The show is bleeding money and will only get worse in the coming weeks. I'm sure there's another show trying to get into the Circle for the Spring.
and Leung has been out since Dec. 22. Arbender Robinson has been covering his role since then(according to his Twitter). I do hope everything is ok with Leung.
A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.
HogansHero said: "whether the show is good or bad is irrelevant. Objectively, it did not find an audience and that's what this thread is about. However much someone loves a show, and thinks it should be exposed on Broadway, once it fails, keeping it open is just foolish."
I know it's very much the exception and it certainly didn't have In Transit's numbers but being foolish can pay off if the right people champion a show. Look at Gentleman's Guide. If someone really believes in a show, I don't think giving more audience members a chance to see should be tossed away as lacking any value. Regardless of how I feel about the respective merits of American Psycho, Shuffle Along, and Tuck Everlasting, we lost them so quickly. In Transit hasn't been open for that long. It's not like they're Honeymoon in Vegas. I guess I'm sympathetic to this point...
Fosse76 said: "I have no issues with people speculating about a closing date nor the perceived lack of commercial viability of a show. However, the tone of quite a few opinions on the matter come across as if they are offended that the producers would dare to try and keep their show running."
Fosse76 said: "Valentina3 said: "^ I didn't think Hogan implied that he cared. To me it seemed he was lamenting how unfortunate it is that inexperienced producers get blinded by vanity and don't see what's good for their investors. "
The problem with that is it is merely an assumption. It's possible that the investors simply wanted to be associated with a Broadway show, regardless of its profitability. It's possible they say a flop and needed a tax write-off. Perhaps they just wanted to contribute funds to a show they believed in. And the producers have a fiduciary duty to their investors, which includes keeping a show running until there is absolutely no way to recover losses. Not every show costs 800K a week to run.
That is not their fiduciary responsibility at all.
@vintage, I think if you look at the numbers on Gent's Guide, you will see that it isn't really comparable. I agree it is an exception in the sense it turned around, but if you look at the trajectory, you will see that there was a path, whereas in the case of In Transit there simply is not-and that was pretty clear by the morning after the opening if not before. This idea of a path is something I learned from one of my mentors back in the dark ages-is there a way to get from here to there, and if so what will it take. And now these producers are (laughably) suggesting things can turn around during the 2 months when even the strong don't always survive. In the first 2 frames after opening, the show did not manage to break a half mil combined. Who are the people who are going to see it when it is 5 degrees outside? And how much are they going to pay? There are a bunch of off-B shows that have a higher avg ticket price.
Fosse76 wrote "I have no issues with people speculating about a closing date nor the perceived lack of commercial viability of a show. However, the tone of quite a few opinions on the matter come across as if they are offended that the producers would dare to try and keep their show running."
I have found that every time someone says "I don't object to what you say, it's how you say it," then you can safely assume that they really object to what you say. It's a common prevarication, and they feel it's a safe way to censor others.
I'm sufficiently pleased with this little bit of research, I thought it might be nice to embed it within this thread as well.
Regarding the source of money behind In Transit:
The lead producer, one Janet B. Rosen (also on the board of Primary Stages, and major Roundabout donor), is married to Marvin Rosen, a former partner at and major shareholder of the law firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP; it wouldn't be unrealistic to imagine that Marvin is the primary funder of this project. They own homes in NYC (an $11M CPW place) and Miami (and probably more). Marvin was Finance Chairman for the Democratic National Committee in the 90s, raising the money to re-elect Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, Rosen's firm represented George Bush in the law suit over election fraud in the Gore/Bush election. Janet may become the next Daryl Roth (another [formerly] bored housewife, funded by a wealthy husband), but she may need to find much better projects if she hopes to reach that goal.
A co-producer, or rather "investor," is Robert F. Smith, CEO and founder of private equity firm Vista Equity Partners. He has bushels of money; according to Forbes, he is the world's second-richest African-American.
Next on the investor list is Jeffrey Hecktman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hilco Global, a financial services company; he was an investor in those other wonderful musicals Spider-Man, Turn Off the Dark and Ghost, the Musical. (As they say, money and taste rarely travel together today.)
