The "calcification" of Broadway (per Michael Riedel) - DISCUSS AMONGST YOURSELVES!

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:02pm

From Michael Riedel in the NY Post:
++++++++++++++++++
Every single one of Broadway's theaters is booked for the rest of the season. Most of the big musical houses are off the block, since musicals, even if they get mixed reviews, are running longer than ever.

Blockbusters such as "Billy Elliot" can't find a theater —

nor can beloved old favorites like "A Chorus Line."

The shortage of real estate has turned everybody with a show into a vulture.

"I used to have this hippie mentality that other people don't have to fail for me to succeed," says Douglas Carter Beane, who wants to move his off-Broadway hit "The Little Dog Laughed" to Broadway.

"But now I'm reading all the out-of-town reviews, hoping they're bad so I can get someone else's theater."

There's a serious side to this situation: With so little turnover, Broadway will begin to calcify.

And where's the excitement if every show runs as long as "The Phantom"?

+++++++++++++++++++++

Discuss amongst yourselves....

[hannahshule]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:05pm

I'm in agreement, I feel the whole excitment of BWAY comes with the every changing shows.

Updated On: 2/1/06 at 05:05 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:08pm

I don't understand why every producer feels they have to move to Broadway. Off-Broadway is a very respectable place. It gaves us great shows like "Little Shop of Horrors" "Driving Miss Daisy" "Steel Magnolias" "Frankie & Johnny..." "Nunsense" "Other People's Money", etc.

Updated On: 2/1/06 at 05:08 PM

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:12pm

I don't know what to say, I agree that more theatres should be avaliable, but i hate to see old shows like Phantom leave. I geuss it's just because i cling to things. I do think more change should happen, i geuss, i'll just miss some of the old shows.

[EugLoven]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:21pm

I'm in the same boat as you (points to comment above).

My goodness, there's nothing better than some original and/or new material on Broadway. But I hate to see a good thing leave. As long as there's audiences feeding money into the enterprise and New York City's economy, then I don't see why we should say goodbye to long-running hits.

Should we have more flops just for the sake of available real estate? I think not. Is it foolish for me to recommend they start building more theaters? Where? Good question.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:25pm

And where's the excitement if every show runs as long as "The Phantom"?

And that statement is one of the many many reasons Riedel's article is trash this week. When was the last time there was a bona fide long running smash that showed it might possibly run even half as long as Phantom?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 5:40pm

Gotham,

All those shows you mentioned were a long time ago in a different financial climate when the serious play-going audience was much larger. In recent years, commercial off-Broadway has basically died and lots of producers are getting out of the business. Do you know how many commercial off-Broadway plays have turned a profit in the past two years? One (BUG which finally broke even and then turned a very tiny profit in the last week or two of its year long run). That's out of hundreds of shows that have come and gone -- and each lost money.

It now costs roughly $500,000 to mount a small show off-Broadway (and if it's a musical make that $800,000). The feeling on the part of producers is if you're raising almost $1 million for Off-Broadway (with its lower profile, smaller number of seats, but many of the same built in costs, ie advertising in the Times costs the same for Broadway and Off-Broadway) why not raise $3 million and take it to Broadway (and it's easier to raise money anyway for Broadway than off-)? Your show automatically has a higher profile nationally, more exposure (companies everywhere want to do shows that have been on Broadway), a chance at the Tony and maybe appear on the telecast, and a far greater earning potential given the higher prices and more seats and later regional productions.

That was the thinking of both AVENUE Q AND SPELLING BEE moving. Those shows both recouped within months, won Tonys are selling well and will make their investors millions for years to come. Had they gone the commercial off-Broadway route, they likely would still be in the red. ORSON'S SHADOW got raves and ran for nearly a year and closed last month at a loss. ALTAR BOYZ has as many losing weeks as barely profitable weeks at the box office -- despite all the hype and advertising and good reviews, it has managed to only repay a tiny fraction of its capitalization so far. Most commercial off-Broadway shows close without recouping ANY of their initial investment.

