So, I Saw ROCK OF AGES Today — Page 2
#27
Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:54am
Has anyone said it didnt have the right to be on B'way? (did I miss than -- in THIS thread?)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#28
Posted: 4/6/09 at 2:56am
No it was in another thread, I just couldn't respond at the time. Sorry to confuse/accuse :)
#29
Posted: 4/6/09 at 3:00am
Actually the OP suggested he felt that way.
Updated On: 4/6/09 at 03:00 AM
#30
Posted: 4/6/09 at 7:57am
I really enjoyed this show off-Broadway but felt it should have stayed off-Broadway. I felt the same way about TITTLE OF SHOW... and look how that turned out 
I don't understand why the producers of these fun "little" shows continue to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to push them into high priced larger theaters.
And who's been getting drenched in alchohol during ROA? I NEVER saw that happen! For the price of a cocktail these days, I certainly wouldn't be spilling a single drop - lol.
I don't understand why the producers of these fun "little" shows continue to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to push them into high priced larger theaters.
And who's been getting drenched in alchohol during ROA? I NEVER saw that happen! For the price of a cocktail these days, I certainly wouldn't be spilling a single drop - lol.
< Patty Duke (the original Neely O'Hara) & me (March 8, 2010)
#31
Posted: 4/6/09 at 8:05am
Having never seen the show, how appropriate is the subject matter? What rating would you give it?
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it." -Stephen Colbert
#32
Posted: 4/6/09 at 8:23am
It would probably be an 'R' due to the somewhat heavy sex jokes and multiple (though not frequent) F-words, but it would be one of those extremely light R-ratings that most parents would be fine with their 13-16 year old seeing.
#33
Posted: 4/6/09 at 8:44am
"I don't understand why the producers of these fun "little" shows continue to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to push them into high priced larger theaters."
Two words: Future Marketing.
It doesn't matter whether it ran five minutes or five years - outside of New York (and this board) the average audience doesn't know or care. The conventional wisdom is that being able to use the word "Broadway" in a show's publicity gives it instant cache and the kind of marketability on the road and in regional/amateur theatre that "off-broadway" just can't deliver. Unless of course it's a monster hit (no pun intended) like the original LITTLE SHOP..., but that kind of producing model doesn't exist anymore.
Two words: Future Marketing.
It doesn't matter whether it ran five minutes or five years - outside of New York (and this board) the average audience doesn't know or care. The conventional wisdom is that being able to use the word "Broadway" in a show's publicity gives it instant cache and the kind of marketability on the road and in regional/amateur theatre that "off-broadway" just can't deliver. Unless of course it's a monster hit (no pun intended) like the original LITTLE SHOP..., but that kind of producing model doesn't exist anymore.
Cheyenne Jackson tickled me. AFTER ordering SoMMS a drink but NOT tickling him, and hanging out with Girly in his dressing room (where he DIDN'T tickle her) but BEFORE we got married. To others. And then he tweeted Boobs. He also tweeted he's good friends with some chick on "The Voice" who just happens to be good friends with Tink's ex. And I'm still married. Oh, and this just in: "Pettiness, spite, malice ....Such ugly emotions... So sad." - After Eight, talking about MEEEEEEEE!!! I'm so honored! :-)
Updated On: 4/6/09 at 08:44 AM
#34
Posted: 4/6/09 at 9:41am
Future Marketing is right. A tour of Rock of Ages is going to be a good money maker.
I do not live in NYC, and I've told many people, where I live, about the show. They aren't going to fly off to NYC to see it, but ALL of them said if it comes to town, they would love to see it.
It's the music a lot of people grew up with.
I agree it's a tried and true plot. Boy meets Girl, Boy loses Girl, Boy gets Girl. If there's a few poop jokes and Whitesnake songs along the way, it's all good fun.
Isn't that the aim of someone going out to a BW show? To have a night of fun. Granted, it won't appeal to all, but to those it does, it's a night of joy.
I do not live in NYC, and I've told many people, where I live, about the show. They aren't going to fly off to NYC to see it, but ALL of them said if it comes to town, they would love to see it.
It's the music a lot of people grew up with.
I agree it's a tried and true plot. Boy meets Girl, Boy loses Girl, Boy gets Girl. If there's a few poop jokes and Whitesnake songs along the way, it's all good fun.
Isn't that the aim of someone going out to a BW show? To have a night of fun. Granted, it won't appeal to all, but to those it does, it's a night of joy.
