|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 20:57:14 GMT
Do we really think this will close and not transfer to a 'normal' West End Theatre at the end of the Old Vic run?! I think the plan is Broadway after the Old Vic run. There isn't any suitable West End theatres available that it could transfer to anyway. What would make the theatre suitable? Is there anything particularly special about this show that means it needs a specific type of theatre? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 21:04:54 GMT
Erm you do realise that the revolve(s) aren't part of the old vic don't you? It was designed and built for this show.. It just needs a big enough stage. That's what I thought. Hardly any theatres have a revolve as standard part of the stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 21:10:33 GMT
Regardless Matthew Warchus has staked his reputation on both Groundhog Day and the Master Builder both transferring to Broadway, now both seem very unlikely, the problem when you set the bar too high, you are a sitting duck to get shot down. Under Matthew Warchus tenure the business model for the Old Vic has changed, with shorter runs with a big name, this creates demand so ticket prices sometime have been sky high, the production costs must also reflect this, but some shows haven't set the box office on fire, notable Future Conditional, The Hairy Ape and The Caretaker. Groundhog Day will sell out its entire run, which isn't surprising as it is so short, but I fear this production in its current state has bled a tonne of money, so needs to transfer, to either to the West End or Broadway to stand a chance of making some money back. Tim Minchin is a massive draw and if it does get good reviews, then that could be its impetus and I hope that this will happen. I think with the Broadway production being in danger, a West End transfer is very likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wallacio on Jul 18, 2016 21:49:21 GMT
Ooh sensitive. Yes I am well aware the revolve is not part of the Old Vic thank you very much. I was merely referring to needing a stage big enough to fit the show on if it were to transfer to an empty house in London. But thanks for trying to undermine my knowledge of how theatre works. Not at all. You tried to incorrectly second guess my knowlegde of theatre and I merely corrected you that I do in fact know things. |
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Jul 18, 2016 21:50:34 GMT
Mwahahahaha. Oh dear, someone's been on a political correctness course. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Wallacio on Jul 18, 2016 22:10:04 GMT
Mwahahahaha. Oh dear, someone's been on a political correctness course.  |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 18, 2016 23:14:20 GMT
Regardless Matthew Warchus has staked his reputation on both Groundhog Day and the Master Builder both transferring to Broadway, now both seem very unlikely, the problem when you set the bar too high, you are a sitting duck to get shot down. Under Matthew Warchus tenure the business model for the Old Vic has changed, with shorter runs with a big name, this creates demand so ticket prices sometime have been sky high, the production costs must also reflect this, but some shows haven't set the box office on fire, notable Future Conditional, The Hairy Ape and The Caretaker. Groundhog Day will sell out its entire run, which isn't surprising as it is so short, but I fear this production in its current state has bled a tonne of money, so needs to transfer, to either to the West End or Broadway to stand a chance of making some money back. Tim Minchin is a massive draw and if it does get good reviews, then that could be its impetus and I hope that this will happen. I think with the Broadway production being in danger, a West End transfer is very likely. Yeah - if Broadway is unlikely immediately, a West End transfer with the view to build up momentum for the project is probably a good starting point. It'll definitely have a life after this run, so long as word of mouth is decent and the reviews are solid. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jul 18, 2016 23:27:13 GMT
And why do we think a Broadway production is unlikely? Because Scott Rudin left? If the show is as good as people here say it is it will get solid reviews, do great business and New York will be clamouring for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2016 23:36:12 GMT
And why do we think a Broadway production is unlikely? Because Scott Rudin left? If the show is as good as people here say it is it will get solid reviews and New York will be clamouring for it. It was planned for a January opening on Broadway. Even if they found a new Broadway producer right now, it would take a while to get it produced there. I think in the meantime they'd rather have a West End move than not have any production for months. And a producer like Scott Rudin leaving just isn't good advertising. |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jul 18, 2016 23:46:59 GMT
If it's good and it draws crowds that's all that matters. Scott Rudin has been wrong before and, in any case, his name means nothing outside the industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 8:44:53 GMT
