Why did Urinetown close on broadway?- Page 2

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 3:34pm

The Henry Miller was not a sought-after venue, so housing it there must have been cheaper than the other options available. In addition, the show was extremely low-tech, which means a heckuva lot less cost in terms of both lighting and sound equipment and personnel to run them. Finally, for most of the run there really weren't any stars involved. Even with two TV stars mixed in during the run, John Collum remained the biggest star on hand (in my opinion, anyway -- ticket sales for Cavenaugh might say otherwise), so big chunks of money weren't flying at the performers. You add those things together and you've got a recipe for a low weekly nut.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 3:37pm

Oh, and regarding Chicago (or BATB or The Lion King, for that matter), those shows moved from large, expensive houses where they were packing audiences in to smaller ones. Urinetown would have had to do the opposite. So while the show was still playing to healthy audiences and making money, the prospect of moving across the street for several million dollars to a more expensive, less appropriate venue with more seats to fill just didn't make sense.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/10/07 at 3:48pm

Thanks, ourtime, for your first response, but while performers and stagehands are often demonized as the culprits of high ticket prices and running costs, that usually isn't really the case. It usually points towards greedy producers. But your points about the Henry Miller likely coming at a low rent and the low-tech approach to the show are well-taken. Thanks.

As to your second response, I was just being silly - hence the emoticon. Sorry about that.