Small, short and intermissionless shows - a bad trend for Broadway?- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/23/08 at 7:58pm

I like to buy my shows by the minute. Measure it out just like a bolt of cloth.

How 'bout a buck a minute?

90 minute show = $90
120 minute show = $120
Les Mis = take out a loan
Nicholas Nicholby = sell a kidney

The shorter the better. No intermission. It'll make the whole place seem even MORE like a theme park. They can do five shows a day, six on the weekends.

It's coming, I tell ya!

[sally1112]

Posted: 4/23/08 at 8:00pm

I was just discussing this on my last trip to NYC with my friend. He likes them short and sweet. I took him to see Adding MAchine and Xanadu and he loved them.
He waited for me while I went to YR, and he said, "Were you really at the show that whole time?"
I told him foe $110 I like a two hour plus show with an intermission to enjoy a cocktail. To me it is all part of the theater going experience.

[verynewyorkcurious]

Posted: 4/23/08 at 8:05pm

I don't like intermissions. Some people get too comfortable after intermission.

I haven't seen TOS or GLORY DAYS, but the 90 minute shows I've seen were mostly great.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 4/23/08 at 9:07pm

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.

I felt like I paid too much for Spelling Bee but that's a different story, I guess.


For me it really depends on the show. Shows like Drowsy and A Chorus Line work fine without an intermission, but The Homecoming (which was the same length) felt like it needed anintermission, to me. Just time to process it.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 4/23/08 at 10:38pm

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!

Now, I'm not saying that I disagree with that, because I'm all for good storytelling no matter what the length, but sometimes otherwise good shows can feel WAY too long. The Pillowman, for example (which I loved nonetheless) definitely could have benefited from a few cuts.

[Trekkie2]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 2:22am

I don't have a big problem with one act shows, but I do wish that [tos] would reconsider the intermission for b-way. It would make a lot of sense, seeing as how they are apparently adding enough material about going to the great white way to merit a new cast recording, and from a pure marketing standpoint, selling [tos] crap during intermission will help them stay open.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 2:42am

I'm on board with the "a good show is a good show, irregardless of length" ideology.

It seems a lot of people think 90- 100 minute shows or intermission- less shows are of a lower quality. That creative teams/ producers make certain shows short because their idea is thin or unworthy of a full- length night.

Well, I think this a completely false misconception. There are many excellent, successful shows that are one- act or of a short length because of their specific content and the nature of their dramatic arc. An intermission would be extremely detrimental to A Chorus Line because the tension built in the "audition room" of the show would dissipate, and the illusion of being an observer at an actual audition would be diminished and require rebuilding. The show's dramatic arc works best without a break.

Other wonderful shows with many fans are short or intermission- less for just as substantial reasons.

I would hate to see Hairspray without an intermission. I don't think Follies works as well WITH an intermission. I don't think one minute of Miss Saigon should be cut- it's an epic tale. I don't think Assassins should be one minute longer, or more than one act- and it's another KIND of epic tale.

These are genuinely artistic choices based on the nature of the musical, and I don't think they reflect on quality, writer laziness, or producer cheapness. Good musicals come in all shapes and sizes, and so do bad musicals.

[Weez]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 4:58am

I'm on board with the "a good show is a good show, irregardless of length" ideology.

I'm on board with adopting the word "irregardless" into the English language proper, as long as we afford it its due definition. As there are two negatives, it should mean "without a lack of regard". So you're saying "a good show is a good show, but it depends on length".

And don't tell me that's not what you're saying, it's right there, clear as day! If you meant "a good show is a good show, and length has nothing to do with it", you say "regardless" or "irrespective". Don't go getting 'em all mixed up together so you say nonsense words. :P

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 7:59am

What ever happened to the show-stopping first-act curtain?

Was that such a bad thing?

I can see it in a show like Chorus Line but very few shows are A Chorus Line.

Come on, composers, lyricists and librettists--learn your craft. Give us a first-act curtain and an eleven o'clock number!

[HBBrock]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 11:09am

Personally....I like a NIGHT at the theater.....I like a good 2 hour and 20 to 2 hour and 45 minute show....with a 15 minute intermission. I don't like getting out of an 8pm show before 10:15 at all.

[DefyGravity777]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 2:36pm

I have never been to a show on Broadway that's shorter than 2:30 minutes. Personally I like the longer shows. I enjoy the intermissions as time to wind down after the end of the first act and get myself ready for the second act. My only complaint with the 15 minute intermissions is it's not enough time to go to the bathroom(since most theatres have 3 stalls in each one) and get a refreshment or a snack. However I can't stand to sit through a movie that's over 2 hrs long. Maybe because movies don't have the intermissions.

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 2:46pm

I hate intermissions. It gives people an excuse to start judging and discussing a show before they've finished watching it, and generally just takes me out of the mood entirely. I normally just sit in my seat for 15 minutes waiting for the show to start again.

[Teatro2]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 3:22pm

hold the thought about broadway... anyone been to Vegas lately?? Is it a good idea to send 90-minute digest versions of B'way shows to Las Vegas?? (ie. THE PRODUCERS, AVENUE Q, SPAMALOT, JERSEY BOYS, HAIRSPRAY) ... to my knowledge, JERSEY BOYS is about to open there while all the others failed and closed with their 90-minute versions. Is it just me, or is there something very wrong about that concept?? Or is it irrelevant because "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"? :)

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 3:25pm

shesa - a theatre organization did a huge survey about Intermission, in the 90's, and I think like 80% were in favor of musicals with an Intermission.

many people (normal people?) enjoy that 15 minute break to go to to the bathroom, get a drink or snack, and talk with fellow audience members without missing a part of the actual show.

I never get out of my seat but I ALWAYS use the time to read through the Playbill. The credits and bio's, specifically.

[Calvin]

Posted: 4/24/08 at 3:31pm

I enjoy it as a refresher read on the Playbills -- a time to differentiate some of the minor characters who you might not have been able to distinguish prior to reading.

And on a side note, lobby bars really need to stop serving coffee! Sometimes I buckle and get it if it's been a long day and I need a pick-me-up for Act II, but it's too hot, and as a result, I never have time to drink it. Oops, that was a little too Andy Rooney.

And Teatro, Vegas is a different animal entirely. Casinos want the shows to lure people into the casinos, but they don't want the audiences held captive for 2.5-3 hours when they could be making precious gambling money off of them.
Updated On: 4/24/08 at 03:31 PM