Spring Awakening bo vs. Rent bo in 96

[1183]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:14pm

i am not interested in discussing the artistic merits of the productions, but rather am very curious how long it was before rent became the mega hit it is today. was the box office hot from the start?

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:30pm

No comparison between the two. Rent was a hit when it opened. It ran at over 100% attendance every week for two and a half years before it dipped just below the 100% mark.

[1183]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:31pm

it opened at 100%

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:34pm

"it" meaning Rent? Yes, as I said, it was a hit from the start. There is no comparison to the beginning of Rent and the beginning of Spring Awakening. None.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:36pm

Didn't rent start off broadway first and build momentum to broadway? So really there is no comparing the two if that is true since Spring awakening had to build it's momentum once it hit broadway.

[shiksa_goddess]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:36pm

I wonder though what Rent's Box Office would have been like had Jonathan Larson not died. I'm not trying to be mean at all in saying that. Just wondering.
Updated On: 1/4/07 at 11:36 PM

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:38pm

Here is the groses for rent when it first opened.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/grossesshow.cfm?show=RENT&year=1996

[1183]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:38pm

shiksa, i think that is great question and i am sure has been discussed at length on this board before. but sa was sold out at the atlantic, it had buzz.

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:38pm

umgeoboy, Spring Awakening also had a run off-Broadway.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:39pm

"I wonder thought what Rent's Box Office would have been like had Jonathan Larson not died. I'm not trying to be mean at all in saying that. Just wondering."

I've always been curious about that as well. Rent was a hit before the lights went down on its first preview.

"but sa was sold out at the atlantic, it had buzz."

It had some buzz but not as much as Rent did.

*Edited for response's to other posts. Updated On: 1/4/07 at 11:39 PM

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:43pm

Ah I was mistaken sorry. I never heard about SA at atlantic so I guess the buzz wasn't that loud

[1183]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:46pm

for those of you who have looked at those numbers for rent in 96, WOW. part of the struggle for spring awakening is the fact that it is, simply, a smarter show. like sweeney tood, true brilliance, even with great reviews is tough. i want to see this thing on letterman, leno, and ROSIE help///let's see it on the view.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:47pm

"I never heard about SA at atlantic so I guess the buzz wasn't that loud "

I guess you were just away for a while or something...

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:49pm

part of the struggle for spring awakening is the fact that it is, simply, a smarter show.

Smarter than...?

[1183]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:53pm

smarter than, well, rent. i think it is more sophisticated, rather than melodrama. more subtle. ...perhaps smart was a poor choice of word.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 1/4/07 at 11:55pm

The timing of RENT's opening played a role as well. I saw it during previews, mere days after it won the Pulitzer prize, and by the time it opened it was hitting the covers of newsmagazines and shortly thereafter picked up award after award.

I suppose Spring Awakening could pick up some of the same accolades, but it's long-term box office picture is unlikely to match Rent's.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:07am

Well, it's a lot more than that.

I remember when Rent opened on Broadway very well. It was like a rock star's concert. There were all these people camping overnight to get the cheaper seats - a lot of those who haven't been to a theatre in their lives. They wanted to see it live- the cast recording created a fan base similar to a strong indie band. The concert-like staging and the agressive and edgy marketing campaign only helped to build an audience for a show that - without getting into the discussion about the production overstaying its welcome - is still alive after a decade.

I don't understand the need to start comparing the two. Rent was targeted to a very specific audience and, most importantly for its success- a specific generation - right place and time.

Updated On: 1/5/07 at 12:07 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:09am

"I wonder though what Rent's Box Office would have been like had Jonathan Larson not died. I'm not trying to be mean at all in saying that. Just wondering."

Jonathan Larson died early morning the day of Rent's 1st Off-Broadway preview, hours after the final dress rehearsal the day before. When you consider what Rent is about ("No Day But Today") and the timing of his death, his death (and therefore the show) became a huge press story in 1996 that transcended the boundaries of traditional theatre press.

When performances began and people realized just how good it was, the story grew and became nationwide. And then the reviews came out, and they were raves. Not only was there a real-life story attached to the show that was ABOUT the show as well, but the music and message were perfect for the times.

By the time Rent moved to Broadway, only weeks after ending Off-Broadway, it was a pre-sold hit, and the story became about the pre-mature loss of Larson, and about what could have been (again, back to "No Day But Today"). It is quite possible that Rent would have been a huge hit without Larson's untimely death, and I think it ultimately would be an even better musical. (I mean, he never even got to complete the creative process, clean things up, etc.)

Spring Awakening, by contrast, had to wait months after it's Off=Broadway run before beginning on Broadway. It had no press stories of personal interest other than it's own qualities as a musical to propel press coverage - indeed, the producers have to work hard to get press and to make sure they know what the show is about. Still, many hits have been built - Avenue Q is probably more the model here.

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:11am

I wonder though what Rent's Box Office would have been like had Jonathan Larson not died. I'm not trying to be mean at all in saying that. Just wondering.

Not as good, that's for sure. As amazing as the show and its original cast were, I can't see Rent starting out as a sell-out smash had Jonathan Larson's death not been such a good angle for publicity. It may sound calloused, but that's show biz...and as much as I love Rent, I believe it's the truth.

Now, there are those who go so far as to say Rent would never have made it to Broadway without Jonathan Larson's death, which I think is ridiculous. Plenty of shows every year make the transfer from off-Broadway, and none (with the exception of A Chorus Line twenty years earlier) went on to run longer than Rent.

So clearly the show stands on its own legs--it's foolish to think that Rent is still running on the momentum from Jonathan's death, because it's a full decade later and the majority who see Rent today probably aren't aware of the show's beginnings. However, equally foolish is the notion that Rent's initial success (both downtown and uptown) was not boosted quite a bit by Jonathan's death. The show certainly had the "spark" on its own, or people wouldn't have come to see it time and time again. But, as others have said in the past, Jonathan's untimely death--and the fact that its eerie echoes in Rent made such a great story--essentially "lit the fuse".

Edit: Yay! Now there are two posts about this!

Updated On: 1/5/07 at 12:11 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:26am

Yes SDav, we were posting almost simultaneously.

But to be clear, I don't think the production set out to exploit Jonathan Larson's death - in everything I've seen and heard they truly mean to pay tribute to him. It's just that the timing of his death created a story that had a life of its own.

And for the record, I think that Rent continues to run on its merits, including a wonderful score.

More context: 1996 was also the season of Victor/Victoria and Big - two "old-fashioned" musicals that not many people cared for. And there was "Bring On the Noise, Bring On the Funk," which was considered hot, new and modern. Rent stood out for it's quality but also for being fresh and new (Like SA). The Tony nominating committee that year (which included mostly not-for-profit types) refused to nominate either Victor/Victoria or Big, opting for a Johnny Mercer revue that flopped, and the closed, not-for-profit "Chronicles of a Death Foretold."

[1183]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:26am

i am not so interested in comparing shows, but it is interesting to see how the two made it to broadway and their respective success as they do target the same audience. we don't see shows like this often. and with this discussion i think some comparison is inevitable

[1183]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:32am

how can spring awakening tap into the audience, i worry that there is limited time to make value of the reviews, they should be on a radio and tv media blitz with the release of the album. the tony will help, but they need to be open in june!

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:38am

look! TOP TICKET PRICE IN 96 was 70 BUCKS! AH!

[jenna2]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:45am

I just about to post that, Caroline. I think all the broadway shows now should drop down to 1996 prices! :)

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:56am

So if Duncan Drops Dead
This show will sell more tickets?

RENT is just a much better show
and i like Spring Awakening