With New World Stages having 5 Off-Broadway theaters, it's curious there aren't more examples of productions incubated there making the jump to Broadway. Rock of Ages and Melissa Etheridge's My Window come to mind. I'm not sure if there are others.
On the other hand, Peter and the Starcatcher, Rent, The 39 Steps, Jersey Boys, Avenue Q, The Play That Goes Wrong, Million Dollar Quartet, and even Rock of Ages again, played New World Stages after runs on Broadway.
Is this the result of a deliberate strategy by The Shubert Organization or just bad luck more new work performed there doesn't transfer to Broadway?
Because it's a commercial venue, and the vast majority of OffBway-to-Bway transfers come from non-profits. It's actually quite unusual (at least in the last decade or so) for Broadway productions to originate in the commercial Off-Broadway sphere, without having a Non-Profit run in NYC first. And even when they do, they're usually comedy/concert/entertainment style shows (e.g. My Window, Freestyle Love Supreme, Oh Hello, Just For Us, etc.). In the last decade or so, the only exceptions to this I can think of (i.e. more traditional plays/musicals) have been Be More Chill and Disaster, though I might be forgetting some.
"Oh Mary" and/or "Job" might be added to that list soon, if rumors are to be believed. But as the recent NYT article pointed out, these shows are the result of a surprising renaissance in commercial theatre, which is very atypical for recent years.
I'm not a producer, but just from observing on the outside, I get the sense that there has been a general mentality that if you're gonna mount a commercial production, you choose whether Off-Broadway or Broadway is more appropriate/attainable. And if you happen to be successful Off-Broadway commercially, you count your blessings and just keep chugging along without messing with a good thing.
I think the other thing is that commercial off-Broadway is fundamentally different from Broadway in the type of expectations it sets, the audience it attracts, and what shows play well. The theaters are smaller, which automatically allows shows to be smaller in scale as well and not necessarily need a huge production value (that's not to say you can't have great production value off-Broadway, but it's not something people look for in the same way they might on Broadway). Puffs was a show I loved at NWS, and I think it had a decent run there, but there was never any way that that would've worked on a Broadway stage.
It's probably also cheaper to run (I assume there are different types of contracts involved too), which is also less pressure on the producers to fill the theater every day. From what I recall when I went, Rock of Ages was doing well but it wasn't like it was sold out or a hard ticket to get, so I doubt they would've been successful in a Broadway theater just based on sheer size. Even Melissa Etheridge's show seemed to be struggling for attendance when it transferred.
The other thing is, in conjunction with what JoeW4 mentioned, I think nonprofits have the benefit of really helping to produce and develop the work with the hopes of giving it a future life (whether that's Broadway or just licensing/other regional productions), but NWS doesn't really do that, and so I would assume that shows that play there are mostly shows that are just there to present the show as is, and not necessarily incubate it. Of course, I'm sure producers would be happy for any show to go on to have greater commercial appeal, but I don't think NWS is necessarily their choice to go to if they have their sights set on Broadway.
I'd actually wonder if we might start to see more of a resurgence in commercial off-Broadway spaces, what with the conversation about shows like Oh Mary and Job transferring (both shows which sound like they work better in small spaces--I've only seen Job so far). Of course there's also the higher profile of having a show on Broadway and being in the Tonys conversation as another factor, but how many times have we said that a show couldn't fill a Broadway house and would do better at New World Stages?
JoeW4 said: "Because it's a commercial venue, and the vast majority of OffBway-to-Bway transfers come from non-profits. It's actually quite unusual (at least in the last decade or so) for Broadway productions to originate in the commercial Off-Broadway sphere, without having a Non-Profit run in NYC first. And even when they do, they're usually comedy/concert/entertainment style shows (e.g. My Window, Freestyle Love Supreme, Oh Hello, Just For Us, etc.). In the last decade or so, the only exceptions to this I can think of (i.e. more traditional plays/musicals) have been Be More Chill and Disaster, though I might be forgetting some."
