Groundhog Day the Musical - Old Vic

That's what I thought. Hardly any theatres have a revolve as standard part of the stage.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

More reasonable ticket prices, meaning a Broadway run will more easily finance a West End run than vice versa?

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.

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.

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!

How do the bar waters compare?