Title of Show - Cheapest Musical Ever?

[barcelona20]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 11:17am

Aside from Glory Days, which I don't really count as a Broadway musical, has there ever been a Broadway musical "cheaper" to run the TOS?

I have no idea how much they need each week to be profitable. Any ideas?

[barcelona20]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 4:07pm

badonkadonk

[once a month]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 4:14pm

A Class Act could definitely be a runner up. TOS might have some chairs and a keyboard, but Act had an urn.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 6:02pm

Is there a band in the pit for Title of Show?

[Weez]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 6:18pm

... y'mean Larry?

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 6:33pm

I Do! I Do! with only that four poster bed was fairly cheap to run, even though it did have a full orchestra. Plus, why don't you count Glory Days as a Broadway show? It previewed and opened on Broadway just like any other show.

[barcelona20]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 6:39pm

I don't count shows that play for one performance.

[scott68]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 6:45pm

Well, counting previews, Glory Days played 18 performances, so I suppose it would count then, wouldn't it?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 7:10pm

It is probably one of if not the cheapest musicals in history not counting cheap shows from the past that due to inflation would have cost more to produce today. I wonder how long it will be able to stick around even if the ticket sales are not great. I'd imagine their break even "nut" it pretty low.

[Jon]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 7:21pm

I DO, I DO, had the salaries of Robert Preston and Mary Martin, which probably made it more expensive than many shows with casts of 10 or more at the time.

And the sets and costumes were more intricate than you realize.

[Alison88]

Posted: 7/8/08 at 9:24pm

I think they paid more money for those nifty video advertisements they had up a couple of weeks ago here on BroadwayWorld.com