WICKED LA CLOSING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Page 2

[nealb1]

Posted: 3/18/08 at 8:18pm

A very good friend of mine works for Broadway/LA and he told me before "Wicked" came back that it would play for 2 years. And, once it leaves, it will probably come back again.......just like "Lion King" did. LK played The Pantages for 2 years.

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/18/08 at 8:38pm

Firstly, B'way/LA only booked WICKED for two years, nothing more. Secondly, it WILL transfer. That production moves to SF as has already been discussed here.

[Love4Theatre]

Posted: 3/18/08 at 9:17pm

I hope we get a sit down run of In the Heights in the Pantages, but I guess thats wishful thinking on my part. I was never a big fan of wicked, but I had to see it several times with friends, family, and co-workers. That's pretty much the only show they knew about because of Ugly Betty and the radio and television commercials out here. I wouldn't have gone but who can deny a free musical theatre ticket.

[skibumb5290]

Posted: 3/18/08 at 9:20pm

I am so glad that Phantom is coming to denver but my question could we see this Wicked we could call it "Extended stay tour" could we see this in smaller cities like Denver, Minneapolis, Miami and Seattle for about 6 Months?

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/18/08 at 9:43pm

Doubtful. The best hope is that the tour that has played there before would do a longer run. Smaller markets like Seattle, and Denver can't sustain a show (even WICKED and LION KING) for more than 2-3 months, max.

[missyrose87]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 1:31am

Question: did lion king have a sit down at the pantages, then leave, then come back for another sit down? if so, what are the chances that they will do this with wicked?

[choitoy]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 1:50am

So sad that people consider Seattle a small market still, as we like to thik of ourselves as having a fairly vibrant theatre scene.

Wicked did very well on it's first outing (I believe that it was here for over a month), and it was so popular (pun intended?) that I never got a chance to see it, as I couldn't find tickets for my sister and I that were not in the nosebleed section. And this was only a week into pre-ticket sales. I wasn't too hard up on catching Wicked at the time though.

But since then, I have read, and loved, the original book, so I would love the chance to catch Wicked on tour again (if I ever get to New York, I have bigger fish to fry instead of Wicked), so it would be great if it did at least a month or two here in Seattle again.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 8:34am

Here's something posted from yesterday.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/116414.html

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 11:51am

IN THE HEIGHTS hasn't even announced a tour, let alone play on Broadway for more than 2 months, so an L.A. sitdown is unlikely.

Missyrose: LION KING played the Pantages for 4 months in 2001, but became so sucessful they decided to make it an "open-end" (2 year) run. It closed in January 2004. It made a return run in 2006 for 2 moths.

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 12:01pm

First off chillax, it's not "closing" until January 2009! 8 months away, second:

"Although Wicked could continue to run for some time in Los Angeles, the Pantages Theatre is also home to Broadway L.A. and its subscription series. And, while we've been happy to send our subscribers to other venues during Wicked's run, we felt it was time to bring them back to the Pantages for our upcoming productions. So it is with reluctance, but great pride with both the success of Wicked and the strength of our subscription base, that Wicked will conclude its run in January 2009." -http://www.playbill.com/news/article/116414.html-

It's about pleasing subscribers, as much as people think that Wicked is the only show on Broadway or on tour, there are people who subscribe to see touring shows come through their area, and probably would like to see other shows at the Pantages. So relax and get over it.

[theaternut]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 12:30pm

I hate that show and love that theater. Glad I will be able to see other things there.

[morosco]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 12:41pm

It's about pleasing subscribers, as much as people think that Wicked is the only show on Broadway or on tour, there are people who subscribe to see touring shows come through their area, and probably would like to see other shows at the Pantages.

I would speculate that this decision has nothing to do with the subscribers. It seems to me that the comment from Broadway L.A. ("And, while we've been happy to send our subscribers to other venues during Wicked's run, we felt it was time to bring them back to the Pantages for our upcoming productions.") is just a warm and fuzzy marketing spin on the situation. The show has done incredibly well but I would imagine that the promoter is starting to see or predict a pattern of slowing sales down the road. It's a business decision. I can't imagine a promoter closing a cash cow of a show in order to allow it's subscribers to return to their home base. My humble opinion.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 1:07pm

I'm happy they want to please subscribers (including me).

