Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:33pm

I'll probably get slammed for this, but, I've seen, "Title of Show" and felt the perfect venue for it was off-Broadway. From what I've heard about, "Glory Days", same thing. There are intermissionless shows that work (i.e., Drowsey Chaperone and A Chorus Line), but to me those were full shows. Basically, these newer shows are charging Broadway prices for an intimate and short show that's playing in a venue that's too big.

What do you think?

Hey Dottie! Did your colleagues enjoy the cake even though your cat decided to sit on it? ~GuyfromGermany

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:37pm

I feel sorry for the theater bartenders. Intermission is when they make their tips.

If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:37pm

I think the format of the show doesn't matter as long as it is good quality.

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:38pm

If, for some reason, GLORY DAYS were to get a TONY nomination...this would be the first year that three intermissionless 90 minute musicals were competing against each other.

"I love talking about nothing. It is the only thing I know anything about." - Oscar Wilde

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:40pm

I too feel sorry for the bartenders. But I don't mind the intermissionless shows. I would not have wanted one for "Doubt". I think it would have broken the mood and the flow of the piece.

Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:45pm

If, for some reason, GLORY DAYS were to get a TONY nomination...this would be the first year that three intermissionless 90 minute musicals were competing against each other.

I know XANADU, but what's the third?

"It's Phantom meets Hamlet... Phamlet!"

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:47pm

I like one-act shows.

But I hate when people ram two one-act plays together and present 'em both in an evening with an intermission between.

No, I don't quite understand why either. :/

Notes from the Earlham Street Gutter

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:48pm

I guess s/he might be thinking that Catered Affair, Glory Days and Xanadu could all be nominated for Best Musical? Not to say it's impossible, but seems like a huge stretch.

Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:52pm

That would require Passing Strange or In the Heights to be snubbed, which I highly doubt will happen.

#10

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:53pm

I dont think its fair to say a show has to be a certain length to fetch a certain ticket price. If so, then a show that runs 2 hr and 40 min should cost more to see than a show that runs 2 hrs. 5 min.

It is however and interesting trend of which to take note. Certainly TV has primed all of us for shorter shows....and the bridge and tunnel crowd can see a show and be home before 11pm!

I'm not rooting for shorter shows, mind you. If it takes 90 minutes to tell a story, thats fine. If it takes three hours, thats fine too. As long as its a good show!

#11

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:53pm

I agree with Calvin - I think PS and ITH are shoe ins

next is Xanadu

then idk.

#12

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 2:55pm

I guess s/he might be thinking that Catered Affair, Glory Days and Xanadu could all be nominated for Best Musical? Not to say it's impossible, but seems like a huge stretch.

Ah, I see. I thought maybe I had forgotten if PASSING STRANGE had an intermission or not.

Yeah, I don't see any chance that all three of those will be nominated.

"It's Phantom meets Hamlet... Phamlet!"

#13

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 3:02pm

I'd rather spend money for 90 minutes of a good show than the same for 3 hours of drek. And, as far as I'm concerned, all the full-length new musicals (possibly excepting Passing Strange) have been drek of the highest (lowest) order.

BroadwayEd

#14

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 3:06pm

"If, for some reason, GLORY DAYS were to get a TONY nomination...this would be the first year that three intermissionless 90 minute musicals were competing against each other."

Why are you not sure that GD will get nominated, but seem positive about the other two? Aren't they ALL just guesses?

#15

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 3:37pm

It doesn't bother me. If the quality's good, less is more. However, there are some one-act straight plays I have seen--THE RECEPTIONIST, for one--where I felt a little gypped for paying more than $50 for something so short. Write a curtain-raiser fer Chrissakes!

"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.” ~ Muhammad Ali

#16

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 3:41pm

I think it's unfair to say that all one-act musicals should be off-Broadway. Look at Spelling Bee. It was perfect for the Circle in the Square, and I don't think there were many people who left their feeling like they paid too much for a show that kept them laughing the whole time. Sure, a one-act musical is a different experience, but as long as it's not tedious, it's actual better in some respects by not losing the illusion of the show in between.

#17

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 4:21pm

I dunno.

It works for Spelling Bee, it works for Xanadu.

But I really enjoy intermission. I like taking a break to take the show in and look through the playbill. I would have loved a second act in DROWSY CHAPERONE, I just feel like it could support it.

#18

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 4:25pm

I agree that it's wrong to judge a show based on its length but I am usually a bit hesitant before spending money (even while rushing) for a one act show. As long as it's a show that can hold my interest and attention, I enjoy longer shows. Of course there are exceptions. A Chorus, for example, worked fine as a single act show and I couldn't imagine it with an intermission.

"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs." Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

#19

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 5:11pm

well, I feel if a show is only 90 minutes long, they shouldn't charge the full $111 price. It should be reduced to $90 or so.

A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.

#20

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 6:11pm

As long as people keep plunking down their bucks to see them they will keep coming & the prices will keep going up.

Poster Emeritus

Updated On: 4/23/08 at 06:11 PM

#21

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 6:26pm

They could charge per-minute. Xanadu would be about $89, and Les Mis could charge $175.

#22

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 6:28pm

does anyone remember what terrible flop, on Broadway, cut their intermission so people wouldn't be as inclined to leave???

I've heard the story several times. I just can't remember which musical did that...

Updated On: 4/23/08 at 06:28 PM

#23

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 7:35pm

^was it "in my life" ?

#24

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 7:36pm

TDH, was it something that David Merrick produced? I vaguely remember reading something about that, too.

Hey Dottie! Did your colleagues enjoy the cake even though your cat decided to sit on it? ~GuyfromGermany

#25

re: Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?

Posted: 4/23/08 at 7:44pm

i wish all shows and plays were only one act. I have trouble sitting still for a long time, and I hate intermissions.

<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95