#1
Posted: 12/5/12 at 8:29pm
Spider-Man to have a new Theater..?
#3
Posted: 12/5/12 at 8:37pm
The new landlord would most likely assume the rental agreement with the show.
ETA- Like with apartment buildings, a new landlord would rather buy a property that already has tenants.
ACL does raise an interesting prospect below of the new landlord not wanting to use the space as a Broadway theater, which is of course entirely possible. I would imagine though that Spider-man's lease with the theater has a clause relative to the ownership of the theater changing hands either guaranteeing them tenancy or a hefty buy out.
ETA- Like with apartment buildings, a new landlord would rather buy a property that already has tenants.
ACL does raise an interesting prospect below of the new landlord not wanting to use the space as a Broadway theater, which is of course entirely possible. I would imagine though that Spider-man's lease with the theater has a clause relative to the ownership of the theater changing hands either guaranteeing them tenancy or a hefty buy out.
Updated On: 12/5/12 at 08:37 PM
#4
Posted: 12/5/12 at 8:39pm
unless that new tenant doesn't want it kept as a theater and turn it into something else. No way Spiderman gets moved, it would likely close.
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.
#5
Posted: 12/5/12 at 8:41pm
^ I agree. It's just too large to move into a completly new theatre. New technical difficulties. But it make's alot of money. Why would it close when it's up on the top? Like seinfeld? haha 
#6
Posted: 12/5/12 at 8:46pm
Highly unlikely that anything will change.
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.
#7
Posted: 12/5/12 at 8:48pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Gershwin the largest Broadway theatre? Or did this become the biggest after the renovations for Spiderman?
#8
Posted: 12/5/12 at 9:00pm
I believe that after the renovation the Foxwoods now has a few more seats than the Gershwin, but it's very close.
#9
Posted: 12/5/12 at 9:24pm
Poor Boner & The Wedge just can't catch a break.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#10
Posted: 12/5/12 at 10:56pm
The Gershwin is still the largest theatre.
Top 10:
1.) Gershwin Theatre (Nederlander) - 1933
2.) Foxwoods Theatre (?) - 1829
3.) New Amsterdam Theatre (Disney) - 1801
4.) Broadway Theatre (Shubert) -1761
5.) Palace Theatre (Nederlander) - 1743
*6) Minskoff Theatre (Nederlander) - 1710
*6) St. James Theatre (Jujamcyn) - 1710
8.) Marquis Theatre(Nederlander) - 1615
9.) Majestic Theatre (Shubert) -1609
10.) Lunt-Fontanne Theatre (Nederlander) - 1509
*tie
Top 10:
1.) Gershwin Theatre (Nederlander) - 1933
2.) Foxwoods Theatre (?) - 1829
3.) New Amsterdam Theatre (Disney) - 1801
4.) Broadway Theatre (Shubert) -1761
5.) Palace Theatre (Nederlander) - 1743
*6) Minskoff Theatre (Nederlander) - 1710
*6) St. James Theatre (Jujamcyn) - 1710
8.) Marquis Theatre(Nederlander) - 1615
9.) Majestic Theatre (Shubert) -1609
10.) Lunt-Fontanne Theatre (Nederlander) - 1509
*tie
Updated On: 12/6/12 at 10:56 PM
#11
Posted: 12/5/12 at 11:05pm
I would expect the theatre will ultimately be bought by one of the other 'Big 3' Broadway theatre owners: The Shubert Organization, The Nederlander Organization or Jucamcyn.
#12
Posted: 12/6/12 at 1:06am
Hopefully it gets a proper name this time around. Or will it be doomed to corporate sponsorship?
#13
Posted: 12/6/12 at 3:43am
I don't get why they would want to sell it? Are they not making enough money to make it a worthwhile venture? I mean, their current tenant is kind of a "hit" - at least it's paying back it's rent, right? So why would not capitalize on that?
#14
Posted: 12/6/12 at 7:33am
If it's not getting the money they had initially hoped, it's better to off-load it now while it has a stable tenant. It's got to be worth more now than it was empty, or even with a show with a shorter likely run (Young Frankenstein, Pirate Queen, or the Grinch).
With the track record of attendance before, it may actually be in a buy low/sell high time for the owners.
With the track record of attendance before, it may actually be in a buy low/sell high time for the owners.
#15
Posted: 12/6/12 at 8:23am
as far as the size of the stage and back stage space which theater is the largest?
#16
Posted: 12/6/12 at 9:34am
The Gershwin has the widest stage by far, with it's own private rehearsal place within the theater.
St James and Foxwoods have the Highest procienum arch, not sure which is higher, but I think it's the St James, althought the stage is very shallow.
The Lunt has one of the deepest stages.
The Al Hershfeld has the most dressing rooms, enough to hold over 200 cast members.
The Foxwoods probably has the best location of the largest theaters second only to the Minskoff.
St James and Foxwoods have the Highest procienum arch, not sure which is higher, but I think it's the St James, althought the stage is very shallow.
The Lunt has one of the deepest stages.
The Al Hershfeld has the most dressing rooms, enough to hold over 200 cast members.
The Foxwoods probably has the best location of the largest theaters second only to the Minskoff.
#17
Posted: 12/6/12 at 10:30am
According to the grosses the Foxwoods has 1930 seats versus the Gershwin's 1809.
#18
Posted: 12/6/12 at 10:43am
I've been under the impression for awhile that there are some parts of the Foxwoods that have landmark status. Not the whole thing, but some parts from both the Lyric and Apollo that were used when the new theatre was constructed. If that's the case, then I find it to be kind of hard for the building to be used for anything else other than a theatre.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
#19
Posted: 12/6/12 at 12:07pm
I wonder if anyone outside the Big three would buy it? Perhaps Key Brand who bought the Live Nation touring theatres will consider buying it or the Ambassador Theatre Group who own theatres in London and the UK so could look to the Foxwoods to gain a Broadway foothold.
#20
Posted: 12/6/12 at 12:38pm
"If that's the case, then I find it to be kind of hard for the building to be used for anything else other than a theatre."
It would not be that hard to work around a portion of the building if they did want to repurpose it and if those portions are indeed protected by landmark status. That status does not dictate how the building is used, just what can be done to it. It would not be that hard to turn it into a restaurant or club or some other type of venue, even if they had to keep the proscenium or some portion of the lobby in tact, for instance.
It would not be that hard to work around a portion of the building if they did want to repurpose it and if those portions are indeed protected by landmark status. That status does not dictate how the building is used, just what can be done to it. It would not be that hard to turn it into a restaurant or club or some other type of venue, even if they had to keep the proscenium or some portion of the lobby in tact, for instance.
#21
Posted: 12/6/12 at 12:52pm
Quoted from the Playbill Article:
"Any sale is not expected to disrupt the life of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, which is "expected to continue its robust performances for many years to come," according to the firm. The new owner would assume the license agreement for the show."
>
Playbill
"Any sale is not expected to disrupt the life of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark, which is "expected to continue its robust performances for many years to come," according to the firm. The new owner would assume the license agreement for the show."
>
Playbill
#22
Posted: 12/6/12 at 1:19pm
I was wondering when the people asking all these questions would actually click on and read the article. It answers them all.
^I don't mean that to sound snarky.
^I don't mean that to sound snarky.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $65