Why was Bare disliked? — Page 4

Jamie,

As the original poster of the thread, I'm just as interested in why people liked Bare as why they didn't.

---

"WatusiJenkins seems to know what he/she is talking about. I think it's safe to say that the person is very close to the authors who would be one of the best authorities on the subject. Anyone that you have talked to is more likely to be clinging on to hope that is simply unrealistic."

I wasn't saying that WatusiJenkins was WRONG in his comments. Actually, I STATED that in my original post. I just wanted to know how he could possibly claim for certain that "Bare" is not going to be re-mounted in the city. And he has yet to give an explanation. What is your source, WatusiJenkins?

"The only reason why Dodgers and/or any other producer would want to mount this show Off-Broadway is to build word-of-mouth and momentum to justify a move to Broadway. Didn't the show have 20 or more performers involved (including, I believe it was six musicians)? That is way too many performers for an off-Broadway show – it’s just not affordable. They would have to completely sell out all their tickets at top price (no discounting) just to pay the bills, forget about a return on the investment. Is the "extremely strong" fan base you mentioned really enough to sell 3900 tickets a week at $65 (or more) a pop? Does the younger fan base of this show really have access to that much spare change?"

In order for the producers of this show to not lose their shirts, they needed a big push in momentum that created a huge demand for tickets. The production at ATA needed across the board critical raves and/or huge word of mouth (like "Urinetown," "Avenue Q" and "Rent" had) in order to drive this show to an Off-Broadway run and then on to a Bway run. It didn't get either. Critics and audiences were both very mixed about the show. And that wasn't enough to create a large demand for the big buck tickets they would have needed to sell to pay back their investment."

Ummm... the entire REASON why this show would be a wise investments is BECAUSE of its ability to build momentum for a Broadway run. While the show didn't have critical RAVES, it got decent reviews, and it sure as hell had "Rent"-proportional word-of-mouth. I haven't encountered a show in AGES that had word-of-mouth like this. And this is not to mention that fact that the show's fanbase is a very mixed demographic- not just a younger audience. That's just a foolish comment on your part.

As for your comments regarding the finances of the show... ("Bare" had 15 performers and six musicians, BTW) The producers definitely wouldn't get a return on their investment for an pre-Broadway run... I didn't mean to insinuate that they WOULD- many four-to-five actor PLAYS don't get returns on their initial investments Off-Off-Broadway. This mounting of the show would be a stepping stone to a Broadway venue where the show would undoubtedly be successful.

And I love how you've calculated the weekly production budget for this show when you're clearly aware that the same financial deficits apply to nearly ANY large-scale Off-Broadway production... No progress would ever be made in theatre if producers did not risk an inital investment in the hopes of recouping at a larger venue- a scenario that is most definitely NOT unlikely with a show like "Bare".

---

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm aware that the proposed production at Dodgers is probably not going to materialize... but I didn't know if THAT'S what you were trying to say, or if you were trying to say that no one in NYC wanted to pick the show up, even at another venue.

---

Magic8ball wrote:
"While the show didn't have critical RAVES, it got decent reviews, and it sure as hell had "Rent"-proportional word-of-mouth. I haven't encountered a show in AGES that had word-of-mouth like this."

"Rent" proportional word-of-mouth? Since I was at one of the early previews of "Rent" at NYTW and was somewhat entrenched in the theatre community at the time, let me recap what happened when "Rent" played in it’s initial run.

During rehearsals, word within the theatre community spread about the show being an exciting and inventive new rock musical. The "early buzz" was strong enough to get NYT to send a reporter to do a story on the writer before it's first preview.
During previews tickets are scarce.
The show opens to rave reviews across the board.
Whitney Houston, David Bowie and a whole slewful of other celebrities and executives from record companies, film studios and theatre producers rush to NYTW to see what the fuss is all about.
An extension is announced and sells out within hours.
A bidding war begins between several major film studios. Variety eventually will report that Miramax wins with a 5 million dollar contract.
David Geffen, one of the most powerful men in the record industry wins the contract to record the show under the new Dreamworks label.
Theatre owners battle over who will be able to land this gold mine in one of their theatres.
All of this before the show has even finished it's downtown run and without the benefit of any publicly-available recording of any of the songs or an official website designed to create a fanbase.

Shortly after it closes at NYTW, the producers announce plans to reopen on Broadway at the Nederlander.
Tickets go on sale and within weeks the first six months are sold out (and the show hadn’t even started previews yet).
"Rent" wins the Pulitzer Prize.
The NYT dedicates six pages in one of it's Arts and Leisure section to the show and everyone involved with it. Articles are found in just about every paper in town. It seemed like you couldn't open a paper without something about "Rent" somewhere in it.
"Rent" lands on the cover of Newsweek, the first time a Broadway musical had been featured on the front in over a decade (maybe longer-was "A Chorus Line" the last one before that? My memory is hazy...).
Bloomingdales announces a "Rent"-inspired clothing line.

