Some shows that appear to be hurting in the summer

[wdwfreak]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:23pm

Its quite obvious that 9 to 5 is having a hard time. Practically every week their grosses go down and a discount code has been put out for 76.50 tickets which is quite low for a show during the busiest time of the year. Also, Chicago put out a discount code to the same extent as 9 to 5, but with this one you can only get side orchestra. I have a feeling Chicago is going to have a rough sell once Samantha Harris exits unless the Jerry Springer rumors are true. If it is, 3 stunt castings within a 3 month period. In the Heights also put out a code today, but with a higher discount price. I'm still puzzled as to why this show would get a discount code because it is doing fairly well and it is an amazing show. Also, Shrek which has had this discount all summer long which doesn't really seem to be hurting them at all. They are still pulling in 900K weekly.
I would have to say though that 9 to 5(which most of the people on the board have been saying) will be the next show to go if they don't pick up significantly within the next few weeks.
Updated On: 7/20/09 at 07:23 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:38pm

Chicago has already made back its investment (many, many, many times) and costs about a dime to run. It's in no "trouble."

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:39pm

You couldn't post this in the thread for grosses?

CHICAGO is and will be fine, it's dirt cheap to run.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:39pm

^ The stunt casting costs them. Chicago is doing fine, though.

[fgreene1938]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:47pm

If you look at the big ticket productions of the last several years, there are many that lasted little to less than a year with all of the hype. For example: Tarzan, Young Frankenstein, The Little Mermaid (about to go) and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. All were highly promoted and all failed and lost millions. Next on board: 9 to 5 within six months, Shrek the Musical by next spring if not sooner, Next to Normal same thing and, unfortunately, In the Heights is doubtful to hit the 2-year mark. The cost of maintaining productions has gotten so steep that without blockbuster status, you're just busted.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:48pm

Most shows will feel it in this economy.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:55pm

HEIGHTS will easily make the 2-year mark. Which will be this coming March.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 7:59pm

I wonder if 9 TO 5 will be around in October, since that's when I think I'm planning on seeing it.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 10:07pm

Doubtful. It's not making its nut anymore. Unless they throw in some stunt-casting, I don't see it going past this September or so. Plus, there are a lot of "big" shows clamoring to get theaters.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 10:09pm

Aside from Parton, Tomlin, and Fonda going into the show, I don't think anyone can save this ship from sinking.

And it looked so good on paper...

[geniuswithADD]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 10:16pm

not to sound like an idiot, (okay i'm gonna sound like an idiot), but what is stunt-casting?

[iflip4musicals]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 10:18pm

stunt casting is when you put a big name star (most likely not just a big bway star, but someone who has done well in film or television) into a show. When joe schmoe (and theater fans alike) see THIS PERSON in THIS ROLE they decide they have to see it, and will buy tickets!

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 7/20/09 at 11:46pm

In The Heights already recouped...that show should not be put in the same list of shows that you said.

[BroadwayBound115]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 12:37am

The Marquis really has to be cursed.

[Mark_E]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 6:10am

^Didn't hurt White Christmas and Drowsy.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 7/21/09 at 8:02am

"It looked good on paper."

No, it didn't.