If it's good and it draws crowds that's all that matters. Scott Rudin has been wrong before and, in any case, his name means nothing outside the industry. Scott Rudin's statement: “The production in New York is going to be a transfer of the London production, which is not how we had originally conceived the project when I joined it. The more it evolved, the more it felt that there was no way for me to do what I like to do, so I asked to withdraw. Not every ideal show happens in the ideal circumstances for everyone involved. I wish them well with it. It’s a great show, and I’m sure it will be a big hit.” So, he's stating it's better than Mallardo's "good and it draws crowds". Is Mallardo saying he could be wrong? As a producer, he brings expertise, investment and his "name" to a show. His stated reason for leaving was that he wouldn't have been able to deploy his expertise in Groundhog Day because he wouldn't have been much involved in the London production. Losing his investment scuppers the Broadway transfer until alternative financial support can be found, so this is crucial! His name is the least valuable of the three factors to the London audience, but local recognition of it is growing, with his NT associations with The Flick and The Red Barn. |
|
|
|
Post by max on Jul 19, 2016 9:17:53 GMT
If it's a critical and box office hit here, then surely replacement investors won't be hard to find - if they think they'll make money from it. However, the Old Vic run is nowhere near long enough to show any kind of Box Office longevity for those future Broadway investors - a West End transfer would demonstrate that to them (or fail to demonstrate it).
Scott Rudin's official withdrawal statement is in no way negative; so only an investor who doesn't investigate it in depth would be put off (and they would investigate it from every angle!). I suppose only the failure of 'Ghost' on Broadway might lead to some being more sceptical. All in all it feels like the show might need a successful West End run - that points to recoupment - in order to get the Broadway backers in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 9:43:36 GMT
I just don't see why they're trying to turn the UK into a market where you just try out stuff in order to get in ready for Broadway on the one hand, and a market where you can make some more money on Broadway transfers on the other hand. Why can't more shows open in the West End first? Now we have the creative team of one of the only reasonably successful shows to open in the West End first in recent years, moving their big opening to Broadway. And of course that's their right. It's their show and they worked hard to create it. But what is it that makes the West End such an unappealing place to open new work?
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 19, 2016 13:08:24 GMT
I just don't see why they're trying to turn the UK into a market where you just try out stuff in order to get in ready for Broadway on the one hand, and a market where you can make some more money on Broadway transfers on the other hand. Why can't more shows open in the West End first? Now we have the creative team of one of the only reasonably successful shows to open in the West End first in recent years, moving their big opening to Broadway. And of course that's their right. It's their show and they worked hard to create it. But what is it that makes the West End such an unappealing place to open new work? It's an evolution of the "out of town tryout" idea. I think in this case the only reason it is going to the Old Vic first is Warchus is the Artistic Director. It's a venue he has high control over with regards to scheduling. I think the other element is Broadway production costs are so high, so it's a very expensive production to lose money on (so the risk is lower for the producers), but West End productions are cheaper to finance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 13:21:27 GMT
I just don't see why they're trying to turn the UK into a market where you just try out stuff in order to get in ready for Broadway on the one hand, and a market where you can make some more money on Broadway transfers on the other hand. Why can't more shows open in the West End first? Now we have the creative team of one of the only reasonably successful shows to open in the West End first in recent years, moving their big opening to Broadway. And of course that's their right. It's their show and they worked hard to create it. But what is it that makes the West End such an unappealing place to open new work? It's an evolution of the "out of town tryout" idea. I think in this case the only reason it is going to the Old Vic first is Warchus is the Artistic Director. It's a venue he has high control over with regards to scheduling. I think the other element is Broadway production costs are so high, so it's a very expensive production to lose money on (so the risk is lower for the producers), but West End productions are cheaper to finance. Okay, then why do hardly any new shows open in the West End? 9 out of 10 shows that open are either revivals or Broadway transfers (or both). Why is it that when West End productions are cheaper to finance they still insist on opening it on Broadway first. Even British composers do it. Andrew Lloyd Webber did it with School of Rock. Tim Minchin, who is a British citizen and whose first show premiered in the West End, is planning on doing it with this show as well. What makes the West End so unappealing? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 13:26:18 GMT