In other words, it was crazy. An absolute phenomenon. The only thing that even came close since then was "The Lion King" and "The Producers." There was nothing like any of that with "Bare." There was absolutely no comparison.

Now let's look at the much more modest story of Urinetown.

It starts previews at ATA with strong sales generated by word-of-mouth from the Fringe festival production.
A large amount of industry people attend and the general reaction is ecstatic - Theatre people love this show!
The chat boards fill up with "Urinetown" posts with a vast majority of posters (I’d guesstimate 9 out of 10) gushing over the show.
The critics follow suit. When the show opens, all the major critics give it raves.
The show announces an extension at ATA and a transfer to Broadway in the fall.

Now let’s look at what happened when "Bare" played at the same theater in the same kind of run.

It starts previews at ATA with strong sales generated by word-of-mouth from the LA production.
The chat boards fill with posts about the show that seem split more or less equally in three camps: "Best thing ever!", "Crap!" and "I like it, but I wish it was better."
A large amount of industry people attend and the general reaction is apathetic.
Show opens to print reviews which range from okay to awful. The NYT shrugs, the New Yorker goes out of its way to trash it.
Was there an extension? I don’t remember. Either way, it was announced for an Off-Broadway run in the fall.
One of the producers isn’t able to come up with enough money for the OB run.

If this show had "Rent"-proportional word of mouth, where was all the press? Where was the multi-million dollar film contract? Where was the recording contract? Where were the Broadway theatre owners fighting over it? And most importantly, why weren't they able to get even one other producer to step up and foot the bill to get this thing to Broadway? If this show even had "Urinetown"-sized word-of-mouth, they would have at least been able to find someone to put up the extra money to move it to Broadway.

But it didn't have that kind of word of mouth. That's why they announced off-Broadway instead. They knew they didn't get the momentum that they needed from its initial run and were hoping that they could get another chance.

In the end, someone had to have looked at the reviews and recognized the general lack of excitement in the theatre community about it and realized this just wasn’t going to take off. I'm sorry it hurts or is frustrating. I know that it is. I've seen this happen to a few of my favorite shows myself. But that's the way it happened. Be thankful that you were able to experience it live when many others weren’t and treasure your memories.

"And this is not to mention that fact that the show's fanbase is a very mixed demographic- not just a younger audience. That's just a foolish comment on your part."

Well, I know someone who was involved in the show and that person said the show was appealing much more to the under-30 set then the over-30 set. I have no reason to disbelieve this person since s/he was at all of the performances but maybe I should just take your word and consider that was a foolish comment on his/her part. I don't know if there were any actual demographic studies done, so I'm curious as to where you’ve gotten your information.

"This mounting of the show would be a stepping stone to a Broadway venue where the show would undoubtedly be successful."

Undoubtedly how? If it didn’t catch fire off-Broadway, why are you so certain it would catch fire on? What guarantee would you have to someone putting hundreds of thousands if not millions into the show? That you and your friends like it?

"And I love how you've calculated the weekly production budget for this show when you're clearly aware that the same financial deficits apply to nearly ANY large-scale Off-Broadway production... "

Oh yeah, and there’s a whole lot of those, isn’t there? How many commercial Off-Broadway runs have there been over the past few years that have been the size of "Bare?" The last one I can think of was "Bat Boy," and they had a cast roughly a third smaller than "Bare." And I believe it closed in the red if I remember correctly. All the large-scale Off-Broadway musicals lately have been done by the non-profits which don’t expect to return their investment – they are paid for by subscribers, grants and what not, so if the shows make a jump to Broadway, it’s a pleasant surprise for them. "Urinetown" went straight to Broadway. "Bare" was clearly done at the ATA to see if the reception would be strong enough to take it to Broadway, and it wasn’t.

"No progress would ever be made in theatre if producers did not risk an initial investment in the hopes of recouping at a larger venue- a scenario that is most definitely NOT unlikely with a show like "Bare".

If it was "most definitely NOT unlikely with a show like Bare" then it would be running on Broadway as we speak.

While RENT was all the rage there for awhile and even here in Denver (eveyone was talking about it, some people were dressing like the characters and there were lines outside of the theatre for the reduced tix when the tour got here.) It didn't seem to do as well it's second time around here. A lot of people here knew about BARE and were trying to get tickets but couldn't. I almost sure it was extended and sold out. While RENT was really big, I think the buzz in the theatre community was pretty strong for BARE. While I was in New York, a lot of people were talking about it and the friend that I took to the show was happy because neither he or his friends could get their hands on a ticket. A good friend of mine who is very prominent nationally in the theatre community had to pull a lot of strings to get tickets. I knew about it, started chatting with Damon a year before it hit New York and it was the 1st ticket I purchased. So I think bare had more big buzz inside the community and among avid theatregoers. And yes I do agree it attracted a wide range of theatregoers. The evening I went last April, at least 75 percent of the audience appeared to be over 30. Just my thoughts. Back to work!

---