Why don't shows move theatres?

[Ryguy7]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:41am

My friend and I were discussing this at Promises, Promises last night and the size of the Broadway theatre.

Why do shows not move to bigger theatres if they are uber-successful? Like Wicked and Jersey Boys. Surely they could occupy bigger houses and make more money?

Is there a legitimate reason why this is not done?

Thanks,
Ryan

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:45am

Pre-1980 shows frequently moved theatres, but this rarely happens anymore - the reason fundementally being that sets have become so large and complicated that the cost of moving them (union/labor costs) and redesigning and rebuilding them to fit a different space is incredibly cost prohibitive.

It roughly costs 1 million dollars to transfer a production to another theatre.

[Jon]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:46am

Wicked is at the Gershwin, which is, I beleive, the third largest house on Broadway. The New Amsterdam is owned by Disney, and not available. That only leaves the Hilton, which no one likes.

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:48am

The Gershwin actually has the most seating capacity of any Broadway house.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:49am

#1 Why would WICKED want to move?? The Gershwin is the LARGEST Broadway house with 1,935 seats!! If they had an opportunity to move, every other theater on Broadway is SMALLER, so KUDOS to them for being able to sell out the LARGEST BROADWAY THEATER!

As for JERSEY BOYS, see #2.

#2 it costs money to move your show to another theater. Sometimes it is worth it, sometimes it is not, and sometimes you are forced with the decision to either move or close due to the theater already being booked for an upcoming show (this sometimes happens especially with limited engagements that end up being a smash success and want to change to an open-ended run.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:51am

The theater Wicked is in - the Gershwin - is enormous. I thought it was the largest, but even if it wasn't, moving it to another theater wouldn't make much of a difference.

Even if a show is popular, it wouldn't make sense to keep shuffling around shows from theater to theater. Sometimes it is easier to just stay put, as there is a lot of work that goes into a transfer. Not to mention it is costly and producers may not want to foot the bill even if they could afford it.

[Ryguy7]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 11:52am

Ah. I thought the Hilton was bigger than the Gershwin. Wicked makes sense then, obviously. Jersey Boys, to me, seems worth the investment.

Interesting replies.
Thank You.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 12:01pm

It is quite interesting as to why JERSEY BOYS never moved into a larger theater. ESPECIALLY in the first two years when it was impossible to get a ticket.

More than likely it was a combination of reasons:

- Larger appropriate theaters were not available.
- They liked the location.
- They liked the theater.
- The producers purposefully made their show "hard to get tickets to" by putting it in a 1222-seat theater (which is still not a bad size).
- It wouldn't be worth it to transfer to a larger theater, after transfer costs.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 1:05pm

Plus, the theatres are not picked randomly. There is a lot of though that goes in to the decision as to what theatre a show goes into including, but not limited to: size, location, the aesthetics of the space/architecture, and numerous other reasons. There is a reason that some shows will choose to wait to open in a specific theatre, rather than just taking whatever is available.

You also have to figure in not just the cost, but the time it takes to move. Who knows what risk you may take by closing down for several weeks to move and re-tech in a new space, as well as work out any new bugs, or sometimes old problems that could resurface as a result of the move.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 1:54pm

Read "The Season" by William Goldman as he talks to producers and theater owners about what makes a desirable theater and you'll understand these choices are NOT made logically. Plus, everyone involved in the theater seems convinced that patrons decide what to see based on the theater it's playing in- which of course is completely absurd.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 2:03pm

Two shows currently running on Broadway have moved theatres: Chicago (Richard Rodgers, Shubert and the Ambassador) and The Lion King (New Amsterdam and Minskoff).

Prior to that the only shows I can recall moving several times are the original productions of 42nd Street (Wintergarden, Majestic and St. James) and Annie (Alvin, Anta, O'Neil and Uris). In the case of Annie, I wonder if a new set was built since the Uris, now Gershwin was significantly larger than any of the other theatres the show played at.

[temms]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 2:06pm

It's possible to make more money with a medium-popular show in a mid-size house than a popular show in a big house.

The reason? Premiums and discounts. The more available seats you have, the less likely people will have to pay premium and the more likely you are to have to discount.

Too many seats, and then you can't charge $350 for a prime seat because you can get one that's almost as good for $125. Similarly - you can sell out at full price with premium in an 1100 seat house (8800 tickets available per week) or discount in a 1600-seat house (12,800 available tickets.)

Now let's spread that out over a year. That extra 4000 available seats a week adds up to an extra 200,000 available seats per year that they have to unload.

So you have a choice - try and unload 457,600 seats per year at a slightly higher average, or try and unload 665,600 seats at a slightly lower average.