More reasonable ticket prices, meaning a Broadway run will more easily finance a West End run than vice versa?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 13:37:27 GMT
More reasonable ticket prices, meaning a Broadway run will more easily finance a West End run than vice versa? That doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion. Yes, a Broadway run would more easily finance a West End run. But you have to come up with a lot more money to get the production to Broadway in the first place. I don't anyone has ever thought "Let's try to come up with a ton of money out of nowhere so we can afterwards fund a cheaper production" |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jul 19, 2016 13:38:49 GMT
It's an evolution of the "out of town tryout" idea. I think in this case the only reason it is going to the Old Vic first is Warchus is the Artistic Director. It's a venue he has high control over with regards to scheduling. I think the other element is Broadway production costs are so high, so it's a very expensive production to lose money on (so the risk is lower for the producers), but West End productions are cheaper to finance. Okay, then why do hardly any new shows open in the West End? 9 out of 10 shows that open are either revivals or Broadway transfers (or both). Why is it that when West End productions are cheaper to finance they still insist on opening it on Broadway first. Even British composers do it. Andrew Lloyd Webber did it with School of Rock. Tim Minchin, who is a British citizen and whose first show premiered in the West End, is planning on doing it with this show as well. What makes the West End so unappealing? I don't want to go and start trying to map out the last few years and work out what is new and what is a revival/transfer, but I do think cost is the big factor in a lot of things. Ultimately commercial productions, while there to entertain, are actually there to make money after all. But in the last couple of years most musicals in the West End are either premiering here or transfers from elsewhere in the UK (Bend It Like Beckham was new, Mrs Henderson Presents was a delayed transfer from.. Bath?, Sunny Afternoon was new, Beautiful was new, In The Heights was a transfer from off-West End of a show which was on Broadway years ago - I can't think of any others at the moment). Andrew Lloyd Webber opened School of Rock on Broadway because of the child employment laws here in part, here that would have had to be triple cast. I think he was also blighted by a couple of "flops" here (Stephen Ward and Love Never Dies) and wanted to get away from that. With Groundhog Day - it's an adaptation of an American film. Matilda premiered in Stratford and then transferred to London, Warchus runs the Old Vic. I very much doubt Minchin was the one that said it should go to Broadway before the West End. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 13:57:44 GMT
I mean, I don't know ANYTHING about theatre production, but I do know that no matter WHAT the question, if it begins with "why" then the answer is always "money". I don't know the specifics, but it will absolutely be for a financial reason. I'd be willing to put a few pounds of my own on that being the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 14:13:37 GMT
I mean, I don't know ANYTHING about theatre production, but I do know that no matter WHAT the question, if it begins with "why" then the answer is always "money". I don't know the specifics, but it will absolutely be for a financial reason. I'd be willing to put a few pounds of my own on that being the case. Yeah, they're probably thinking it might make more money in the long run. But the thing with Broadway is, when you do succeed you make a lot of money, but there's a very big chance of failing because there are so many new production every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 16:38:29 GMT
Tim Minchin, who is a British citizen and whose first show premiered in the West End, is planning on doing it with this show as well. Do you mean Matilda? That was developed with the RSC over about eight years and premiered by the RSC in Stratford-upon-Avon. I know that. By premiered in the West End I meant it had opened in the West End before transferring to Broadway. |
|
1,502 posts
|
Post by foxa on Jul 19, 2016 17:57:48 GMT
We're going tomorrow night - in the rear stalls, row V. I notice the same seats, a couple of weeks later are £65. We paid £16 each. It is definitely worth booking early with the Old Vic!
|
|
4,970 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jul 19, 2016 19:03:10 GMT
IIMHO it is better to open in the West End and gauge your market, the finances stack up here. On Broadway every musical that opened this year apart from Waitress has closed.
London is also all about the drama, we do more dramas on the South Bank than Broadway and Off Broadway does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2016 19:53:14 GMT
How do the bar waters compare?
|
|
330 posts
|
Post by charliec on Jul 19, 2016 21:06:32 GMT
So how is the air conditioning at The Old Vic? I'm going tomorrow!
|
|