Following Hecktman, we have former PA Governor Ed Rendell and his lead fundraiser, Kenneth Jarin. Is any of this sounding just weird to anyone yet? Rendell, as a former gov, makes very good money "consulting" for various firms.
Our next "producer" is Manny Medina, Founder and Managing Partner of Medina Capital (more "private equity investment".
In the salad bowl, you'll also pick out Michael S. Falk, Chairman, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Comvest Partners; Karen Mehiel, wife of Dennis Mehiel (who recently gave her majority holdings in his corrugated paper industry, reportedly in order to use the female and Latino status of his wife to gain lucrative contracts with large companies and states); attorney Steven Goldman and wife Arlene; and Edgar Jr and son Benjie Bronfman, heirs to the Seagrams fortune (Junior, by the way, was responsible for the family losing all control in Seagrams; Benjie is a musician who was briefly engaged to M.I.A., with whom he has a son).
"I do not think that this trend we are seeing toward Don Quixote productions is good for the theatre. Broadway is complex analytically because at once it is a business, an artform and a sporting event. To try to make it less than all of those, as you seem to want to do, is to deny its essence. whether the show is good or bad is irrelevant. Objectively, it did not find an audience and that's what this thread is about. However much someone loves a show, and thinks it should be exposed on Broadway, once it fails, keeping it open is just foolish."
People like to bring up Gentleman's Guide as a precedent when producers try to keep struggling shows open, but don't forget that they got excellent reviews and happened to open in a season where there wasn't much else that was particularly good in the way of new musicals. In Transit is already competing with Great Comet and Dear Evan Hansen, and more anticipated musicals are on their way in. They also got reviews that were dismissive at best. None of this paves a path for any sort of uptick in sales, at least not a strong enough one to merit keeping it open much longer.
Personally, I'm not really arguing about AGGTLAM or In Transit. I'm arguing against speaking in absolutes and calling people foolish for not closing a show that's only been open (counting previews) less than two months. Theatre is a business but it's also an art form that is particularly reliant on its audience. If people are finding the show and enjoying it and if the very wealthy investors can shoulder the costs (again, for less than 2 months at this point) I don't think we need to heap criticism on them.
I do think they needed a much stronger marketing campaign/way of selling this show to audiences. And based on the critical reception, I don't know if the material warranted a Broadway transfer. But I think it's fair to take exception to the way some people take extreme viewpoints.
The point is, they are not: look at the numbers. Earlier, I referred to a "path" so let me ask you what path it is that you see, based on the numbers, the reviews, the statistics for January and February (not to mention March and April when a new crop of competitors arrive). Where are those people going to come from to find the show? If the answer is out of someone's dream, then I don't think the word foolish is untoward. If you don't care and want to just let producers off the hook, that's fine. Some of us don't, just like some of us don't just sit idly by when a baseball manager leaves a pitcher in too long or any of the myriad of other decisions in this world that people criticize when they are bone-headed. To say that In Transit is hopeless is not an extreme viewpoint.
So I guess Telly Leung's "family issue" was getting cast as the lead in a long-running Disney hit when his current show is about to close?
EDIT: I stand corrected. According to Leung's Twitter he is planning on going back to In Transit at the end of the month. I suppose he really did have to take a leave of absence for personal reasons and the timing of that announcement with the Aladdin rumor is just a coincidence. His starting date in Aladdin is probably TBD because he plans to be with In Transit until it closes (probably soon).
If the producers want to put more money into the show, they need to steer some funds into a new marketing campaign. The "first a cappella Broadway musical" didn't excite people, and having a logo that looks like a Metrocard is confusing. I think they might be able to grab some tourists by branding it as the quintessential New York City show, something that's a must-see. I'm sure a marketing person can come up with something catchy.
Gentleman's Guide had a very clever online marketing campaign that made great use of social media. It consisted of tongue-in-cheek "cards" that would congratulate other shows on their openings, anniversaries, etc. It probably didn't cost all that much, and it made great use of the show's funny/horror themes. I don't think In Transit is similarly edgy, but anything has to be better than the current (non)campaign.
