LOG IN / REGISTER




re: It’s a house for plays
Posted by: AlanScott 01:20 pm EST 02/06/23
In reply to: re: It’s a house for plays - broadwaybacker 11:40 am EST 02/06/23

Yes, I suppose now more than ever a smaller house can pay off for an in-demand show. But for much of its existence, for just one example, the Broadway often had trouble getting desirable new shows. It was believed that it was too big, not an issue of intimacy as much as it was believed that for a show to become a truly hot ticket, it must sell out eight performances a week for an extended period. It must be impossible to get tickets. Then everyone wants tickets and they are willing to buy months in advance. And the Broadway was perceived as being too difficult to sell out, even though it's not all that much bigger than the Majestic, long a highly desired house for new musicals. Of course, being on 44th Street helps the Majestic.

Anyway, the Broadway was long the place where hits went to die.
reply

Previous: re: It’s a house for plays - broadwaybacker 11:40 am EST 02/06/23
Next: re: Why is Kimberly Akimbo doing so poorly at the box office? - dbdbdb 10:11 am EST 02/01/23
Thread:

    Privacy Policy


    Time to render: 0.011367 seconds.