The state of Broadway musicals

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 12:47am

I know that this is broad subject line. What I would really like to discuss is the current state of affairs on Broadway in terms of new shows being unable to attract an audience. There are ticket buyers out there and Broadway continues to show growth in overall box office take every year. The problem is that these ticket buyers are all going to see the proven box office "hits" and aren't risking their money on newer shows. Let's set aside the discussion of this season and whether Bonnie & Clyde or Ghost or even Newsies are "better" or "good enough" when compared to Phantom, Wicked, The Lion King, Mamma Mia!, Jersey Boys, Book Of Mormon etc. etc. People come to NYC and they want to see the Empire State Building, buy some cheap clothing and shoes and go to see something iconic like Wicked. New Yorkers want to get in to the impossible ticket - Book Of Mormon. When you are paying $120+ per ticket - when a family of 4 costs $500 - you want to see a HIT. Maybe you want to see a show with a celebrity in it such as Chicago or How To Succeed. Do you want to see Once? Do you want to see Peter And The Star Catcher? Will either of those shows be brag-worthy on your Facebook page?

Let's talk about how Broadway could change to meet the challenges ahead. Is it all about a dearth of product or is it really societal? Has the Internet killed Broadway? Do some of the juggernaut shows need to close to make room in the money pool for new shows? Is the limited buying budget for musicals being eaten up by the big shows?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 12:55am

Broadway is in the state of New York.

[mc1227]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:04am

I appreciate your topic. I think a lot has to do with the price of tickets and the ongoing horrible economy. When a person's entertainment budget is limited they want to make sure they see a proven show. Also, tourists want to go back to their hometowns and tell everyone they saw "The Lion King" or "Phantom", not "LOF" or even "Once" since many people won't even know what that is.

While we like to think that what we post on this blog makes a difference, it really doesn't except to other bloggers. I don't think it makes any difference to the average theater goer who will usually want to see a new show with a recognizable name or something that is a runaway hit only. Look at "LOF". They are practically giving tickets away and no one is going. The show is not that great but aside from this blog, Raul is not a star name that would draw an audience. Ghost is a more recognizable story but with no star draw it is also floundering.

I feel somewhat mixed about long running shows in the same way I feel about tv shows that are still on the air and also go into syndication. I think once a tour starts, the Broadway show should close to give others a chance to get off the ground. I understand that tourists don't get the opportunity to come to NYC and see shows regularly but that's what tours are for. It will never happen since these shows are all proven money makers, but I can always hope.

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 01:04 AM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:04am

Wow... very clever Phyllis

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:10am

Thanks mc1227 - well said. I'm all for a show being able to continue to run and to rake in the money if people will pay. I'm all for capitalism. The question is how to be able to sustain it. The same can be said for sustaining capitalism after the music stops but that is a topic for a different board.

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 01:10 AM

[AADA81]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 2:41am

I think it has to do with why people attend Broadway shows now. For the most part, audiences seem to want what is familiar and comforting, rather than challenging or new. At $100+ a throw, I can understand why someone wouldn't chance a one-time opportunity on something unproven, but audience expectations have become very different. It's like Broadway is now the Disney World of the northeast, and the big shows are like the theme park rides. How else to explain "Spiderman", which is trounced in reviews and then rakes in millions? That's not a show...it's Space Mountain with costumes and loud music. And that's what the audience wants.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:22am

"audiences seem to want what is familiar and comforting, rather than challenging or new."

Show me a challenging or new musical this season.

I can already hear you say Once, and while I do respect the show, it's based on a popular indie film and features all of the same songs. One of which "tourists" who didn't see the movie will recognize from its memorable performance (and subsequent win) on the Oscars. There's nothing really new about Once if you've seen the film and own the soundtrack.

