Once breaks $1 million this week- Page 2

[bdn223]

Posted: 6/24/12 at 11:54pm

Newsies isn't noble and neither is Once i am just amazed by how people are treating Once that it isn't outgrossing Newsies yet...

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/24/12 at 11:58pm

Why are you pitting them against each other? Why can't they both have a great box office?

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 6/24/12 at 11:59pm

They're both doing quite well. Once also has to have a much smaller weekly cost as well.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 12:03am

Why should one show "outgross" another?

That's just gross.

It's not a competition, you know.

[ActingDude172]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 12:37am

bdn is pitting them against each other because Once wiped the floor with Newsies at the Tonys and they can't get over that.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 12:41am

Well, someone tell him to stop. It's childish and irritating.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 1:07am

bdn is pitting them against each other because Once wiped the floor with Newsies at the Tonys and they can't get over that.

Exactly!!

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 1:43am

Bdn is BY FAR not the only person on here that views grosses at a completive angle. Just about everyone always checks to see which show had the highest gross of the week, thus beating all the other shows, and what shows had low grosses and were beaten by other shows. I remember a lot of people were very excited when MORMON outgrossed WICKED and LION KING. How is that not a competitive viewpoint?

Broadway is a business with up to 40 competitors competing weekly for ticket sales. In the business model, each show is a competitor to the others. I don't see how grosses can not be viewed as competitive - they are business figures.

I do understand the idea of being happy for shows that are doing well and having high grosses (and that is perfectly fine - but that is just somewhat ignoring the business side of theatre), but to say that grosses shouldn't or don't need to be viewed competitively is vastly inaccurate.

Even viewing and comparing shows that are or aren't meeting their running costs is competitive. In today's time, Broadway is now first and foremost a business.

And, saying that Bdn is butt hurt bc ONCE won 8 Tonys and NEWSIES won 2 is also childish and irritating.

He is constantly comparing the too because they are the two biggest competitors of the season, and the most interesting ones to compare. So what if he is continues mentioning that NEWSIES is outgrossing ONCE? It's true. I was even surprised by it, but I'm not complaining. I wish the best to both!


Updated On: 6/25/12 at 01:43 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 1:46am

Except bdn has been pitting Once against Newsies continually in various discussions.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 1:49am

^ Because they are the two biggest competitors of the season and their gross race is one that many people are paying attention to. If NEWSIES outgrosses ONCE two weeks in a row after the Tonys, that will be a very unexpected surprise.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 2:50am

No, it's not. He's made it clear in nearly every single thread that mentions Once, that's its a far inferiior show (often followed by how great Newsies is.) This somehow justifies his personal opinion. Note: I don't begrudge him his opinion, at all. He goes out of his way to try to 'prove' he's right.

And no....everyone does not care about who comes in first or is way ahead. MOST of us care that a show has enough revenue to continue or not. I look at the grosses, but I could care less about rankings. Let's not confuse 'some' (those that choose to talk about it) and 'most' (those that don't). And overtaking EVERYONE is a bit different than comparing only two shows.

[After Eight]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 5:46am

Yeah, that rare gem, that precious hothouse flower, so superior to lowly, crass "commercial" fare, so "artistic," so "sensitive" ......

Turns out they're just as opportunistic and moneygrubbing as those big, bad corporations.

So let's drop the hosannas, shall we? Or else cheer similarly when Spider-man grosses 1.5 million, when the landlord jacks up the rent so people have to move or subsist on bread and water (hey, ain't it great he's making more money now?!! I'm so thrilled!!!), or when CEO's give themselves even more whopping bonuses (Isn't it just marrrvelous? He's making even morrrrrrrre money!!!!)






Updated On: 6/25/12 at 05:46 AM

[Huss417]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 7:00am

Congrats to them.

And After Eight I think you need a chill pill or something. This went from a simple comment about the show breaking 1 Million to you raining on their parade in one fell swoop.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 7:03am

That's all After Eight does: rain on parades, pee in cornflakes, fart in elevators.

He is BWW's resident Malvolio, only without the wit.

[After Eight]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 7:59am

Huss,

I'm not raining on anyone's anything.

I'm asking people to stop and reflect why this mindless cheerleading is so unseemly. If only people would stop being fan boys/girls for one moment and think of the ramifications of what they were cheering...

So now go and enjoy your cheerios this morning. And while you're at it, I'd advise you to smell the coffee.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 6/25/12 at 8:03am

Actually, the very nature of the theatre business means that it makes little to no sense to try to compare one show's grosses to another. Shows can have dramatically different running costs - consider what it must have cost Venus in Fur to run compared to the running costs of Spider-Man. Therefore, it's entirely illogical to say, "Spider-Man outgrossed Venus in Fur so it must be doing better!"

That was kind of an extreme example to prove a point but even musicals can have dramatically different costs based on how big the names are that need to be paid, a larger orchestra, etc. Furthermore, shows play in houses with very different capacities. Unlike most corporations which theoretically have unlimited potential market share if they globalize, any single Broadway show in a given week is limited to however large its house is.

It's not a feat or a surprise that a show at the Foxwoods (15,440 seats per week) would outgross a show at the Helen Hayes (4,664 seats per week.) Every theatre has a different capacity and prices and meets a certain gross as a result.

None of this is to say that grosses have no value but rather to say that a direct comparison of grosses tells you little to nothing about how well a show is doing. There are many other factors at play here and there is also something to be said about a show really competing against itself first and foremost. If a show is meeting (or better yet, exceeding) its weekly costs, it will continue to run until it becomes profitable - the ultimate goal. Of course the producers of every show want to maximize profit, but they don't necessarily care if their profit is perhaps a few percentage points less than that of another show if they too are earning profit.

By the way, I'm not picking on Spider-Man. It's just a very extreme example of a show with high running costs and high grosses.