muscle23ftl said: "I know some may celebrate this, but I will rain on everyone's parade. I think this is sad, that a show with one person is competing with companies full of big ensembles that provide work for many actors, dancers, musicians, and this is just a 1 person show and of course, it recouped super fast, because it's a cheap show, but as a theater goer, I choose not to see or support this type of shows. Not what I like to see."
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I can't say I entirely understand the logic behind it. In my opinion, the focus should be on the quality of the show and not the number of people involved in presenting it. Granted, I'm hesitant to see some one-person shows because if that performer isn't engaging, I have no place else to focus my attention to try to stay engaged. That said, I've seen some brilliant theater with only one person on stage (e.g., Jefferson Mays in I am My Own Wife and the recent A Christmas Carol; Patrick Stewart in A Christmas Carol in the 90s, Olympia Dukakis in Rose, Hal Holbrook in a revival of Mark Twain, Tonight!, and yes, Jodie Comer in Prima Facie). I understand that you may feel a sense of social responsibility to support shows that employ more people, but to deprive yourself of excellent theater because a show employs fewer people seems misguided, but it is certainly your choice.