lyric it seems even getting people in the seats doesn't make the profit. Could it be seeing as how the theatre keeps changing hands the rent may be too high. I mean the shuberts and nederlanders and the roths have owned most of their theatres forever and are probably all paid off. But for someone who has just paid millions for this theatre may need to charge more.
PatrickDennis92
Stand-by Joined: 9/25/12
#35ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/8/15 at 5:04am
I can't speak to the business model used to keep a show running in Toronto, but the sizes of the Broadway houses have created the competitive market of the industry-- if the houses were larger, then the business would reflect that in wages, ticket prices, and other costs. However, New York is much much much more competitive than Toronto when it comes to the costs of producing and maintaining large productions. In addition, the ticket prices for the shows in New York further vet the weak. No one is saying that the mere number of seats disqualifies this house, because that isn't true. But it's the size of the house in relation to all the others that means something simply must be as big a hit as they come to sustain a run there. And so far, that hasn't happened.
neonlightsxo
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/29/08
#36ON THE TOWN SUCCESS
Posted: 9/8/15 at 9:37am
No need to reiterate what others have said except that this thread title is misleading:
On the Town was a financial failure, which you can see easily from looking at the grosses provided by the Broadway League.
https://www.broadwayworld.com/grossesshow.cfm?show=ON-THE-TOWN&year=2015&allall=on
To the OP: the lead producers, the Kagans, gave this interview to the NYT, citing the break-even figure as $675k each week. Not only is that high for a musical, they rarely made it. Just the facts.
Updated On: 9/8/15 at 09:37 AM
Videos