The Producer's Perspective: "The last time Broadway had a number of dark theaters was in the 70s and early 80s. (That period is one of the reasons Broadway lost the Mark Hellinger Theatre to the Times Square Church.) A lot of people whisper that a bunch of empty theaters is exactly what we all need to get our costs back in line. The theory being that some dark houses might put the power back in the hands of the Producers, since we're the ones who fill them. Unions, Theatre Owners and Vendors might need us more than we need them. Makes sense, right?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Will there ever be another Dark period on Broadway?
The Producer's Perspective: "The last time Broadway had a number of dark theaters was in the 70s and early 80s. (That period is one of the reasons Broadway lost the Mark Hellinger Theatre to the Times Square Church.) A lot of people whisper that a bunch of empty theaters is exactly what we all need to get our costs back in line. The theory being that some dark houses might put the power back in the hands of the Producers, since we're the ones who fill them. Unions, Theatre Owners and Vendors might need us more than we need them. Makes sense, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Davenport makes some really good points here. Everytime i see a Broadway show, I flip to the back of my playbill and notice an ever-increasing list of "permanent entries" in the "How Many Have You Seen" list. In some ways it's exciting to see shows succeed and stick around, but more often I find myself thinking some of these shows have overstayed their welcome. I also find this is true of shows that move from Broadway to Off-Broadway, which does work in some cases, but not in all. I think Broadway could be more exciting if some of these long shows packed up sooner and made room for upcoming shows and new creativity.
I think it's great that so many shows have the box office support to run for so long. It's a good sign, one that tells us that people still want to pay for theatre! But I do wonder about the shows that could have become successes if they had only gotten a space in a Broadway house. Maybe, as Becca said, some shows have overstayed their welcome, and it's time for something new to move into those spaces. I was a bit confused about the "putting the power back in the hands of the producers" point, because the producers seem to be have plenty of power when they've got a long-running show in place. I assume the author is discussing the power of the producer to put new shows in production, but it seems like this can still happen without theaters going dark.
So few shows open now in a year as compared to in 'the Golden Age' as shown by browsing http://broadwayworld.com/browseshows.cfm?showtype=BR
Nowadays it's expensive to open on Broadway; when Wicked opened for $14mil it was outrageously expensive. $14mil is typical now, and there's that show that's spent $70mil
Perhaps about what Mr. Davenport is speaking is lowering the cost of shows so that it's economically viable to get more variety in a season. Unfortunately, sense a lot of B'ways audiences are tourists, the productions Mr. Davenport mentions probably are there to stay.
I never really thought that there would be an issue with the amount of house vs the amount of shows that that open vs the shows that are open. I also think that thats a better problem to have then theaters going dark. And regarding shannon's comment about the shows who have stayed too long, if they are still making money then they will stay. Its safer to keep a show thats doing well then spend $70 million on one the you think will do well and will last long.
Post a Comment