That's a great point about non-profit vs. commercial off-Broadway venues, and where Broadway shows are coming from. However, that reality seems completely counterintuitive. For example, The Public, a non-profit, scored huge from A Chorus Line and Hamilton profits after those shows became hits on Broadway.
(At this point, The Public is probably getting 6% of Hamilton's net profit.)
The upside from that type of profit participation arrangement, would seemingly encourage commercial off-Broadway venues to focus more on incubating shows with a real chance of reaching Broadway.
^But as chrishuyen was pointing out, New World Stages is a landlord, not a producer. So they’re not entitled to a financial stake in any Broadway transfers of shows that rent space from them.
I do understand your point. I'm thinking both for New World Stages and commercial theaters in general, just renting space/being a landlord 100% of the time is an overly rigid business model.
New World has 5 stages. Say they take just one of the stages, once or twice a year, and incubate a promising show and do take a producer role, instead the upfront landlord money. If they're competent at it which doesn't magically just happen; this is what potentially could occur:
A lot of the shows they produce flame out. A few make it to Broadway. A smaller number actually succeed on Broadway, which they profit from.
But what would also happen is suddenly the perception of New World Stages goes from "where Broadway shows go to die" and a place for shows which will never be good enough for Broadway to a more prestigious venue. It would make it easier to compete with non-profit venues for the best off-Broadway shows, even on shows they're still just landlords for. You could also potentially raise ticket prices across the board on all stages, once New World is no longer viewed as Broadway's graveyard.
I think the answer is similar to why shows that started at Theater Row, a similar multiple stage off-Broadway venue, don't transfer to bigger spaces: these venues are low-cost and not particularly discerning with tenants, which leads to a lot of lower quality shows renting space.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Not every show aims for Broadway. “Off" Broadway is its own thing, and always has been. It’s not just a stepping stone to commercial success, an “incubation” clinic. Off Broadway is not “lesser than”, and Broadway is not a promotion.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
Jay Lerner-Z said: "Not every show aims for Broadway. “Off" Broadway is its own thing, and always has been. It’s not just a stepping stone to commercial success, an “incubation” clinic. Off Broadway is not “lesser than”, and Broadway is not a promotion."
Totally and I think Yiddish Fiddler on the Roof is an example of New World having a stunning off-Broadway show that’s not lesser than. But also New World Stages has it’s fair share of shows like Rock and Roll Man and A Sign of the Times, which are clearly gunning for Broadway and never are going to get there.
Once upon a time, NWS was Dodger Stages. The ambition of Dodgers at the time aligned pretty much with the "concept" of the OP in this thread. They hoped to have in-town equivalents of out-of-town tryouts, without the costs of going out of town, and with the talent pool mostly built-in. The concept failed, the Shuberts took it over, and things went downhill fast. Part of it was the broader decline of commercial off-B, part of it was the ascension of non-profit off-B into real estate that no commercial landlord could ever imagine, and part of it was floating on of some Shubert conspiracy theories. With a few exceptions that were very much not the rule, what followed down the steps into the dismal halls of NWS was mostly garbage, and most of it defied and continues to defy even the most liberal definition of "theatre." [And no, it was not just NWS, Theatre Row followed the same descent and bears little similarity to what it was in the early days, and we can say the same of places like the Little Shubert and even less of places that were never terribly high on the totem pole, like St. Lukes, the Actors Temple, etc.] No matter how much we may want it to be otherwise, this is an idea that does not have legs. Many have tried, some still do, but hardly any succeed.
I worked at NWS for many years. I would first like to know what "Shubert conspiracy theories" there were? Also, The Shuberts did not take it over from Dodgers. Stage Entertainment ran it for 9 years in between Dodgers and the Shuberts.