Jekyll & Hyde back on Broadway! / Rock of Ages - 5 Tony nominations! Awesome!
#35
Posted: 4/6/09 at 10:03am
"I don't understand why the producers of these fun little shows continue to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to push them into high priced larger theaters"
a few points-ROA isn't really a little show. Because of its cost, it could never make money in an off broadway house, even at total capacity.
Second-has it shot itself in the foot already? We don't know that yet, do we? I'm to believe they're selling quite well.
Third-I believe they've wisely priced themselves lower than the average broadway house. Their prices are equal to some off broadway tickets.
It's all to be proven or disproven with time!
a few points-ROA isn't really a little show. Because of its cost, it could never make money in an off broadway house, even at total capacity.
Second-has it shot itself in the foot already? We don't know that yet, do we? I'm to believe they're selling quite well.
Third-I believe they've wisely priced themselves lower than the average broadway house. Their prices are equal to some off broadway tickets.
It's all to be proven or disproven with time!
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#36
Posted: 4/6/09 at 10:34am
While it ran at 89% (almost) in the week ending March 29th, the average ticket price was only $39 and they grossed only $240,000. Are ticket prices that low that $39 is the average, or are they papering? If it's not a little show, how can $240,000 make the nut?
Hard to believe the nut isn't higher than that. I do hope for the best for it. Many people like it and it's got some great people in it.
Hard to believe the nut isn't higher than that. I do hope for the best for it. Many people like it and it's got some great people in it.
#37
Posted: 4/6/09 at 10:44am
"While it ran at 89% (almost) in the week ending March 29th, the average ticket price was only $39 and they grossed only $240,000. Are ticket prices that low that $39 is the average, or are they papering? If it's not a little show, how can $240,000 make the nut?"
Yeah, well, compare that to a house half that size.
I wish them well. Love the show.
Yeah, well, compare that to a house half that size.
I wish them well. Love the show.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#38
Posted: 4/6/09 at 11:23am
But WannaBe, you left out the most important part, were you or were you not drenched in alcohol by intermission?
Honestly, I was at a 2pm Sunday matinee. I was Center Orchestra. I saw one person in the Left Orchestra purchase a drink before the show began. The group of three to the right of me purchased drinks during intermission. I didn't see one person purchase a drink DURING the show. I take it this was because I was at a matinee. If people want to avoid a drunken crowd, I suggest attending a matinee. The drinks are in cups with lids and straws. The group next to me got rid of the lids and straws before they returned to their seats for the start of Act II, but there was no spillage.
I don't see why anyone would WANT to purchase drinks DURING the show. You have to buy $5, $10, or $20 drink CHIPS before the show or during intermission guaranteeing that you will buy drinks DURING the show. You can't purchase them with cash while the show is in progress. I don't see why someone wouldn't just buy their drinks before the show or at intermission instead of having to go through the inconvenience of paying for these chips, and then having to get a waiter's attention, pass the chips down the aisle with your drink order, etc., while you're trying to watch the show. It just doesn't seem practical.
starlight4, I did say in my original post that part of me felt that the show didn't deserve to be on Broadway, but I admitted that was only a snobby side of me. I fully recognized that this show was pleasing 99% of its audience and that these were people I wasn't used to seeing in a Broadway house. So I consider that a plus. Yeah, the show wasn't for ME. But it WAS for everyone else.
Also, I don't agree with the folks who argue that the show is a "rock concert." It's a full-on BOOK, jukebox musical. There is a story. I have seen jukebox musicals that attempt to just be concerts (RING OF FIRE comes to mind), but this was not one of them. The audience might have been similar to one at a rock concert, but this is a book musical with a full story, with previously written songs thrown in.
I don't like to generalize, but this show could bring A LOT of straight men to Broadway, and with a "cheer for the gay characters to fall in love" plot line, I see that as a positive. There was a group of what I'm presuming were straight men (NOT to generalize), who were shouting, positively, for the two guys to fall in love.
Honestly, I was at a 2pm Sunday matinee. I was Center Orchestra. I saw one person in the Left Orchestra purchase a drink before the show began. The group of three to the right of me purchased drinks during intermission. I didn't see one person purchase a drink DURING the show. I take it this was because I was at a matinee. If people want to avoid a drunken crowd, I suggest attending a matinee. The drinks are in cups with lids and straws. The group next to me got rid of the lids and straws before they returned to their seats for the start of Act II, but there was no spillage.
