Rent vs. Wicked vs Phantom of the Opera — Page 3

"I just think the demographic for all shows is different. You see more old biddies getting in line for Phantom and more teeny boppers in line for Rent & Wicked."

No, you don't. According to polling and on-site surveys, Wicked's audience is the average for all Broadway shows...i.e., the average age was in the late fories. While its fanbase may skew younger, the theater-audience makeup is typical of any standard Broadway show. The same goes for RENT. I would say that Wicked's and RENT's fanbase is passionate and loud, but Phantom's borders on psychotic. I was a phan for a few years in college, and let me tell you these people are nuts. If you dare to think the Phantom is mean or evil, they hire a hit man to silence you. If you dare to say you like Raul, they shun you. I can go on and on. But at least neither RENT nor Wicked have a had a fan legally change their name to match the name of the character (Christine Daae). They are just all out lunatics. I read a few message boards before the movie came out and nothing that was being done would please them. Lunatics!

Well, it's no secret that the average audience for Broadway is older as a lot of teenagers/20-somethings can't afford the sometimes $100+ in tickets. However, I'm sorry but Rent/Wicked is FULL of teenyboppers screaming their lungs out, where as the Phantom crowd is more 'subdued' at least in the theater.

Fosse76, what you mentioned about the Phantom 'phan base' happens with ALL shows, however, I think it's more visible in the teeny boppers screaming like well, girls outside the stage doors! There aren't a lot of teens waiting for Hugh Panaro or anyone from Phantom.

People really change their name to fit a character?? Sheesh! I'm sure glad no one's real name is Elphaba, although I did know s Glenda in elementary school (different spelling, I know) :)

Im sick of all this "12 year old girls" are wickeds only fans. I'm. A 17 year old guy and I'm a huge fan. But is there much difference between the two? Not really.

---

I was thinking earlier about starting a thread, probably in the off topic section, about how we all came up with our screen names, but this thread actually ties into mine so never mind.

Personally, I'd lump myself into the more sane spectrum of the Phans. I've only seen the show twice on tour, but I do pop in the video of the Albert Hall performance every now and then. I can see and hear everything that is wrong with the show, but it has yet to stop me from enjoying every second of it. It was the second show I got really excited about (the first was Chicago, which I've still yet to see live) Ans for that reason alone of holds a special place in my heart. It also introduced me to Andrew Lloyd Webber, and eventually led me to one of most favorite musicals ever, Evita. However, I don't bow down and worship every ALW score ever written. Joseph makes me cringe, and I've yet to complete the Woman in White album without falling asleep. But I do appreciate his work, and, call me dumb if you like, I think it's almost clever of him to write maybe a handful of melodies and somehow arrange them into 2 or more hours of songs.

On the other hand, I DO bow down and worship every Sondheim score. I've yet to ever be disappointed with any of the recordings I've heard, nor with the few professional productions I've been lucky enough to see (but please don't make me relive that God awful Into the Woods Jr. I had to endure at Thespian Conference in high school).

As for Wicked: I saw the tour the first time it played Atlanta. I enjoyed myself, but it's not a show that's stuck in my memory like some others have. If I see it again, it will only be as a gift to my mother, who really, REALLY wants to see it.

Rent: I saw the movie first and couldn't believe that THAT was the show all of my friends had been raving about. I avoided Rent as much as I could, the movie was so bad, to me. When the DVD was released of the "final" performance, I bought it just to see if it could change my feelings (nausea and rage) towards the show. Now at least I do appreciate the show foe whatit was, but I'm in no hurry to see it live. I will, eventually, but I can live if I never do.

What continues to bother me are the people who put all of these shows on pedestals as if Rent, Phantom, and Wicked are the greatest things to ever happen to musical theatre. At school it was easy to weed out the serious theatre majors from the people who would eventually change their majors by trying to talk about theatre with them. When Wicked/Rent came up and was declared the BEST MUSICAL EVER, I LOVE IT SO MUCH, LIKE, IT CHANGED MY LIFE, then it was a safe bet they wouldn't be around within a year. Phantom never came up much, really, except as an afterthought to most talks about theatre.

So, yeah, I'm glad these shows exist and can help usher in mew generations of theatre patrons, but I do get tired of the MEGA FANS who put them on pedestals and ignore almost any other show ever.

If it matters, I'm 22, and the only show I put on a pedestal is Gypsy. And apologies for any typos. Small touch screen keyboards are not fat thumb friendly.

---

Personally id have to go with Phantom, certainly in the UK anyway. They had been dorment but LND, the 25th performance and new tour has really brought them out in droves. And now they have the internet unlike when it first opened. The age range is often more varied but the fact so many are women 30+ adds a slight sadness to it. Wickeds fans do generally have the excuse of youth on their side and are just annoying

I know for a fact cast members of phantom, mainly the man himself, have problems with extreme/stalker type fans. And if you look at fan bases of actors who have played him they all have that crazy component within them. Wiyh some being blocked on twitter etc

Id also say, again in London, that jersey boys, les mis and michael ball have some seriously scary fans

Updated On: 10/26/12 at 05:31 PM