|
|
Post by mel on Aug 18, 2017 16:02:25 GMT
Hi all! Long time lurker and decided to make an account.
So I recently went to NYC to see some shows and I was quite envious at how many new and different musicals were on Broadway compared to the West End. Last season alone they had 13 new musicals! How come it isn't like that over here?
|
|
4,214 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Aug 18, 2017 16:16:31 GMT
Welcome to the board Mel
|
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 18, 2017 16:16:37 GMT
Welcome to being a poster-not-a-lurker!
Presumably it's because they're less risk-averse in NY? More investors willing to take a punt?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 18, 2017 18:33:42 GMT
I guess the Hamilton effect played a part - investors realising that the right show at the right time can be a really big return, so lots more people willing to put money into new shows.
|
|
7,189 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Aug 18, 2017 19:29:13 GMT
Broadway and New York in general is better for new musicals but London and the West End is better for new plays
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 18, 2017 20:22:22 GMT
Of which 3 posted closing notices in the couple of weeks? War Pain could easily do the same soon.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 19, 2017 12:59:05 GMT
Of which 3 posted closing notices in the couple of weeks? War Pain could easily do the same soon. Longevity and success is another topic. The original post was about variety. And yes, Broadway overall has a greater variety and innovation in musicals. Brits do plays, Americans do musicals. It's theirs, and quite the quintessential American art form. Overall musical theatre as an industry is a lot more competitive there than it is in the UK, and a whole lot more funded and developed. Whether in terms of grants for up and coming writers, seminars for producers and technical stage workers, educationally in many well regarded universities and conservatory..there's just a lot more. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 17:44:26 GMT
Of which 3 posted closing notices in the couple of weeks? War Pain could easily do the same soon. They have far more new musicals, so of course they have more closures too. 3 new musicals will be along to replace them within the space of 6 months. The decades in which currently running musicals on Broadway/the West End first appeared: Broadway1960s - 1 1970s - 1 1980s - 3 1990s - 1 2000s - 1 2010s - 18 (2 of these are transfers from London) West End1960s - 1 1970s - 2 1980s - 4 1990s - 2 2000s - 2 2010s - 8 (6 of these are transfers from Broadway) The Wind in the Willows is the only musical from this decade playing on the West End that you couldn't have seen in New York. On the other hand, Broadway has Bandstand, Anastasia, Waitress, Come From Away, The Great Comet, A Bronx Tale, On Your Feet, Dear Evan Hansen, War Paint and Prince of Broadway that you couldn't have seen in London. There's a clear difference and it's a shame in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 18:02:07 GMT
British producers just don't seem to be very keen on giving new work a chance. Even if they put on a "new" show, it's very often based on a film. Sadly enough, for most producers their only goal seems to be to make money. Which is of course understandable because they have to take the financial risk and at the end of the day it's still a business. But it would be nice for the audience if we got some brand new stuff.
On top of that, most of the new musicals opening in London in the last few years have been shows that were quite nice, but everyone could tell right from the start that they were never here to stay. I'm thinking Mrs Henderson Presents, Half A Sixpence, Wind in the Willows, etc. They're fairly enjoyable shows, but did anyone really think they'd run for a few years?
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Aug 19, 2017 18:57:57 GMT
I think that right now the "Hamilton effect" comes into play in quite another way too: US producers rely a lot more on the Tony Awards and hype to shift tickets than London does on the Oliviers. So producers held back from opening their show in the same season as Hamilton as they knew Hamilton would scoop all the important awards, dominate the media coverage and so on.
Which led to the following season (which just ended) being crowded with new musicals - some of which died a very quick death like Amelie (which should never have seen the light of day to begin with), while others are now folding after a short-ish run like Groundhog Day, Comet and Bandstand with others probably following soon.