I don't see why anyone would WANT to purchase drinks DURING the show. You have to buy $5, $10, or $20 drink CHIPS before the show or during intermission guaranteeing that you will buy drinks DURING the show. You can't purchase them with cash while the show is in progress. I don't see why someone wouldn't just buy their drinks before the show or at intermission instead of having to go through the inconvenience of paying for these chips, and then having to get a waiter's attention, pass the chips down the aisle with your drink order, etc., while you're trying to watch the show. It just doesn't seem practical.
starlight4, I did say in my original post that part of me felt that the show didn't deserve to be on Broadway, but I admitted that was only a snobby side of me. I fully recognized that this show was pleasing 99% of its audience and that these were people I wasn't used to seeing in a Broadway house. So I consider that a plus. Yeah, the show wasn't for ME. But it WAS for everyone else.
Also, I don't agree with the folks who argue that the show is a "rock concert." It's a full-on BOOK, jukebox musical. There is a story. I have seen jukebox musicals that attempt to just be concerts (RING OF FIRE comes to mind), but this was not one of them. The audience might have been similar to one at a rock concert, but this is a book musical with a full story, with previously written songs thrown in.
I don't like to generalize, but this show could bring A LOT of straight men to Broadway, and with a "cheer for the gay characters to fall in love" plot line, I see that as a positive. There was a group of what I'm presuming were straight men (NOT to generalize), who were shouting, positively, for the two guys to fall in love.
"Winning a Tony this year is like winning Best Attendance in third grade: no one will care but the winner and their mom."
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#39
Posted: 4/6/09 at 11:27am
"Yeah, well, compare that to a house half that size."
Your point escapes me. I understand it couldn't possibly make money off-Broadway, but it doesn't matter how much closer to its nut it gets if it isn't making it. The theater can pull a stop clause to close the show if it dips below its nut only once after opening. In today's climate, they probably won't, as to give it a chance to build an audience, especially if the reviews are good, but geez, louise - $240,000 at 88% capacity?
Laudable of them to offer low ticket prices, but I can't see how they'll survive at that rate. Hopefully, it's a promotional thing, and they'll raise ticket prices (a little) to ensure a long run. Or maybe it's being papered heavily and that's throwing the grosses off.
Your point escapes me. I understand it couldn't possibly make money off-Broadway, but it doesn't matter how much closer to its nut it gets if it isn't making it. The theater can pull a stop clause to close the show if it dips below its nut only once after opening. In today's climate, they probably won't, as to give it a chance to build an audience, especially if the reviews are good, but geez, louise - $240,000 at 88% capacity?
Laudable of them to offer low ticket prices, but I can't see how they'll survive at that rate. Hopefully, it's a promotional thing, and they'll raise ticket prices (a little) to ensure a long run. Or maybe it's being papered heavily and that's throwing the grosses off.
Updated On: 4/6/09 at 11:27 AM
#40
Posted: 4/6/09 at 11:34am
I say wait until the show at least opens and give it a while after that to study numbers.
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
#41
Posted: 4/6/09 at 11:49am
Well, whatever you say, Jane. I've asked some valid questions - didn't realize speculation of the simple math was off-limits. As I've repeatedly stated, I hope for a long, healthy run for ROA.
#42
Posted: 4/6/09 at 11:49am
NYT article said it cost $7M. Producer said on TV last week they expected to recoup in a year and then give investors a 67% return. Alcohol sales go to the house. Obviously there is heavy papering going on. Producers understand they will build their audience by word of mouth. With the movie rights already sold, I think they're in it for the long run.
Updated On: 4/6/09 at 11:49 AM
#43
Posted: 4/6/09 at 12:08pm
Thanks, starlight! That makes sense. If the word of mouth keeps up the way it's been, I think they have a very good shot at it. If nothing else, as D2 said, I'm sure that with the Broadway stamp, it'll do gangbusters on tour.
#44
Posted: 4/6/09 at 12:31pm
"Well, whatever you say, Jane. I've asked some valid questions - didn't realize speculation of the simple math was off-limits."
Off limits? Don't put words in my mouth please. I clearly started my post with "I say...." and that means it was only my opinion.
Don't stop believin'
Off limits? Don't put words in my mouth please. I clearly started my post with "I say...." and that means it was only my opinion.
Don't stop believin'
<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95