Why is theatre so much more expensive nowadays? — Page 2

Pretty sure spiderman wasn't a thing in the 60's

---

The answer remains inflation.

Everything costs more - supplies, labor, and real estate. Because things cost more, the cost of living increases, so salaries and wages have to go up. Using the theatre space will go up because real estate space costs more and more in Manhattan every year.

Stop and think about the fact that AEA minimum is what...something like $1800/week? So we say $7200/mo for one ensemble member. Multiply that times 1 year and 1 ensemble member can make $86,400 per year. 3 ensemble members take it past your $250,000 mark! Since most shows have perhaps a dozen ensemble members, now we're at $1,036,800 per year JUST for the ensemble. That's not even factoring in principal actors' or megastars' salaries.

Am I painting a good picture?

For the record, inflation doesn't actually account for the MASSIVE increase in ticket price over the last two or three decades. If ticket prices were merely changing to match the rate of inflation they would be quite a bit lower than they are now - like $50-$80 for great seats instead of $150+.

The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question. There are other factors to take into account - I just don't know what they are. Perhaps skyrocketing land/rent costs in Manhattan (the same reason a lot of the boutique mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar stores in the city have been replaced by Starbucks and other chains?) The increase in celebrity roles? The shrinking orchestras? (Oh wait, that last one doesn't make sense.)

Also, for the record, "spectacle" has always been a big part of the allure of Broadway for many people. Just ask Florenz Ziegfeld.

Figure this - a show that may have cost $250,000 as you say costs $8 million. The first Broadway show I ever saw SHE LOVES ME in 1963 - the Orchestra ticket was $5.50 - now tickets are $150 (at least). So the price of the show to produce went up 32 times as much and that ticket price went up 27 times as much. That's pretty much in the ratio of cost of ticket to production cost over that span of time. Pretty understandable.

As for spectacle - if you saw what we considered spectacle in the 60's - take HELLO DOLLY - you would laugh at that set now. Painted backdrops were still in use even if a trolley car (the "spectacle" was maneuvered across the stage. Yet we were just agog over it. Expensive and real mechanical spectacle came within the last 30 years - If you count a chandelier as spectacle.

ggersten makes a good point about the expense of musicals. Musicals have to employ more people. They just do.

You don't just have an orchestrator. You have multiple orchestrators/arrangers. And the designers all have assistants and associates. And we have to have projection designers now, and people to run the computers.

There are two reasons:
Inflation
Technology
When it cost 250K to put up a show, sets were not moved by anything but sheer manual labor: which was cheap.

The reason for all the sarcasm? Is this question is "discussed" all the time. There are no other answers. 99% of the posters on this board know this: including the op.

---

"yes i already know this. I asked for reasons BESIDES the economy."

Besides electricity, what powers my computer?

---

"Unfortunately (and this will be unpopular) unions across the board are a huge reason why musicals in particular are so much more expensive now. I actually believe it was the Dr. Zhivago producers who did an interview where they stated that they premiered in Australia because the cost was something like $USD 6 million cheaper to put a first class productions (building sets, larger orchestras, general labor).

Of course rents in Manhattan have been putting a dent in production costs as well (and plenty of producers will pay for that right theatre)."

This was the reason cited for the cost differences between Matilda on West End and Matilda on Broadway:

"...both the overall capitalization costs and weekly expenses can be three to four times greater than in London, in large part because of Broadway union contracts. Mounting the London production of 'Matilda' cost £2.5 million, about $3.8 million, compared to the Broadway capitalization of $16 million." (NYT)

Contrast musical costs to a straight play, though. Are there union differences there? Plays still cost less, but I don't know how their costs have inflated comparatively.

---

Updated On: 2/19/15 at 03:03 PM

I wonder if your premise is correct.

I would like to see the median broadway ticket price for each year compared to the median income for each year and see if ticket prices are really going up against income.

I just find it hard to believe you couldn't think of that on your own.

---

The true reason is actor's salaries. If Ethel Merman saw what Idina Menzel makes, she would plotz.

---

Damn those unions and the idea that the people who build and run a show should earn a living wage.

"Damn those unions and the idea that the people who build and run a show should earn a living wage."

Because we should pay high wages to people who basically hand us a program and point out where our seat is. I'm sure most of them have a Ph.D in Ushering.

---