The Producer's Perspective: You know what everyone is saying these days, right? If you want to make money on The Broadway, then you gotta have a gimmick star.
We here at the ol’ office don’t believe in anecdotal evidence very much, so we dug into the archives of the last ten years to find actual data see if that dog had legs. (Wait. Is that a saying? Huh. I don’t think it is. But you get it, right?.)
1 comment:
From my experience, having a star in a show makes it instantly more attractive to attend. Even though the statistics say otherwise.... the people who are around me are very much interested in seeing the big stars, usually movie/hollywood actors, in theatre shows in New York. Though shows that involve non-stars are generally more successful in the long run, they do require a long run, and need to spread via word of mouth before it can turn-over a success. An unknown show with a non-star won't sell out on opening night. An unknown show with a super-star? That might just sell out on opening night. If I were a theatre producer, I'd take the time to invest in both kinds of shows. But, really it comes down to personal preference for the kind of show you want to be involved in. If you want to do a shorter run of a show, just try out a new piece, why not bring in a big star? Do a run that's limited by the length of the time star can be there, and then test the strength of the written work. If I was in a good place with money, and I could risk planning on a long run with all unknown actors, I'd definitely do that. I personally want to support the non-stars out there, and so does the producer from this article, but it's clear that superstar shows are a part of the theatre culture in this day and age, and you can't make them go away, because they are a quick, and 2/3 chance of success.
Post a Comment