@Matt Rogers "they have had plenty of quality shows"
I don't think the list you c&p'd bears out your assertion but you are obviously entitled to your opinion. Understand, though, that my observations (assuming I was within your target) were addressed to a smaller sample (the degradation to which I referred) and the scope on which the OP focused (NWS->Bway). I hardly think you are suggesting that NWS contributed to the "quality" of, e.g., Rent. If anything it likely did some tarnishing of the brand and was, like many of the others, unsuccessful. If you make a list of the successes, especially in the last decade or so, you will find that the garbage label is pretty apt.
@uncageg, I am very aware of the transition from DSE to SE to the Shuberts but I did not feel it was relevant to add that complication into the arc. (And it is pretty complicated if you go through the whole mess.) I wasn't trying to occlude anything. This was not a case in which any landlord has ever come out on top. Finally, re the "conspiracy theory," it is a familiar one regarding several things they have undertaken in the last decade+ to make sure that the number of Broadway houses did not increase. I have no information on that beyond that awareness, and don't really have an opinion on it, but it is a very firmly held conviction by a good number of people in the community. (And to that end, and tangentially addressing a comment made in a post in this thread, the Shuberts are not only a landlord but also a producer. Had they been so inclined, they could have acted like a producer and tried to salvage their investment in the multiplex.)
HogansHero said: "@Matt Rogers "they have had plenty of quality shows"
I don't think the list you c&p'd bears out your assertion but you are obviously entitled to your opinion. Understand, though, that my observations (assuming I was within your target) were addressed to a smaller sample (the degradation to which I referred) and the scope on which the OP focused (NWS->Bway). I hardly think you are suggesting that NWScontributed to the "quality" of, e.g., Rent. If anything it likely did some tarnishing of the brand and was, like many of the others, unsuccessful. If you make a list of the successes, especially in the last decade or so, you will find that the garbage label is pretty apt.
@uncageg, I am very aware of the transition from DSE to SE to the Shuberts but I did not feel it was relevant to add that complication into the arc. (And it is pretty complicated if you go through the whole mess.) I wasn't trying to occlude anything. This was not a case in which any landlord has ever comeout on top. Finally, re the "conspiracy theory," it is a familiar one regarding several things they have undertaken in the last decade+ to make sure that the number of Broadway houses did not increase. I have no information on that beyond that awareness, and don't really have an opinion on it, but it is a very firmly held conviction by a good number of people in the community. (And to that end, and tangentially addressing a comment made in a post in this thread, the Shuberts are not only a landlord but also a producer. Had they been so inclined, they could haveacted like a producer and triedto salvage their investment in the multiplex.)"
I was not referring to you. As to your post, there are so many shows that have performed at NWS that have gone on to have a bigger life - if not Broadway, then in regionals. I’m not going to do another list but there have been a lot of quality and successful shows.
All I can say is that you are way off base regarding the "conspiracy Theory". Having no information on it and basing it on "firmly held convictions" does not make it so.
uncageg said: "All I can say is that you are way off base regarding the "conspiracy Theory". Having no information on it and basing it on "firmly held convictions" does not make it so."
Are you saying that I have mis-stated the conspiracy theory about the Shubert acquisition of NWS? How am I off base? Do you understand that a conspiracy theory is not rooted in facts, and that there are people who nonetheless firmly believe it? There is nothing in my post suggesting that I believe the theory; in fact, I expressly say I don't because I have no information that would lead me to believe it. But I DO know that there are people who do believe it [firmly] (that's how conspiracy theories work), and this is familiar because there have been articles about it in the theatrical press and I have personally spoken to people in the business who believe that the Shuberts have taken actions to thwart any growth in the number of Broadway houses, including not only NWS but also what was the Little Shubert and that parking lot they they owned. I am not sure how but perhaps you misapprehended my intention, but I have quite clearly said nothing that would "make it (i.e., the conspiracy theory) so."
@Matt, I don't expect you to make another list. As I said, I just don't see it but we can see this differently without the need to trudge back through anything.
@uncageg,well that does not follow. If you are suggesting you know something that others don't then feel free to explain, or not. I very much doubt you do, based on what you have already said here.