Figure in the million or so it would take to transfer, and most shows are probably just fine playing where they happen to be playing and leave it at that.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/2/10 at 4:32pm

BEAUTY & THE BEAST moved theaters. As did AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY. Those are just two off the top of my head.

[DWalk]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 12:39am

Les Miserables moved theatres, as well.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 12:47am

Didn't The 39 Steps also move?

Then again, they don't have much of a set so I can't imagine it was terribly expensive to relocate them. Updated On: 8/3/10 at 12:47 AM

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 2:13am

As Michael Bennett said, there was a time when it was common for shows to move, sometimes several times.

A number of shows closed at the Broadway, which for a long time was considered an undesirable house. Shows that closed there, after having opened elsewhere, include:

Fiddler (after having played the Imperial and the Majestic)
Mame (after the Winter Garden)
Cabaret (after the Broadhurst and the Imperial)
Funny Girl (after the Winter Garden and the Majestic)
I Can Get It For You Wholesale (after the Shubert)
My Fair Lady (after the Hellinger and the Broadhurst)
Fiorello! (after the Broadhurst)
The Music Man (after the Majestic)
West Side Story (actually, moved back to the Winter Garden, where it had opened, after playing for a bit at the Broadway)
South Pacific (after the Majestic)

Other shows that moved more than once include:

Once Upon a Mattress (after its original run downtown, it went from the Alvin to the Winter Garden to the Cort, for just two weeks, and then it closed at the St. James)
Hellzapoppin (46th Street, Winter Garden, Majestic)
Life With Father (Empire, Bijou, Alvin)
Plain and Fancy (Hellinger, Winter Garden, back to Hellinger)
My Sister Eileen (Biltmore, Martin Beck, Bijou, Broadway)
Man of La Mancha (ANTA Washington Square, Martin Beck, Eden, Hellinger)
Wait Until Dark (Barrymore, Shubert, Abbott, Music Box)

You'd get weird situations, like the huge Fanny playing its last two weeks at the smallish Belasco. I'd guess it was just to keep it running and to keep the company together till the tour started. Similarly, Do Re Mi moved for just its last three weeks to the 54th Street.

There was so much more turnover and there were many interim bookings (like Once Upon a Mattress at the Cort till the St. James was free). Shows would even open on interim bookings, knowing that they'd have to move if they turned out to be hits. Theatre owners were much more ready to force shows out when they fell below the stop clause. But since it was cheap to move shows, it worked out most of the time, though there were certainly cases when marginal shows closed because they couldn't afford to move again.

Anyway, sets were so much simpler and generally lighter then. There were also far, far fewer lighting instruments used. Amplification for musicals was a much simpler process. All of those are elements that make moving shows much more difficult now. Increasing mechanization has slowed down certain things. Where a move at one time could almost always be done without missing performances, that's simply not true now for big musicals. Ironically, computerized lighting boards are another reason why it can't be done so easily now. When lighting cues were handled manually, it was much simpler to set up the lighting design in a new theatre.
Updated On: 8/3/10 at 02:13 AM

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 8:13am

GYPSY opened at the Broadway where it set a house record in the opening weeks. At some point it moved to the Imperial, another Shubert House. I don't remember the reason. But I do recall that the producers used fewer showgirls in "Minsky's Salute to Christmas" because of the smaller stage at the Imperial, thus saving some money.

[AnythingGoes2]

Posted: 8/3/10 at 9:21am

As someone said previous, pre1980 it was usual for shows to move to two or three houses during runs but their sets were nowhere near as complex and expensive as todays.

Today you have multi-million pound sets and lighting rigs that are so detailed they sometimes are built around that venue and that stage size that move houses would mean new sets, new lighting rigs which costsa huge money and will mean the cast being re-rehearsed and probably the show being out for 2 weeks. Not worth it, unless its very minimal costs. In the West End shows like Fame, Grease, Avenue Q have gone into 2 or 4 or more venues because they use touring/minimal sets and don't having expensive production values.

Shows pre-1980 could transfer easily across to London/Broadway but now because the sets/production require certain sized theatres, mean shows have to wait or delay because the right stage isn't available.

With Jersey Boys not moving to a theatre - thats a good thing! Just because a show is always sold out shouldn't mean they go to a bigger house because it holds more. This would mean the set would like tiny on a bigger stage (loosing effects) and mean the show would have sell double what it already is - a risk.

Phantom, when it opened in London, had an opportunity a year into its run to move to The Palladium because ticket sales were so in demand. Webber wanted to cash it all straight away but Mackintosh refused to let show risk loosing its staging created at the small Her Majestys and having a sold out show is marketing money cannot buy. If it did move to The Palladium it probably would have closed long by now!