But yea, generally I agree with Ali, musicals are just THE American art form and there's more development of new things, more competition and that big dream of "having a show on Broadway", while London is generally the better place for plays. But let's also not forget that the USA are a much bigger place (also population-wise) so it has more possibilities for out-of-town developments in places from California (La Jolla) to New Jersey (Papermill) via Denver (Frozen) and who knows where else.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 23, 2017 20:22:23 GMT
Of which 3 posted closing notices in the couple of weeks? War Pain could easily do the same soon. They have far more new musicals, so of course they have more closures too. 3 new musicals will be along to replace them within the space of 6 months. The decades in which currently running musicals on Broadway/the West End first appeared: Broadway1960s - 1 1970s - 1 1980s - 3 1990s - 1 2000s - 1 2010s - 18 (2 of these are transfers from London) West End1960s - 1 1970s - 2 1980s - 4 1990s - 2 2000s - 2 2010s - 8 (6 of these are transfers from Broadway) The Wind in the Willows is the only musical from this decade playing on the West End that you couldn't have seen in New York. On the other hand, Broadway has Bandstand, Anastasia, Waitress, Come From Away, The Great Comet, A Bronx Tale, On Your Feet, Dear Evan Hansen, War Paint and Prince of Broadway that you couldn't have seen in London. There's a clear difference and it's a shame in my opinion. Musicals get produced more on Broadway because ultimately it is the land of milk and honey, by which I mean if successful, a show that recoups on Broadway, but the real cash comes from the tour and amateur rights and not normally Broadway, but you need Broadway as the launchpad. If your musicals flops on Broadway then you take a one massive hit, so ultimately it is greed that drives musicals to get done on Broadway, you have 'that' hit and you never have to work again. So from what I said above the same incentives are not to be had in London, but ultimately London is the place to open a new musical, as production costs are over 75% cheaper and you get a hit show it can run for years, a lot longer than Broadway and then be confident of then taking a good developed show to New York, or if there are problems you can retool it then take it to New York. Producers just like going route 1 to riches, history shows this to be problematic though. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on Aug 24, 2017 5:43:23 GMT
Musicals get produced more on Broadway because ultimately it is the land of milk and honey, by which I mean if successful, a show that recoups on Broadway, but the real cash comes from the tour and amateur rights and not normally Broadway, but you need Broadway as the launchpad. If your musicals flops on Broadway then you take a one massive hit, so ultimately it is greed that drives musicals to get done on Broadway, you have 'that' hit and you never have to work again. Doh. Doh. and again Doh! Why does making profit = greed? Look them up in a dictionary, they are not the same thing. Profit is what allows you to reinvest in other shows. Before anyone accuses me of making a political point, I'm not. I'm simply explaining how business works. Further can you point to anyone who has made one Broadway show, kept all the 'greed' and never worked again? Also please tell me where did the money for the first show come from? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 8:28:47 GMT
What others have already said- the musical is the quintessential American theatrical artform, and there's also more of a 'system' in place for developing both the shows and the people behind them. It's much harder in the UK for new composers to get a foothold, because the support for developing and the investment once they get to production isn't quite there in the same way. In terms of investors/producers there's also simply a matter of personal taste of those with 'the money' seeming to lean towards musicals.
But these things go in waves, in the 80s/90s it was the 'British invasion' of musicals, and we may get our own 'surge' of new work by trickle-down 'Hamilton' effect who knows?
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Aug 24, 2017 12:38:25 GMT
It is oft said, is it not, that out of every 10 new West End musicals, seven will loose money, two will recoup and just one will make a profit. If the same percentages apply on Broadway, then surely the best place, for anyone of any nationality, to loose money, is in London, where the cost to get a show from page to stage is significantly lower than in New York, New York.
So why do rich Americans invest in new Broadway musicals in the knowledge that they will almost certainly loose money:
Is it because Americans view wealth and success as something to celebrate and even flaunt?
Is it patriotism?
Is it cultural?
Are loses tax deductible?
Is it simply the pleasure of seeing their name above the title?
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 24, 2017 13:07:56 GMT
Musicals get produced more on Broadway because ultimately it is the land of milk and honey, by which I mean if successful, a show that recoups on Broadway, but the real cash comes from the tour and amateur rights and not normally Broadway, but you need Broadway as the launchpad. If your musicals flops on Broadway then you take a one massive hit, so ultimately it is greed that drives musicals to get done on Broadway, you have 'that' hit and you never have to work again. Doh. Doh. and again Doh! Why does making profit = greed? Look them up in a dictionary, they are not the same thing. Profit is what allows you to reinvest in other shows. Before anyone accuses me of making a political point, I'm not. I'm simply explaining how business works. Further can you point to anyone who has made one Broadway show, kept all the 'greed' and never worked again? Also please tell me where did the money for the first show come from? So producers spend millions of dollars/pounds, as an altruistic act? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 13:52:05 GMT
It's not a binary, it's not "they're greedy" OR "they're altruists". Honestly, what a funny way of looking at things! The vast majority fall somewhere in between; they think it's important to help shows exist, but they know it involves a lot of money so they want to be able to make back more than the initial investment. "Greed" is a very particular thing, and theatre ain't the art form for anyone who has greed as their primary motivation.
|
|
