When Shows switch Houses

[DavidMegg]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 6:49pm

I have a question... why do shows switch Broadway Houses?
Chicago started at the St. James, then moved to the Shubert, now it's at the... Ambassador (?).
Beauty and the Beast started at the Palace, now it's at the Lunt-Fontanne.
I would guess that in the case of BandtheB, Disney has to pay the rent for both shows, so they wanted to open Aida at the larger venue, but in the case of any of the other countless "switcheroos", why does that happen?
I know it costs a boat load of money to switch, sheer payroll alone for all the manpower it takes. Also makes me wonder why fledgling shows (like Pimpernel, who left the Minskoff) even bother.
Any thoughts would be appreciated!!
-david

[CJR]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 6:52pm

Chicago was moved from the Shubert to the Ambassador in two days. (that's set and costumes and whatnot -- the cast had a week to move their personal belongings to their new Ambassador dressing rooms)

It was moved because it wasn't selling to capacity at the Shubert and the powers that be figured Gypsy would do a better job of filling that house.

I suppose they're all kicking themselves now

Updated On: 8/26/03 at 06:52 PM

[cabarethed]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 7:10pm

Cabaret was moved from the Henry Miller to Studio 54 in late summer 1998. I read it was because of a scaffolding accident on the street...it closed for a couple weeks, and Natasha Richardson didn't have her closing night b/c of Jennifer Jason Leigh's contract. I believe 54's a bigger house though, so it actually worked out nicely.

[QueenS]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 7:22pm

Shows switch houses because the producers still think that there is an audience for the show, but not enough to fill the house they are in (or conversely, move to a bigger house so that they can get more in).

Also, though most shows are in an "open run," they only sell tickets so far in advance- be it months or more than a year. If a show isn't selling well, a new "block" of tickets may be delayed in going on sale. At this point, the theatre owners may arrange for a new show to come into the theatre and if the producers want to keep the show open, they have to find another theatre.

In the case of Pimpernell, the producers were positive that the show could be a hit. At the Minskoff (which has a large seating capacity) they went so far as to close the show briefly and then reopen with some changes to the script and cast. However, it was still not working and they wanted to scale down the show. In order to redesign the show and due to Equity not allowing the producers to cut down the number of performers involved, the show had to completely close down and reopen at the smaller theatre, with a drastically reduced set and ensemble.

In planning to move a show, there is obviously alot of figuring to be done to hope that the costs of moving don't outweigh the revenue of keeping the show up.

[BrdwyThtr]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 7:24pm

Not to be nit-picky, but Chicago actually started out at the Richard Rodgers which I don't believe is that much bigger than the Ambassador. Les Miz opened at the Broadway and moved to the Imperial.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:31pm

Not to be nit-picky, but Chicago actually started out at City Center as an Encores production.

Sometimes shows have to move because another show has reserved a certain theater and is ready to come in.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 8/26/03 at 9:38pm

Yes, I think the main reason is: another show opening there.

[magruder]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:53am

Why would anyone at the Shubert Organization be kicking themselves? Chicago moved from one Shubert-owned house to another. By moving to a smaller theatre, the show is now performing at capacity, which was no longer the case at the Shubert. I think the Shuberts must be considering it a stroke of good fortune that Chicago is a hit at one of their least-booked houses.

[CJR]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:57am

Because they COULD be filling the Shubert to capacity now (which is about 300 or so more seats than the Ambassador) and Gypsy isn't. Chicago has been doing so well it hasn't been on TKTS in some time (even pre Melanie) whereas Gypsy has.

That was my point. It would be selling out (with more seats, hence, making MORE money) if it was still at the Shubert.

[magruder]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 2:10am

For Melanie, sure, they probably wish they had more seats to sell, but with the names that generally have been in Chicago, I don't think they would be filling the Shubert to capacity, even with the success of the movie.

[CJR]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 2:23am

Before Melanie, with two no names in the leads, they were selling at 103% capacity.....

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 2:29am

Well, even before Melanie was a part of Chicago, it was selling to capacity and slightly over, though it wasn't doing so every week. But even now, when it sells over capacity, it's only about 80 seats or so over. And considering that the Shubert has nearly 400 more seats, the Shubert Organization probably doesn't care that much. Plus, while Gypsy's numbers percentage-wise are lower it is bringing in more people number-wise. Usually a good 2 or 3 thousand more people.

[CJR]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 2:33am

Actually, it was. I practically live at that theatre. One of my best friends is currently in the company and a few have been in and out of the company -- I like to make sure they're staying gainfully employed, so yes, I know what's going on capacity wise. And usually casting wise as well...

Trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about.

Chicago would be doing VERY well at the Shubert had it stayed.....

[WOSQ]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 10:25am

No one was sure how the film of Chicago would affect the stage show. It was easy and cheap to move, didn't have that big a weekly break-even, and maybe they'd make a bit more money. Who knew?

Shows move for any number of reasons usually because they get evicted for some reason. There is the famous "Stop Clause" with theatre renatals. A stop clause goes into effect when a show's gross drops below a certain dollar amount for a set number of weeks, usually two. After that happens the house can be rebooked and a show can be tossed out. Some shows do not have a stop clause--I think one of the many things the Shuberts had to give away to Phantom and Cats was no stop clause. Technically the cost to move these shows would be prohibitive.