Newsies is based on a cult film and uses the same songs. Again, I'm a fan of the show, and I realize new songs were written, but there's nothing really new about Newsies. The show is doing very well. The fact is, though, people are coming to see Newsies because they're fans of the film. Or are young kids whose parents are fans of the film. Newsies, if it stays open, may find a larger audience base, but right now its success lies in the fact that 20 and 30 somethings have been begging for a Broadway production of the show since the early 90s. And most of them are old enough now to buy tickets.

Ghost is going to suffer for one main reason and it doesn't have to do with the fact that the show isn't very good or that it got bad reviews. The show is based on an EXTREMELY popular movie staring three iconic movie stars, one of which won an Oscar for her performance. Tourists aren't going to see Ghost because Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore, and Whoopi aren't in it. If they want to see the movie they love, it can be Netflixed for a lot cheaper. The only people the musical could appeal to is people who don't really like the movie, but then again, there's nothing musical about the film... so really, it's a musical with no audience.

Nice Work If You Can Get It is going to suffer for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's a revival of Oh, Kay! disguised as something else because the producers are too afraid of reviving a Gershwin show the way it's written (also note the retooling of this season's Porgy and Bess). They are trying to cash in on what Crazy For You did to Girl Crazy. What the producers and creatives don't understand is that it wasn't Girl Crazy's plot that made the show successful. it was Stroman's brilliant dance and inventive choreography... none of which is tried in this second attempt at striking gold. Crazy For You also had a better leading man. Nothing new here, it's Crazy For You 2, and like most sequels, it's not as good as the original.

Spider-Man is theme park trash that saw a boost in ticket sales when people started getting hurt. News of lawsuits regarding Taymor have kept the show in public eye and while it's numbers may look impressive on paper, it has been reported that the show cost somewhere over 75 million to produce and the weekly nut lies somewhere over 1.2 million a week. Ticket sales are dying off which is probably a sign that everyone who's wanted to see the train wreck for whatever reason has probably done so. Spider-Man is not a repeat visit experience. The only thing challenging the show has to offer is a variation of flying techniques already employed previously in the West End (The Witches of Eastwick) as well as on Broadway (Mary Poppins).

Bonnie and Clyde, while arguably Wildhorn's best score, still relies on the use of contemporary music in a period setting (a gimmick all too familiar to the composer). The story was very paint by numbers and "safe". They decided to fabricate a love story that can be debated by historians and decided to ignore notions of Clyde's sexuality and/or impotence, which is not only depicted in other dramatizations of their lives (the popular film makes him impotent) but also in history books. Clyde is believed to have either been bisexual or impotent and Bonnie was believed to have been a nymphomaniac. The musical paints a fairytale about a criminal couple in love. Regardless, people outside the show's small group of fans agree... the movie was better.

Leap of Faith is a bad musical based on a bad movie. Nothing new or challenging there.

And that leaves just one show. The only challenging and "new" show of the season... And it just wasn't that good. Lysistrata Jones is an off-Broadway quirky musical that got raves and just couldn't cut it after the transfer. Really, the only show worth your lament. It's not a great show, but it's not bad either. The only really original musical all season and it opened and closed without anyone even noticing. There is nothing groundbreaking about it, mind you, and it's not exactly "original" either... rather, it's the only original idea. It's not a straight adaptation like any of the other adaptations of the season, it's an original take on a classical play. But there is no market for the show. Rent it is not. West Side Story it is not.

It's not the economy... it's the shows.

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 04:22 AM

[binau]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:33am

"Its* memorable"

"Its* success"

Fail troll can't use grammar...(I am aware of the grammatical wrong of using 'fail' but will keep it for the sake of the internet meme)

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 04:33 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:36am

but all of those shows were new at one point...and had to find their audience.

Look at the following hits: Memphis, Rock of Ages, Spring Awakening, Next to Normal, Billy Elliot, Ave Q, Urinetown. Just because they aren't STILL running, doesn't mean audiences didn't take a chance.