"If the producers want to put more money into the show, they need to steer some funds into a new marketing campaign."
Or perhaps hire the name stars of the Pitch Perfect franchise to be in the show, since that's the (old) wave they're trying to ride. Of course, many of those actors probably can't sing well enough without heavy studio manipulation.
Alex Kulak2 said: "Seriously, how the hell is this show still on an open-ended run?"
Seriously,how many times does the same answer have to be rehearsed here before you get it? It stays open because of the confluence of 2 things: someone willing to continue losing money and no one wanting the theatre for something else.
Okay, I've contributed to this thread but have just read it through and am aannoyed that there are so many people who come across as hoping the show sinks. That's just not right.
I saw In Transit during the holidays and rather enjoyed it.It's not a perfect show but it kept my interest and some of it was quite innovative.
I admit that a friend of mine is in the cast and he's admitted to me that he has bills to pay and a family to support and that makes me hope the show does run a few months longer. I'm sure others involved in the production are in similar situations.
Why can't we be more supportive of shows that are trying to find their audiences? If producers are willing to put money into shows to keep them afloat it's their business and not fodder for armchair "experts"
"Noel [Coward] and I were in Paris once. Adjoining rooms, of course. One night, I felt mischievous, so I knocked on Noel's door, and he asked, 'Who is it?' I lowered my voice and said 'Hotel detective. Have you got a gentleman in your room?' He answered, 'Just a minute, I'll ask him.'" (Beatrice Lillie)
Dollypop said: "Okay, I've contributed to this thread but have just read it through and am annoyedsitua there are so many people who come across as hoping the show sinks. That's just not right.
I saw In Transit during the holidays and rather enjoyed it.It's not a perfect show but it kept my interest and some of it was quite innovative.
I admit that a friend of mine is in the cast and he's admitted to me that he has bills to pay and a family to support and that makes me hope the show does run a few months longer. I'm sure others involved in the production are in similar situations.
Why can we be more supportive of shows of shows that are trying to find their audiences? If producers are willing to put money into shows to keep them afloat it's their business and not fodder for armchair "experts""
1. where are these people who are "hoping the show sinks."?
2. one does not hope something that has already happened. wrong tense.
3. this show has not and is not finding an audience any more than the other embarrassingly-continued flops have.
4. Negative comments in this thread are about objective points. No one doesn't want you to not like the show. Whether you do or I do is irrelevant. (My sentiments are close to yours.)
5. No one wants someone to lose their job, but there are a lot of people in this world who have lost their job in more dire circumstances than anybody in a Broadway show. There are plenty of people in this city who do not make in a year what someone makes in a month on Broadway, There are people who collect cans and bottles to pay for milk for their baby. Please do not tell others they should support a show because you have a friend in it. We should support great theatre that people want to see, not trees falling in the woods.
6. Doing marginally better only counts when a living creature is on his or her death bed. These are just shows, folks.
perfectlymarvelous said: "People like to bring up Gentleman's Guide as a precedent when producers try to keep struggling shows open, but don't forget that they got excellent reviews and happened to open in a season where there wasn't much else that was particularly good in the way of new musicals. In Transit is already competing with Great Comet and Dear Evan Hansen, and more anticipated musicals are on their way in. They also got reviews that were dismissive at best. None of this paves a path for any sort of uptick in sales, at least not a strong enough one to merit keeping it open much longer.
You beat me to it. Exactly what I think. And it is not even playing at the Nederlander, where Honeymoon in Vegas (which at least got some very good reviews), Amazing Grace, and I seem to remember one other show hemorrhaged for periods that bordered on obscene.
Fascinating! Did you just google the names on the Playbill? Or did you look up the show's SEC filing? I'd love to know the actual official estimated running costs that the show included when doing that filing. But I've never been able to figure out how to look it up online. Clearly "In Transit" has a pretty low running cost for a musical. (My god, the poor cast had to lift and shove around those subway seats so often I expected a Teamster to come out and tell them they were breaking union rules). But what exactly ARE their weekly running costs?