Vague memory from an interview conducted for a mid-to-late-80's production that originated in Dallas, which transferred to my city, Houston, into what was then the largest sized theater the show was allowed to be licensed for (the Tower--and it wasn't all that big: it was a restructured old single screen movie house--about 1200 seats). I don't know that theater itself was singularly the largest--like they (whoever ''they" would be--Menken and Ashman?) learned of the dimensions of the house and just barely allowed it, or if fell into the already designated class size determined to be the upper limit for potential productions. As I recall from the interview, larger spaces were not approved because the larger the auditorium, the more substantially dwarfed the plant became even at its largest, and this hurt the effectiveness of the show (particularly the ending,I'd assume).
I think as time has gone by, bigger houses became acceptable because they mean more money, and maybe there is a sense that the show is so well-known now, and loved, it doesn't have to presented in the most optimal venues to win over a crowd; they came in already won over.
Updated On: 3/15/21 at 05:36 PM