Nothing is a hit out of the starting gate (Well, except BOM!). Once hasn't been open all that long -- and it's doing well and will likely continue to do so as word get out further.

Additionally, the AVERAGE Bway ticket buyer simply doesn't KNOW what's new which is why longevity (of a year or more) is often key. How often, if at all, do you go even the movie theater and go to a film you've never heard of? You don't. However, since movies play all other the country, commercials and press are all over the place. B'way? you have to look for.

This year, all the FLOPS, were worthy of being flops: B&C, Leap, Ghost -- just aren't/weren't GOOD.

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 04:36 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 9:02am

I agree with Dramamama,

Also I don't think the concern is in the least limited to tourists. Even New Yorkers of means who have been burned spending megabucks taking in new Broadway shows they have not liked will think twice before seeing a new show that has not won the stamp of critical or at least word of mouth approval, let alone the many locals who would like to go to Broadway more often but for whom it would be a financial hardship. Even "good deals," including advanced pricing on new shows, and standard ticket prices for Off-Broadway are high, though relatively bargains. (While many on bww see a great many shows, other theater enthusiasts living here see far less than they would like to because of the price, notwithstanding the ways to further lessen the costs (tdf, rush, subscriptions (Signature, for instance, is an extraordinary value), etc.). When people who love musical theater spend $175 making certain (as easily as possible, cost withstanding) they see Amy Adams and Donna Murphy in ITW (a show they know they are very excited to see - and which may or may not live up/exceed their expectations) that is money they may not devote to seeing Leap of Faith, Lysistrata Jones, Bonnie and Clyde or On A Clear Day (for the sake of examples of shows which they may or may not find worthwhile).

And this is nothing new. Those of us who sat through Shogun and Chu Chem, for example, might wish that time had been far better spent at the symphony, dancing at Area, dining at Cafe des Artistes, or being at home playing trivial pursuit or reading a good book.

On the flip side, the price is justifiable; theater is expensive, as is the cost of living for all, especially those working in it (many of whom face un/der-employment between shows), and those working in it need to be fairly compensated for their hard work.

There really is no easy solution. Attending the theater should be something those who would like to do can do more often, but in contemporary times, for a variety of reasons, mostly purely economic but also because the theater is so often disappointing at any price, let alone high prices (and, although it has reached far more epic proportions, that is nothing new!), many will limit the shows they see annually, or relegate their theater going to either hits and or to those select shows which call out to them individually as being an especially attractive draw (e.g., the chance to see Eileen Atkins in anything, the chance to see a new LaChiusa show, the chance to see a play which may be Horton Foote's last work, irrespective of how good it may or may not be).

Finally, thank goodness for the critical (professional and non-(including sites like this)) grapevine) and for the market. It is not an exact science, not always reliable, and often great work goes unseen because it goes publicly unheralded. But it is a way to get the word across that something is truly worth seeing, and because of it many will see shows they wouldn't otherwise clamor to see, and might be grateful that Once, Venus in Fur, and Anything Goes were generally so well received. If not, people who have truly loved these productions may not have had the joy of seeing them. For example, without the imprimatur of approval, I would probably have eschewed Xanadu, as it didn't exactly call out to me as something I would have enjoyed. I ended up loving it.











Updated On: 5/8/12 at 09:02 AM

[ChildrenwillListen]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 9:36am

i hate the fact that Broadway is struggling so much. I wish more shows would start appealing more to people. I wish producers and creators would come up with more creative ideas. it's a shame so many shows aren't doing well.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 10:23am

New York City (including Broadway) has become much like a theme park, and will only become more so in coming years. Look for a roller coaster in Times Square by 2020.

As you've already noted, Broadway is now primarily a place for a few multi-decade-running, lowest-common-denominator-appealing theme park shows.

