'Swept Away’ to Close on Broadway December 15- Page 7

[ACL2006]

Posted: 12/31/24 at 8:34am

But why enact the stop clause when the theater doesn't have another tenant until March?

Or was SWEPT AWAY really that close to not being able to pay their weekly nut and their rent on the theater?

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 12/31/24 at 9:11am

 

My personal belief is that when it looked like MHE wasn't going to vacate in time for the spring, that Swept Away became the sacrificial lamb (with good reason) to keep Dead Outlaw in the Shubert theaters, especially after already losing Glengarry Glen Ross to the Palace because they didn't have a theater... I mean, we're not getting Motive and the Cue for that very reason... 

Updated On: 12/31/24 at 09:11 AM

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 12/31/24 at 10:04am

I will say, I hope this allows Adrian's band to finish their revisions on the What's Eating Gilbert Grape? musical they were doing with MCC. It was really something special and I think their summer workshop was cancelled due to Swept Away.

[bdn223]

Posted: 12/31/24 at 11:00am

ACL2006 said: "But why enact the stop clause when the theater doesn't have another tenant until March?

Or was SWEPT AWAY really that close to not being able to pay their weekly nut and their rent on the theater?"

The stop clause was enacted, but the original December 15th closing date was a choice by producers because much like Tammy Faye the show was hemorrhaging cash likely loosing between $200K-$350K a week since the first week of previews.

As others have stated the show was clearly undercapitalized and likely ate through most of their reserve during previews and sales remained flat after opening to mixed to positive reviews. At the point of the closure announcement producers had a tough decision to make try and find more cash even though sales trends indicated there was little reason to expect a turnaround in sales unless they did a massive marketing overhaul, which they couldn't afford, or close the show and allow investors to take a full tax write off for their investment in 2024 instead of having to wait another year to try and offset their total losses.

When a show like Swept Away closes with less than 2 weeks notice prior to the Christmas period, which is typically broadways busiest for sales, its clear producers don't have the funds can't afford to keep the show open as the penalties associated with closing a show with under 2 weeks notice are already included in capitalization. And yes the industry appeared to rally around Swept Away in its original final weeks, causing sales to jump to $540K and $657K, which in best case scenario meant it might of just broken even in its original final week. More likely than not though, the show still lost an additional $50K-$100K during their original final week despite it being their best sales week in their run. Then looking at their first week of the extension essentially fell back to their pre-closure announcement levels. We will see where they fell last week, but I doubt it all of a sudden was a hit in that final week, especially for a show that never knew who it was for.
 

Updated On: 12/31/24 at 11:00 AM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/31/24 at 9:46pm

BoringBoredBoard40 said: "also this show was clearly under-capitilized"

I ask this with the stipulation that (1) I don't know much about these things, and (2) I mean no disrespect to the show or those who love it. I had a ticket to see it on November 10 but couldn't make it to the city that day.

Anyhow, I assume that the intention of a larger capitalization would have been to allow the show to develop an audience by word of mouth. But isn't it much more likely that a larger capitalization would have just resulted in the investors losing that much more money?

 

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 12/31/24 at 10:10pm

kdogg36 said: "BoringBoredBoard40 said: "also this show was clearly under-capitilized"

I ask this with the stipulation that (1) I don't know much about these things, and (2) I mean no disrespect to the show or those who love it. I had a ticket to see it on November 10 but couldn't make it to the city that day.

Anyhow, I assume that the intention of a larger capitalization would have been to allow the show to develop an audience by word of mouth. But isn't it much more likely that a larger capitalization would have just resulted in the investors losing that much more money?

"

Yes. There is no amount of money that would have made this show a hit. It just wasn’t good enough. I say that as the actual PERFECT demographic for this show to market to: a huge fan of The Avett Brothers and Michael Mayer who loves new, dark, experimental work. 
 

I enjoyed the show because of my predisposition to weird new work and The Avett Brothers, and only because of that. It was not something I could in good conscience recommend to anyone and maintain my integrity. The characters were underdeveloped. The show didn’t know what it wanted to be. The plot was thin as ice in the early fall. 
 

The capitalization didn’t kill this show. Audience members bot buying tickets early enough didn’t kill this show. This show was killed by a failure to adjust and adapt to the higher expectations of a Broadway audience. They had not one but TWO out of town tryouts over THREE years and barely made ANY changes. That is almost unfathomable.