West End compared to Broadway- Page 2

[oncemorewithfeeling2]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 2:47am

It's been my experience that tickets CAN be cheaper, but it's not a definite and sometimes there's not a huge difference between how many pounds something costs versus how many dollars it costs. Exchange rate is a major factor. Right now, it's about £1.56:$1.00, but that can change at the drop of the hat.

So, let's say you bought tickets to see Beautiful in London. You got a cheapest price ticket and most expensive ticket. The cheapest Is £15, or about $23.40. The most expensive is £140, or roughly $218.  So the cheaper seats are less then most American shows, but the prices listed as the lowest may be rush, lottery, or special reserve tickets (think Linc Tix or other programs aimed at specific age groups). The highest prices aren't that different at all.

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 2:57am

Its interesting though because isn't it a lot cheaper to run a show in London? I wonder if West End producers make more money then Broadway producers

Updated On: 7/6/15 at 02:57 AM

[candydog2]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 8:55am

The most noticeable difference to me tends to be that there does seem to be a lot more room for "less commercial" productions in the West End. A Broadway run of a play that was unknown and had no names attached would be very rare in New York, whereas in London it is quite common.

Food in the theatre in London is a bit of a difference. You generally aren't allowed to bring in any hot food at all and theatres provide a more limited choice of snacks. People eat in the theatres, but generally only smaller food items such as chocolate. Ice cream is a long-standing British theatre tradition and I can't find any fault with that. I'm sorry to hear that an earlier poster had a problem with another patron "slurping" it, but in my opinion, ice cream (served in a tub) is one of the quietest foods you can eat and ideal for a theatre setting.

As a general rule, taking photographs is not allowed. Some theatres are stricter than others. The one where I work will allow no photographs at all inside the auditiorium, whereas others will only stop you from taking pictures of the stage.

Obviously, London is an old city, and some of its theatres are counted among its oldest buildings. This means that while they are often very ornate and attractive, they perhaps do not meet the standards of accessibility that you would find in other public buildings. Leg room can be cramped and wheelchair access can be somewhat limited.

Audiences are a little quieter in general, but not so much that it's extremely noticeable. I have seen frequent standing ovations in the West End, particularly for musicals.

The standards of the performances varies but is obviously generally very high, though I think that has nothing to with the city, but the production itself. A great production in New York may not have such a great production in London and vice versa, but I don't think that has anything to do with location and has no bearing on which city produces "better" theatre.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 11:42am

The biggest overall difference is that there are many theaters in the UK that are government subsidized! What breathtaking things the National and the RSC are able to imagine (and very often later bring to the West End and Broadway) -- and we can thank the fact that they have pretty much unlimited budgets in which to do so!

But on a commercial level -- there are differences.

I think the biggest difference is that we have much less definition as to what constitutes a "West End" venue. Broadway has very specific rules (i.e. specific houses in a specific geographic region) that are designated "Broadway" and they are all over 600 seats.  This is not necessarily the case in London. The Venue Theatre, for example, which was really a nightclub space with about 400 people was deemed "West End" for the run of TABOO.

There are unions here, but they aren't as strict (or restrictive) as they are in New York.

Commercial productions in the West End are cheaper to run, but they also charge less for tickets (also unlike Broadway, admission to a play is cheaper than admission to a musical), and so I don't know that the profit margin is significantly higher, at least to re-coupment -- but it does seem that it may be 'easier' to keep open a long running hit show in the West End than on Broadway.

On the flip side, It also seems to me that a production (if its not a hit) seems to close quicker in the West End than its Broadway counterpart.  Perhaps producers don't traditionally raise as much contingency funds here, but it could be that since the shows ARE cheaper to produce, producers are more willing to cut their losses if a show isn't finding an audience. 

And of course a lot of transfers of American shows have bombed very quickly here: MILLIE, SPRING AWAKENING, DROWSY CHAPERONE all only ran a few months each.