The only way this could change is if Broadway were to stop aiming at appealing to a lowbrow global tourist market and return to its pre-WW II model of aiming at appealing to (lowbrow and highbrow) New Yorkers. Which may happen if oil prices become so high no one can afford tourism anymore.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 10:24am

I would find this conversation more interesting if there weren't any shows in the current season or even the last season that were doing well. Fact is, every season has something that becomes a hit a runs a while. Look at these numbers for the week ending 5/6/2012:

Spider-Man: $1,286,567
Book of Mormon: $1,605,867
Nice Work If You Can Get It: $1,022,115
Newsies: $907,388
Evita: $1,533,055

Once is starting to pick up while Mary Poppins and Mamma Mia are declining.

I think once a tour starts, the Broadway show should close to give others a chance to get off the ground. I understand that tourists don't get the opportunity to come to NYC and see shows regularly but that's what tours are for.

If you really want to see the death of Broadway, close the long-running shows that international tourists want to see. tell them all to go to London if they want and then we can all see how much NYC relies on the annoying international tourists.

I'm sorry, but Broadway is not "struggling" or "dying" or in any fear of danger. At least three times a year, every year, since the BEGINNING OF TIME, someone bemoans the state of Broadway and it's nothing more than hyperbolic hysteria. If people think the state of Broadway musicals is bad now, they should have been there in 1988-89 or 1994-95 seasons. Long-running shows had nothing to do with lack of hit shows those seasons and Broadway survived. Broadway is fine, people. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 10:24 AM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 11:34am

Mister Matt - If you think that I "bemoaned" or suggested that Broadway is dying then you missed the point of my post. I am interested in generating a discussion and many people have added to the thread with some great points. If you have something to add, great but don't try to be the last word with your bitchy move along comments.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 12:18pm

I kinda think this recent Broadway boom is more of a bubble. Broadway has always been volatile so this ain't news. The exponential growth in ticket sales is pretty impressive but I do wonder what it all means.

Culturally, it also became cool again to sing and dance, how long that lasts who knows?

[roadmixer]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 12:25pm

Unless we reinvent ourselves with new shows that people want to see enough to give up going to Wicked then it doesn't last

[Kad]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 12:42pm

Considering one of the questions you posed was "Has the Internet killed Broadway?", I can see why Mister Matt thinks you have a decidedly "Broadway is dying" slant, and I'm inclined to agree.

Broadway, like it or not, is pulling in more money than ever before. Just because it's not doing it the way some people would like doesn't mean it's not true.

It's an incredibly expensive business venture, with even the smallest show requiring millions to put up- millions that it may very well not make back. It's a gamble that's never been in the favor of producers or investors- for every Golden Age musical we all remember, there were dozens that faded away, just like today.

And Broadway is finally re-emerging as a force in popular culture, which can be seen in Glee and Smash, the success of Book of Mormon, and so on. It's nowhere near what it was, because now there are a multitude of alternatives.

Broadway is always a sinking ship, the "fabulous invalid". But it will never actually submerge.

Your discussion topic is decades old. Mister Matt is entirely correct. Shaw was writing about the state of theatre. Shakespeare's contemporaries were writing about the state of theatre.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:27pm

"Spider-Man: $1,286,567"

This number is extremely deceiving though. Before opening night kept changing it was reported (however truthful that is will remain a mystery) that the show's weekly nut was $1,200,000. Given the 10s of millions of dollars more added to the budget as well as additional time spent renting the show and paying actors during an extended preview period as well as lawsuits... it can easily be assumed the nut is much higher now.

If that's the case, Spider-Man didn't make any money last week. The Foxwoods is also the largest house on Broadway. When the show began previews, on a normal week their gross potential was roughly under 2 million. Sometime last year they lowered their normal ticket prices which dropped their gross potential to somewhere around 1.8 million. Even with the revised gross potential, this show only made 2/3's the amount it could have last week.

