Saturday, February 26, 2011
Off Broadway Looms Larger for Hits
NYTimes.com: "Any television executive knows that the big money is in reruns: Hit shows like “Seinfeld” and “Star Trek” keep raking it in long after the writers penned their last scripts. Now a group of theater producers is putting a twist on that business model, taking long-running Broadway hits and moving them Off Broadway to test if they can live on in rerun mode, where costs are lower and the profit potential is significant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This seems like an interesting idea. The only problem is that for most people, seeing a big name return to off-broadway might be more of a deterrent than a lure. Television re-runs make sense, it isn't a return to beginnings. It seems to me that tours is the equivalent to Broadway reruns. If it ain't broke, why fix it.
Moving a show immediately from Broadway to off-Broadway is a very strange notion for me, even after reading this entire article detailing the successes. I totally understand the intention of keeping the brand name alive, but like Ariel, I'd see the national tour as a more appropriate venture for that. If the show's interest in New York is waning, take it to an audience that hasn't seen it before. The revival of Rent off-Broadway isn't such a bad thing - the show is being completely redesigned. Dragging a complete Broadway production out of its original theatre, even if it's not necessarily kicking and screaming at this point, is a very strange notion indeed.
This seems like a potentially successful idea. If shows that closed and then return for audiences that will pay for cheaper tickets, it is very possible that people would be very willing to pay for one of their favorite shows that they saw in the past. It's true that tours are a good way of doing this, so it will be interesting to see if this idea is indeed as successful as the numbers predict it will be.
I think this could be successful, especially for shows that have some name recognition. The occasional tourist may only get to travel to NY every few years, and this could cause them to miss out on a show they wanted to see. "Rerunning" the show Off-Broadway would allow them to see the show. Even with touring, the cache of "seeing the show in NY" I think is quite appealing to a lot of tourists. Also, I think a lot of people would be willing to revisit their favorite shows more often with cheaper ticket prices off-Broadway. People are willing to pay for DVDs of movies to watch the
I think that in some cases the move from Broadway to Off-Broadway can be a good one. However, there are cases, such as the 39 steps, where it may just be one more try at something that had already stopped working. That show began as a limited Broadway run at the American Airlines Theatre (seats 600 or so), then moved to a different broadway theatre (more seats, but they didn't sell the balcony to increase grosses and lower capacity), to the smallest broadway theatre (500ish seats) to New World Stages, where they eventually closed. I think it is important that producers moving shows back Off-Broadway don't fool themselves into thinking less seats means more butts in them. certainly the running costs are less, but if your product has already been exhausted, maybe it's time to call it quits. I would hate to see New World Stages (which is pretty conveniently located in the broadway area) turn into a recycling ground for producers who don't feel like closing their shows just yet, even when the numbers and word-of-mouth say it's time.
This article spoke a lot about the reduced costs of mounting off-broadway; it seems like if several shows start filling 499 seat houses, they will become a cheaper alternative for people in NY to see commercial theatre, pushing the demand for them upward and potentially stealing some of Broadway's demand. If that were to happen, then the cost differential between on and off Broadway would narrow, eventually making the 499 seat limit seem like less of a hard line. I think it's great that people have the opportunity to see previously popular shows at a reduced cost, but I don't think that this will turn into a large trend.
I think this is a great idea. As for those who said that tours are a better alterative need to remember that point is to reduce running costs. I would have to agree with Becca though that this won't work to try and revive public opinion of shows that have already lost their appeal. It should be done for shows that only that have strong followings in an attempt to make Off Broadway more profitable. I think everyone wins the show costs less to run and people have to pay less for a ticket.
Post a Comment