Time Between Revivals?

I think the time between the original and first revival should definitely be at least 10-15 years, longer depending on the length of the show's original run. Time between revivals, though, can be shorter if there's a good purpose for the production.

In the old days a revival wasn't uncommon as soon as 5 years after the original or something like that. I think the way the media is and how we preserve shows that doesn't fly anymore. I think 10-15 is pretty solid. Give time for a new generation of performers to take on the role.

The short answer, to paraphrase Mr. Berlin, is "Any time the traffic will allow." Meaning, if there's a reason - artistically, commercially, or hopefully both - to bring in a new production, then the timing is right (regardless of how soon or how long it's been since the last one). if not, then not.

Opera lovers don't think twice about seeing the same different productions of the same operas over and over again in relatively short order - why should theatre lovers be any different?

Also, the "too soon' objection also often rings false on this board. It seems that the people who complain about "do we really need another revival of - fill in the blank - so soon after the last one closed" are often the same people who will think nothing about going to see the same production multiple times during a run because they love the show so much, or simply because of an intriguing cast change.

The complaint may well be that there are so many other worthy things that deserve a revival, why "this" yet again?

But the fact remains that there's a reason that certain classics continue to fascinate artists and engage audiences. (of course we can all disagree about whether any particular work merits such veneration and continued attention, but that's a different issue).

Updated On: 7/27/17 at 07:36 AM

Reviving (pun intended) this thread thanks to the gentle whispers of an August: Osage County revival on the horizon, and it’s blowing my mind to think it’s been over 15 years since it opened. And since it seems the general consensus here is a 10-15 year gap, I’d say it’s right on time.

I’d be thrilled to see Sally Field as Violet, but I would be genuinely heartbroken to miss the chance to see Laurie Metcalf take it on. It feels destined, even if in my own mind (and the collective mind of anyone with a working brain).

Are there any other “recent” plays that are ripe for a revival?

I think classic plays get revived more often depending on the stars they can get cast.

I've also noticed in recent years that if a revival is successful in London's West End, the likelihood of it going to Broadway is quite high.

I would definitely say 10 years would be an appropriate minimum. Giving time for new directors to come up with new ways they can interpret an iconic show whether it may be a musical or play.


I definitely think we are overdue for a Gypsy revival. As well as How to Succeed! Also, is it too soon to ask for a Pippin revival?

The last Cabaret closed 8 years ago in 2015. Is Broadway ready for another one?

asimplegal2 said: "I would say at least 15 years, unless it's a particularly innovative or fresh interpretation."

Fifteen years between revivals of HELLO, DOLLY! would be insane! Five years is more realistic.