That's not a hit show. Factor in the original gross potential and the numbers look worse. Factor in that the prices were supposed to be even higher once the show opened (something that never happened) and it's downright pathetic.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:37pm

If you think that I "bemoaned" or suggested that Broadway is dying then you missed the point of my post. I am interested in generating a discussion and many people have added to the thread with some great points. If you have something to add, great but don't try to be the last word with your bitchy move along comments.

I was commenting on the topic as well as some of the responses. But I fail to see how new shows closing and new shows selling tickets while international hits are still popular is indicative of anything other than Broadway running as usual. popular shows should close to give new shows a chance? But the new shows are opening and some of them succeed despite currently long-running shows. I'm not sure where the evidence is to support your argument. Sorry, if it seems bitchy, but perhaps you haven't seen this argument posted time and time and time and time again.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:39pm

To get a better idea of what did well last week you have to look at gross potential:

Death of a Salesman: 99.99%
Evita: 91.97%
The Book of Mormon: 129.04%
The Lion King: 106.21%
Wicked: 97.75%

Spider-Man's was 71.17%. That was beaten out by the shows above as well as Jersey Boys (77.14%), Newsies (84.35%), Nice Work (73.51%), and Once (73.44%).

Spider-Man may have made more "money" that some other shows, but it's all relative.

[Idiot]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 2:55pm

IMO, the 'average American's taste in entertainment has become so bland that it's disheartening. It's not like the seventies when different, unusual and new were considered selling points. Reality TV and all kinds of short form entertainment on YouTube and the like have contributed to the erosion of intellect. Intellect is where curiosity lives. Without curiosity, there's no audience for untested work.

A musical of KIM KARDASHIAN'S ASS would be a big hit in today's culture (someone else can take the pun cue here). It's just where we are in this blatantly Romanesque empire that we live in.

I do believe it will change, but I believe it because I have to.

Updated On: 5/8/12 at 02:55 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:11pm

Delete references to the internet and cut the weekly grosses by about half and this very conversation could have taken place and did take place in 1985.

That's not to say there aren't real issues being discussed here or that the conversation should stop. But Mister Matt is right that these aren't new issues.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:14pm

Sentences like "Broadway, like it or not, is pulling in more money than ever before" are rather meaningless when you consider that ticket prices go up every year. It's like saying "Wonder Bread is taking in more money than ever, therefore the business is the best it's ever been." Until you adjust for inflation, the statement is empty.

"Broadway is finally re-emerging as a force in popular culture, which can be seen in Glee and Smash..." is also (in my opinion) a meaningless statement: Glee and Smash are faddish tv shows that will vanish and be forgotten; their influence upon the way Americans as a culture think about Broadway is, in the long run (at least longer than a few years), less than negligible.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:24pm

For one thing, real estate prices and labor costs have conspired to send a lot of artists to the hinterlands. New York doesn't have the monopoly it had as the center of American culture in the 1940s and 1950s.

New theater is just as likely to be created in San Diego, Chicago, Seattle or Los Angeles, and only move to New York when the product is well-tested and less of a risk. The same is true of the arts in general.

And because Americans are not so focused on everything that is happening in New York, you can't really expect tourists to get off the bus craving a ticket to that edgy new drama on 50th street (much less off- or off-off-Broadway). Of course, they are going to PHANTOM or WICKED, because that's what we hear about out here in the sticks.

If there's a solution (and I'm not sure there is), it probably lies in the best known institutional theaters. So keep donating to Playwrights Horizon, Manhattan Theater Club and Roundabout. If their work isn't edgy enough for your tastes, let them know it. They are more likely to be responsive to customer suggestions than the Shuberts.

Disclaimer: I haven't lived in NYC for a quarter-century. It may be I entirely misunderstand the reality there.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:34pm

"New theater is just as likely to be created in San Diego, Chicago, Seattle or Los Angeles, and only move to New York when the product is well-tested and less of a risk."

You mean like how most older shows before the invention of the "workshop" (thanks Chorus Line) all had out-of-town try-outs as well? Oklahoma comes to mind as well as hundreds of others.