Also from an audience perspective, the disparity in prices between Broadway and off-Broadway has vanished. Off-Broadway now has a top price of $65 to 70 -- that's roughly at or even more than what most Broadway shows sell for now with a discount or at TKTS. If Off-Broadway shows discount down to $45-50, they might sell more tickets (and encourage good word of mouth) but their profit margin completely disappears. And due to smaller budgets and the size of the theatres. Off-Broadway can't compete in terms of bang for the buck. Mind you, you still see some of the best acting and writing in the city in Off-Broadway houses. But the theatres are struggling to survive and be able to compete with Broadway.

Updated On: 2/1/06 at 05:40 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:01pm

Think the St James & the Minskoff may be opening up soon

I hope the Mark Hellinger comes back soon. It is a beautiful theater which, after a new paint job , will be ready to go

Updated On: 2/1/06 at 06:01 PM

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:09pm

The Minskoff is about to be home to Lion King.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:18pm

Urinetown & Bat Boy.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:19pm

The Minskoff is already dark and being custom renovated for The Lion King.

I don't think The Producers is going anywhere for a LONG time. While it may have dropped below blockbuster status at this point, it's only in the last two weeks where it's been hovering just above break even. Before that, it was heathily profitable, with average attendance in the upper 70s and 80s (at full price - no discounts) and grossing over $800K most weeks. Even now it's not losing money, and most weeks is turning hundreds of thousands in profit. Shows that still have numbers like that don't close -- not for years.

[TimeSuckage]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:19pm

Isn't it possible that if Riedel's "calcification" prediction comes to pass, it would force people to seek out entertainment off-Bway and in smaller theaters? If they've already seen everything on Bway they might have no choice but to go elsewhere. There's also the fact that people will revisit a show they like with a significant cast change, and with the ridiculous new "replacement cast" Tony, big names may drop into existing shows and entice people back that ordinarily may not be repeat attendees.

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 6:40pm

BRING BACK THE MARK HELLINGER!

(wishful thinking, but that would be amazing)

[sabrelady]

Posted: 2/1/06 at 11:20pm

Isn't the Henry Miller being rebuilt? When is that due to open?

[QMAN03]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 12:03am

I want all the shows on Broadway to stay open untill I see them. Then when I do, I wouldn't be mad if they left.

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 12:48am

Not every big show needs to have a big house.

The Golden is a tiny theatre, but Avenue Q is thriving.

[jimmirae]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 12:58am

I'd hate to think of an age of folks walking down Broadway saying "Been there, Done that, Got the tee shirt"

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 1:02am

In a dream world, we could bring back the Mark Hellinger, the Henry Miller, and MORE

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 1:04am

Well, come Fall 2006, the Hilton, Palace and Marquis will prolly be available.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 6:17am

To bad Riedel is not calcified. Than again, maybe he is

[bdwybug55]

Posted: 2/2/06 at 9:17am

Yes, I see nothing wrong with shows running a long time. If people are still coming and willing to give their money...I think that is great. It keeps people employed and at least gives investors a shot at getting back their money. There will never be enough long running shows all at once to "calcify" Broadway. What I am not a fan of is the huge amoung of bad material that is making it to Broadway (specifically in the musical category).

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:10pm

To add insult to injury, now LES MIZ is coming back for (at least) 6 months...Is that calcified enough for you?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/16/06 at 7:45pm

Les Miz should be redone with a new score by the Monty Python gang

[hushpuppy]

Posted: 2/18/06 at 9:36am

Add me to the list of people who wish shows like Phantom would close. ALW got his 'longest running show...ever' tag so let's free up the Majestic for new shows. And it looks like Chicago's stunt casting is wearing thin. The show is dipping into the mid-60's

[Dollypop]

Posted: 2/18/06 at 10:08am

I'm perplexed by his use of the word "calcify" in this context.