Some shows are a friendly shuffle. Disney wanted the Palace for Aida so their own show, Beauty and the Beast shut down for the union-mandated 6 weeks to void contracts and then reopened at the less-desirable Lunt-Fontanne. Les Miz was at the big Broadway but was no longer a red-hot ticket. MacIntosh figured he could make more money by moving it to the smaller Imperial and open Saigon at the Broadway.

Up to the mid-70s, shows moved a lot more often. It was not uncommon for long-run musicals to get bumped off of 44-45 Street and sent to perdition aka the Broadway (where a lot of shows were sent to die: My Fair Lady, I Can Get It For You Wholesale, Funny Girl, Mame, Cabaret, Fiddler, The Wiz) or the 54th Street aka the George Abbott (since torn down). These shows were technically far simpler than today's over-designed shows and could be loaded out Saturday night after the show, moved in all day Sunday to the new house and fine-tuned Monday afternoon in time to play Monday night.

Ain't Misbehavin' opened at the Longacre which is/was a perdition house. They moved on purpose into the very much sought-after Plymouth 9 months later. They were booked out of the Plymouth two years later and sent to another perdition house, the Belasco. Everyone thought they'd last a month after the move but with the low weekly nut, they ended up playing a year to groups and discounted single ticket buyers keeping a theatre nobody wanted to play lit , keeping the actors and crew employed and making a little more (not a lot of) money.

Shows move for the oddest reasons. There a plenty of stories why.

But remember the saying from All the President's Men, "Follow the money."

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:09pm

Interesting info WOSQ - love the term "perdition house"

[DavidMegg]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:57pm

Very descriptive, and much appreciated!
Thanks everyone!

[WOSQ]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 1:59pm

"Perdition house" is my own term. Thank you. I needed something that could describe an undesirable theatre and that came to me.

Right now the ultimate perdition house is the Cort which is a wonderful theatre except for three things: location, location, location. I always have said one deserves a per diem for playing there since it is so far away from everything else. Others are the Longacre (still), Ambassador, Belasco and post-Rent, the poor Nederlander. Less than first choice houses (semi-perdition houses) are the Lunt and Lyceum. Let's wait and see about the Miller.

Second balconies are a tough sell and so are big rear mezzanines like the Lunt and the Broadway. The Broadway would be a perdition house (location, size) except the Shuberts own but 5 musical houses and if you want to dance with the devil, you dance where he tells you to.

God forbid the 2nd balconies and rear mezzs in these houses were priced at 20-30 bucks. They might get a whole new audience.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 2:43pm

CJR - Check out the weekly Broadway Grosses at PLaybill.com. I really think they are better off havign Gypsy play at the Shubert rather than Chicago, it's bringing in a great deal more people.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 2:53pm

For a long time, the Nederlander was the kiss of death because of location. It was near Port Authority and if any of you remember that area pre-1990, you can remember how nasty it was. Lena Horne even makes a comment about the theater (where she was playing) which can be heard on her "Lady/Music" cd.

The former Martin Beck now Hirschfeld was also considered undesirable because it was on the west side of Eighth Avenue. I still hate it because when you sit in the balcony, the seats are so close together that you can't cross your legs.

Posted: 8/27/03 at 3:37pm

The Hirschfield is indeed the most uncomfortable theater on Broadway. To the point where I consider the show before going there. Even Brian and Marin would not lure me *there* for KMK.

[DoubleDown11]

Posted: 8/27/03 at 4:24pm

You know I hadn't been to the city since April '01 before my last trip which was a week ago and since then they have cleaned up 41st big time. I remember sleeping on the street to see the OBC of Rent and being completely scared out of my mind because it was so disgusting compared to the other streets and aves. Now there is actually store fronts and Hiltons on that street...quite amazing. Wonder if this is a direct affect of the many crowds stopping by the Nederlander for almost 7 straight years. I guess that would help raise the stock or a street.

Posted: 8/27/03 at 4:27pm

Credit Mayor Giuliani for the clean-up not only on 41st, but the bigger mess on that was 42nd.

[logan30]

Posted: 8/28/03 at 1:56pm

way back in 1987, the Shuberts wanted the Majestic for THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA but 42ND STREET was still playing there and doing good but not great business. David Merrick wasn't about to give up the Majestic without a fight. At that point, Jujamcyn Theatres stepped in. They owned the St. James (across the street from the Majestic) which had been empty for some time. A deal was struck. The Shuberts paid the expenses of the 42ND STREET move and Jujamcyn convinced Merrick that the new location would only help his show -- people (mostly tourists) who couldn't get PHANTOM tickets would go across the street and buy tickets for 42ND STREET. Merrick gots lots of free publicity for his show (he actually had the chorus girls dance across 44th Street from the Majestic to the St. James to symbolize the move.) It paid off. 42ND STREET ended up playing another 2 years at the St. James. This was actually the second time the show moved. It originally opened at the Winter Garden where it became the hottest ticket on Broadway -- several months later Merrick moved the show to the the Majestic (which has 200 more seats than the Winter Garden) after the revival of BRIGADOON closed.

[logan30]

Posted: 8/28/03 at 2:02pm

I used to walk down 44th Street on my home from work when 42ND STREET was playing the majestic. The chorus girls dressing rooms had windows facing the street. Without fail, every evening starting at 7:30, several NYPD cops on horseback would sit on their horses and stare up at the girls as they changed into their costumes and there were quite a few bare breasts to be seen. I have to suspect the girls knew the cops were down there and were just giving them a little pre-show entertainment.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/29/03 at 3:04am

This is one of the best threads I've ever seen here. Interesting and informative and no bitching for once. Well done!