jo
Ensemble
Posts: 44,218
Member is Online
|
Post by jo on Oct 4, 2017 10:25:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Oct 5, 2017 0:33:34 GMT -5
The controversy about long runs dominating too much valuable limited B'way real estate has been going on for a while now. In the old days (i.e., the 1940s-1960s) , a run of a year was considered quite good, anything above that a smash. Now, with shows taking so long to recoup because of much higher production costs, after only a year even a popular show is unlikely to enter the "hit" column--unless of course that show is a premium priced juggernaut such as HAMILTON or the HELLO, DOLLY! revival. Recoupment for most shows can take years, if ever.
Ellen
|
|
hemma
Wannabe
Waiting for the holidays...
Posts: 11 
|
Post by hemma on Oct 30, 2017 10:14:05 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing with this article, it's really interesting! Personally I like blockbuster-based musicals and I'm glad that they were added on stage. The one for Harry Potter sounds really interesting, I'm curious what show they'll make... However I read this play and I didn't like its plot, well for my tastes the original books were better  I think that these new offerings for the new season will be successful, especially considering how many fans there are for these original stories. However if the price for tickets will be too high, the commercial success can be lower, that's why I understand why there's so many long runs in Broadway theatres. On the other hand, long runs can be successful commercially for a great amount of time too, like famous Hamilton which is according to the information from this link on stage again. I suppose that it's better to make expensive high-quality musicals for the long runs which will be accessible for the audience, not the short time hits which because of their prices can't be paid off enough. But the real minus in such case is that there's too less really new shows to the new seasons  |
|