I find that the traditional 'staid' British audience etiquette is changing.  Just like in America, UK audiences (particularly young ones) seem to be influenced by the 'scream-for everything' culture that you see on reality shows like The Voice and Britian's Got Talent.

Standing ovations which used to be quite special, are pretty much the norm here now as well.

Updated On: 7/6/15 at 11:42 AM

[lotiloti]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 12:44pm

Trust me, the NT & RSC most certainly don't have unlimited budgets. The Arts council funding is reducing annually. This is why sponsorship of just about everything, is now the norm. The one advantage these companies have, is time. Productions can be be developed over many months if not years. For this we should be very proud & very grateful. I can't imagine there are many theatregoers around the world, who haven't been touched in some way by the output of these very talented people.

[BonnieBanks]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 12:54pm

We English pride ourselves on being well behaved and very respectful at the theater. We treat theater as an art. Americans treat it as a party. I've read loads of horror stories about the audiences at Broadway shows. That behavior is not tolerated here. Besides us having larger theaters and respectable audience members, there isn't much of a difference. 

However I will say the content on Broadway ( especially the musicals) are much more daring than you'd fine in London. For example: You would never see shows like Book of Mormon and Fun Home start out in The West End. American theater is a bit more crass but exponentially more fruitful than London it would seem.

Updated On: 7/6/15 at 12:54 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 1:52pm

Loti, you are of course correct, and perhaps I should have used the term 'unlimited resources' instead of budget when describing the advantage of the government subsidized theaters.  

But even the luxury of extended development time correlates with the bottom line costs of a production. We are indeed lucky (and unique) in having these theaters with the ability to treat theatre as art firstly and commerce secondly.

[MayAudraBlessYou2]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 2:14pm

I recently had my first West End experience, seeing Imelda Staunton in Gypsy. She was fantastic! If anyone has the chance to see her before it closes in November: GO. 

 

One thing I've noticed about the West End, is that shows which are huge impossible-to-get-into smashes on Broadway have tickets that are much easier to come by in London. Book of Mormon for instance, has some (relatively) inexpensive tickets that you dont have to purchase 6 months ahead of time. Had I more time, I would have seen it there. 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 2:40pm

I dont necessarily think Americans treat theatre as a party. I think it really depends on which show it is. An audience of Skylight is going to be different from an audience of Kinky Boots. 

I was reading some posts from a few years ago. Someone mentioned that musicals there aren't taken as seriously as plays, and that musicals on Broadway are well respected. Do you think that is true?

[skies]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 5:25pm

On my trip across the pond I found the West End a bit more "pedestrian friendly" than BW, or maybe because generally speaking the streets are narrower.

[candydog2]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 6:55pm

"On my trip across the pond I found the West End a bit more pedestrian friendly than BW, or maybe because generally speaking the streets are narrower."

 

Possibly, but my observation on crossing the street in New York compared to London is that a New York cab driver will beep his horn at you but hit the brakes, a London cab driver will beep his horn at you and hit the accelerator.

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 8:23pm

Wow. Talk about digging up an old thread. Since I started this thread in 2012, I have hopped across the pond. 

I found that shows on the West End were generally cheaper than Broadway shows, even with the exchange rate. 

I found some theaters to be so small and outdated that most Off-Broadway theaters would be considered much nicer. However, I also found a theaters to be much nicer than Broadway Theaters. So definitely a wide range in the quality of theaters. 

I generally found the West End audience to be much more polite than Broadway Audiences. While watching Billy Elliot, I saw many people in the audience giving standing ovations DURING the show, which was definitely a first for me. However, I can't blame them as the performance was terrific. 

Overall, I think Broadway offers a wider selection of newer shows than West End. I would love to go back, but I have a hard time finding new shows on the West End that I care to spend the money to see, although I am dying to go back to London. 

Oh the biggest difference with the West End, you have to pay for your Playbills. They are not free!!!.