Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 02:28 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are wrong in almost everything you say - ryhog 05:50 pm EDT 06/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not at all. What I'm saying is its not a level playing field. Some dont find that a problem. I do. If I were to produce a show that closed in 8 weeks on Broadway, its a flop. If a Broadway LORT theatre does the same, its just 'a limited run'. The LORT/Broadway companies can produce 3 or 4 of these short runs in each of their Broadway houses. And they can (and do) win Tonys for them in various categories. And this is fine as far as it goes. Bit for commercial producers its a bit harder, because if one runs a show 8 weeks and closes, one loses $3-20 million. One's investors might abandon one, For the LORT/Broadway companies, its show after show, with donated funds. The business model is totally different. And it gives quite an advantage when you know you can produce 2-3-4 shows on Broadway every year, for a subscriber audience. The corollary is that if I am a commercial producer I pay a big star $25-50-100,000 a week - if I can get one. For the Broadway/LORT theatres, they have stars a plenty working for what my Dad would have called 'bupkus'. Why? It's easy - and I've had these conversations with agents SO many times it makes my head hurt. If a big star does a limited run at a LORT/Broadway theatre, it will run its 10-12-14 weeks scheduled. The success or failure of the project does not rest on their shoulders. If they do a Broadway commercial show that flops - OMG - so and so isnt a star after alL! We all know TIME AND THE CONWAYS wasnt very good. But folk don't deride it as they do PARISIAN WOMAN. The latter was a commercial disaster. The former didnt sell to well either, beyond Roundabout subscribers who saw it. But no one will chalk it up as a 'flop' - because 'flop' means the show closed and the investors lost their money. The LORT/Broadway theatres have more or less the worst flop vs hit ratio of any major producers on Broadway - but there they are year after year, doing new Broadway shows, sans investors. If a commercial producer's last 9 shows were CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD, TRAVESTIES, STORIES BY HEART, TIME AND THE CONWAYS, MARVINS ROOM. THE PRICE, SIGNIFICANT OTHER, THE CHERRY ORCHARD, and HOLIDAY INN , they would be (rightly) shunned by investors. Even though TRAVESTIES was at least a good production, no one much wanted to see it. Its not bullshit that this is true. It is true, Its a condition of how things are. I just don;t much care for it. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are wrong in almost everything you say | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:11 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
| In reply to: re: You are wrong in almost everything you say - NewtonUK 02:28 am EDT 06/19/18 | |
|
|
|
| You have every right not to care for it, and you would not be alone. But that is not a license for mis-statements. You assume that a level playing field is relevant, and it is not. The League could have imposed your regime, but it did not. The Tonys are not a financial olympics. If they were, we could just have Grant Thornton do all of the work. The Tonys are about a different kind of success. We may question if it is always about "art" but it is unquestionable that it is not about how much a show costs or makes. And in that context, as I said before, it does not matter if you spent 7 or 17 or 70 million getting your show up. In fact, a decent argument could be made that spending more reduces your chances of getting a Tony. We could have the same discussion at the other end of the spectrum: that Disney is not on a level playing field with other commercial producers. Likewise, about shows developed at non-profits. Or with small casts. Or minimal sets. Or whatever. But we don't. To paraphrase a show that no one questions the bona fides of: Broadway is wide enough for all of these. |
|
| reply to this message |
Time to render: 0.007734 seconds.