Phantom Las Vegas

[winston89]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 3:18pm

How well is this show doing? Is this the first brodway show gone vegas that is actually semi successful and not gonna close a few weeks after it opened?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 3:25pm

With the purported cost of $100 million, it's going to be a very long time before this show is considered successfl. Also keep in mind that in Vegas, a show is only successful if it sells out every night. They closed Avenue Q because they said it wasn't doing well, but truth is, it was very profitable. It just wasn't a sell-out.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 3:32pm

Mamma Mia has been a big success in Las Vegas.

I saw the Phantom Las Vegas spectacular a few weeks ago on a Tuesday night. The house was packed but not sold out for the 10 pm show. It's difficult to tell how well any show is doing in Las Vegas. Just breaking even isn't enough, a show has to bring in lots of potential gamblers to make its host casino happy. The sense I got is that Phantom is considered a hit and will be running for quite some time. The show sounds incredibly lush and is in great shape. This is still my favorite version of Phantom. I don't miss the second Manager's Office or pianola rehearsal scene one bit, though I do wish "Point of No Return" had a few of its cut verses back.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 3:45pm

"With the purported cost of $100 million, it's going to be a very long time before this show is considered successfl."

Have you seen the Venetian casino? They probably spend $100 million on cocktail napkins for that place every week. The scale and finances of Las Vegas are a lot different than those of Broadway. If Phantom can keep filling that theater and enough of its audience goes out and plays afterwards it will be considered very successful indeed.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 4:39pm

That maybe true, but they expect the shows to pay for themselves. Vegas doesn't use its revenue stream to support its lackluster performers. If Phantom starts to lose money, they aren't going to pump in profits from the Casino to keep it afloat, they'll shut it down. Look at Avenue Q, which WAS making a profit. They shut it down merely because it wasn't full. Since Phantom was hugely expensive, it pretty much has to keep filling up in order for them to keep it running. If it starts to lag then they know it will never be profitable and they WILL shut it down.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 6:12pm

Of course Vegas doesn't use its revenue stream to support shows that aren't doing well. It's the most competitive entertainment market in the world. Avenue Q wasn't bringing enough people into the Wynn casino. No one there cared if Avenue Q was making a profit. The casino's profits were the issue.

Your figure of 100 million for the Vegas Phantom has to include the construction of the new theater. The effects are elaborate, but they're not that elaborate. I have no doubt that the Venetian will close Phantom if it isn't producing enough revenue, but I don't think the show is expected to pay back its theater construction costs within a year or two.

[winston89]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 6:23pm

What I don't understand is that Mamma Mia ran the full 2 and 1/2 hour version in vegas for years. Then when Q came they did the same thing but it was too long for the people who wanted to go and gamble so they cut it. Hairspray had trouble getting an audience there and who knows bout the upcomming productions of spamalot and the producers.

What i don't get is that if a show like Mamma Mia could easilly play there uncut and be successful then why couldn't the other shows in there shorten forms not be.

And wasn't there some rule made awhile back that if a broadway show was to play the strip it would have to shorten the lenght of the run?

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:21pm

There was never any sort of offical rule.

The reason shows get shortened is because the casinos want to maximize their profits. They want to bring in as many people thru it's doors as possible so they run 2 showings a night. Having two showings of a 2.5 hour musical with intermission means that one show has to start very early and the second one has to finish pretty late so they shorten the shows to 90 minutes to have a better balance and have showtimes of 7-8 and 10 PM.

Now I don't like abbreviated versions of musicals any more than anyone else and I have no idea how Mamma Mia has been successful at 2.5 hours but that is the reason I've heard most often for the shortening of shows.

[Copeman63]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:29pm

I imagine that the success of the 2 1/2 hour Mamma Mia! is because of the built in HUGE fan base of the source material, ABBA. Not to mention the people who were teens when they first heard of the group, are now adults with more money and a show with great word of mouth. Avenue Q is on of my favorites, but it just doesn't have the fan base that Mia/ABBA has. I'm interested to see how Spamalot does...

[Dover]

Posted: 2/7/07 at 12:06am

I think the 90 minute thing is because they are allowed to perform 10 shows a week in that case. I'm not sure if Phantom wound up doing that, but when the show was being planned, at one point they talked about it doing 10 shows a week, twice a day with two days off.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 2/7/07 at 12:07am

All it needs is Vanessa Williams.