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 1:09pm

" would speculate that this decision has nothing to do with the subscribers. It seems to me that the comment from Broadway L.A. ("And, while we've been happy to send our subscribers to other venues during Wicked's run, we felt it was time to bring them back to the Pantages for our upcoming productions.") is just a warm and fuzzy marketing spin on the situation. The show has done incredibly well but I would imagine that the promoter is starting to see or predict a pattern of slowing sales down the road. It's a business decision. I can't imagine a promoter closing a cash cow of a show in order to allow it's subscribers to return to their home base. My humble opinion."

I agree. There are two sitdowns in Chicago that are occupying two of three theatres used for subscription shows, and neither show has posted a closing notice (one was JUST designated a sitdown last month), so there obviously must be an expected slowdown in sales for L.A.'s Wicked. Granted, there are two to three other theatres in Chicago that can be used to book shows, but still.

[jpbran]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 1:20pm

Chicago has such a wealth of usable theaters. With JB and Wicked, Broadway In Chicago is going to have to use the Auditorium or Chicago (too big) again.

[Jeannette2]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 2:07pm

It was a sitdown production because the tour had already come through the Pantages and Costa Mesa before it set up residence at the Pantages. I saw it in October and most of the orchestra was empty which totally surprised me. I'm glad that it's closing to allow road shows to use this theatre again. I didn't like Wicked so it can close, go somewhere else for all I care. Bring on the shows I say! :)

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/2/08 at 2:18pm

"Chicago has such a wealth of usable theaters. With JB and Wicked, Broadway In Chicago is going to have to use the Auditorium or Chicago (too big) again."

They only have the Auditorium Theatre, which is huge (and where they should have put Wicked). The Chicago Theatre (which is roughly the same size as the Oriental and Palace) would have to be leased, since it is owned by Madison Square Garden. The problem with the Chicago Theatre is that is has no backstage depth, and the shows that play there really have to squeeze in (which is why it rarely hosts Broadway shows). The other option is Drury Lane, which seems more interested in its own productions. The Lyric Opera at one time leased the Civic Opera House to tours during the summers...don't know if they would still do that. Arie Crown is too far out of the district, but if Broadway in Chicago had no choice I'm sure they would lease that theater too. But the options aren't that great.

[jpbran]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 12:14am

Ok, let me rephrase: "wealth of usable theaters" compared to pretty much ANY OTHER CITY outside of NYC or London.

And they already have the Shubert/Lasalle. Overall a pretty good stable to theaters and backups.

(But, boy the Arie Crown and the Rosemont SUCK!!! Saw Evita at the former, Rent at the latter.) Updated On: 4/3/08 at 12:14 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 12:59am

The Pantages is in a strange location, almost alone, east of Vine and Hollywood. During the day, it's just a metal wall, which opens up and becomes the entrance to the lobby at nights. It's so sad and lonely when the show isn't on.

I guess that's the way theater is anywhere but Broadway.

[threatXthree]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 1:12am

Damn. I preferred the touring shows to go to the Ahmanson Theatre (a much more superior venue) which is why I kinda liked Wicked hogging the awful Pantages Theatre.

Next year its back to paying ridiculous amounts of money for partial view seats when I could get the same at the Ahmanson for 20 dollars.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 4/3/08 at 1:16am

I agree that Wicked should have gone to the Golden Gate. The Orpheum is a better location for revolving shows because it's so convenient to Bart. The Golden Gate also has that great entrance that they could have really built up for a nice effect.

Considering some of the more provocative business' going on in the surrounding neighborhood, it would also probably draw in some unsuspecting prospect who might be hoping for something else, just by the title alone. Too bad but I am looking forward to seeing it here. Though I feel a year is more than enough time for any sit down show in SF.