The Producers at 54%

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 8:42am

Wow, this really suprised me. Even considering the normal February lull, it seems pretty low. I've always liked The Producers, but is it going to stay open? The attendance was lower last week than The Women in White. Is it just the time of year? Thoughts?

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 8:53am

ouch.. well the movie definitely didn't help it's grosses I'm guessing. That's too bad. I've also seen a dip in RENT. It was doing so well at the beginning of the year, and now it's pretty much back to around 70%

[hushpuppy]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 9:21am

I saw the show with Broderick and Lane and wasn't impressed. I said at the time that the show wouldn't have legs unless the producers brought in other big names to give people a reason to go back angain and again. Something along the lines of what David Merrick did for a previous tennant of the St James: Hello, Dolly! Of course, according to the IBDB, the show just passed its 2000th performance, which certainly isn't shabby, but it's still not close to Dolly or Fiddler, let alone Les Miserables or Cats.

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 9:51am

Agreed, puppy. It has had a successful run by any standards, but it looks like it might not have the 10-or-more-years legs that so many folks thought it would.

Then again, Beauty & The Beast posts numbers this low occasionally, but always recovers during tourist season, so who knows?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 10:31am

"Then again, Beauty & The Beast posts numbers this low occasionally, but always recovers during tourist season, so who knows?"

But that's also a family show. Though Disney should close it, it can attract a bigger audience during tourist season thanks to families. Everyone who wants to see The Producers already has, and why pay $110 to see something you can rent at the video store (and with the original stars).

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 10:57am

I was first excited when I finally got my ticket to The Producers (the show hadn't quite hit the 2 year mark then), but was quickly disappointed once the show started. Brad Oscar and Roger Bart were fine in the leads, but I found the overall show lackluster and just not funny.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:11am

If THE PRODUCERS is mkaing $530,000 at 54%, they are still doing just fine...

However, if it slips to under 50% for a considerable amount of time (which I don't forsee in the immediate future), then it will be in some trouble...

[DAME]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:13am

Thesbijean,
Actually.it is not fine. I think most theaters have a percentage clause. If it remains at suck a low attendance level they could close it.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:17am

The St. James clause also stipulates a certain amount that needs to be made in lieu of a low perecentage, and THE PRODUCERS at $530,000 is not in danger of that figure.
Updated On: 2/9/06 at 11:17 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:22am

As I said in another thread, I can think of virtually no Broadway musical (the current SWEENEY perhaps being the exception) that can afford to run at 54%.

$530G may seem a like a lot, but the PRODUCERS is a big show with a big cast - I would imagine their running costs each week are extremely high. Probably higher than that number.

Does anyone know exactly what the figure is?

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:30am

Now that there are NO STARS in it, it currently runs at about $575,000

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:34am

That's what I've heard too -- somewhere in the $550,000 to 600,000 range. So the show isn't really in all that much trouble. I'm sure it'll rebound back into the 70s within the next few weeks and the vultures will stop circling.

Updated On: 2/9/06 at 11:34 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:36am

How will the dvd release affect the stage production? A different scenario from CHICAGO, RENT, and PHANTOM because THE PRODUCERS was only a sell out when Lane and Broderick were in the cast...

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:37am

Agreed. As long as it is make over $525,000 consistently, I don't see it closing soon (but who knows where it wil go after this summer)...

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:37am

It will make for one more thing to sell at the show...

[DAME]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:40am

I just wish they would close it while it is still kind of holding its own. And I do think you are all being way to generous with your running figure assesment. And the St James is a very desirable house. But wo knows.. there might still be some casting gimmick that could give it some extended life.

Updated On: 2/9/06 at 11:40 AM

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:43am

I am not being generous, that is prettty much what it costs to run it...give or take $15,000

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:43am

I agree DAME, but I really see Mel Brooks running the show into the ground. He seems the stubborn type.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:47am

They need to let it go. So.. will highschools be doing "Springtime for Hitler" soon?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:56am

Isn't it funny, but I think a lot of what makes THE PRODUCERS "funny" - its incredibly un PC humour would be really distatesful presented by a bunch of high schoolers. Some overriding feeling that teens might not quite get the joke and take it at face value.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 11:58am

Why are people so anxious to shut this show down? Except for the last three weeks, the show has grossed in excess of $800,000 most weeks (never less than $700K) with attendance figures in the 70s and 80s. That means that through mid January, it was still making a six-figure profit every single week. Why on earth would it close?

Updated On: 2/9/06 at 11:58 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 12:00pm

Margo.. at least with me it has to do with not really being a fan of the show ( I actually liked the film better believe it or not) and wanting to be able to see somethign new at the St. James. ( Like say... BILLY ELIOTT)

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 12:04pm

I agree Margo, I think part of people's frustration, not to say i don't have it as well, is that there are a lot of good shows that are going to be coming in, but not enough theatres. People see THE PRODUCERS at almost half capacity and start to question whether or not it should remain open. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but, as long as the show is making money, IMO, it will stay open. I realistically give THE PRODUCERS at least until end of Summer 2007, unless they bring someone big into the show...

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 12:04pm

People want to see THE PRODUCERS close, I think, because they are on some level resentful that the show was sold by the media as being the "biggest hit in Broadway history." People love to see something fall off a pedistal, and that is a very large one to drop off of.

Plus, I think a lot of people think it's run its course and like so many long running hits should close to make room for newer shows.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing BEAUTY, RENT and THE PRODUCERS all close if there were valid replacement choices for those theatres.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/9/06 at 12:05pm

2007? Isn't that pushing it? Maybe december 2006. Why put this show through another winter?

Updated On: 2/9/06 at 12:05 PM