These new Marquees

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:09pm

China Doll & The Gin Game have to have the most boring logos/marquees around. I know they're just banking on the names to sell, but c'mon. You couldn't at least pick some clever font or something? It's all so basic. Oof.

[BonnieBanks]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:15pm

Do you have a photo of these marquees or something? It's hard to comment and form an opinion when we have no idea what you are referring to.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:20pm

Sorry. I never know how to post pics. 

 

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Up-on-the-Marquee-CHINA-DOLL-with-Al-Pacino-20150708

 

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Up-on-the-Marquee-THE-GIN-GAME-20150708

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:25pm

Were those actual sailors in the last picture or are they from on the town?

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:27pm

I'm assuming the huge On The Town logo on their back makes them real sailors. 

[BonnieBanks]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:29pm

No trouble at all, Ripped Man. And yes I agree, those marquees are abysmal. 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:32pm

It is hard to jazz up The Gin Game even with 2 top notch actors in it. 2 old people playing cards. What can they do with it? Maybe put some playing cards around the name or have their names superimposed on playing cards. China is another story - Pacino & Mamet.

Updated On: 7/8/15 at 01:32 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:42pm

The fact is that they did literally nothing to it. I just wonder how much they spent on that? Did it take a team of advertisers to come up with that one? 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:46pm

I think both marquees are impactful as they are. It's about drawing attention to what will sell some tickets, not being pretty or artful. 

[PianoMann]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:46pm

The China Doll artwork itself is actually quite nice (see official website below).  I don't know why they did nothing with the marquee...

http://chinadollbroadway.com

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 1:47pm

If you have seen Gin before, the only remote reason to see it again is because you are fans of either or both stars. I enjoy them both but not that much that I would see it again. It is a slow boring play IMO.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 3:25pm

I don't think either are particularly ugly, just rather plain.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 6:03pm

No, not ugly. But if it's suppose to entice me to see them, I'm turned off by it. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 7:37pm

"No, not ugly. But if it's suppose to entice me to see them, I'm turned off by it. "

 Well that's all well and good, but people who make their living selling tickets have discovered over time that what impacts sales (the selling point) in a mega star driven property is the star's name(s), designed in a way that draws the human eye to it. Just curious about a few things though: have you ever bought a ticket to a show just because you thought the marquee was pretty? have you ever even paid full price for a ticket to a play? do you have any intention of buying tickets to either of these shows? 

[Phillypinto]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 9:36pm

I think a good marquee can help spark interest in the show. These are BORINGGGGGGG

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 9:44pm

Oh totally. A good logo can entice me for sure. I like design, so I feel like if you can't be bothered to make a decent poster, then you probably aren' t going to pay much attention to the rest of the design. 

For instance, A Delicate Balance. I'd heard negative and positive. I like Albee, and I like Glenn Close, but eh. But I walked by the theatre and loved how they had the birch trees on the lobby doors and the design, and thought I'd give it a shot. Bought a $90 and while I didn't care too much for it, I'm glad I went. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 10:34pm

Well if you can't judge a book by its cover, I don't see how you can judge a play by its birch trees. You do realize, do you not, that the folks who design what goes on the outside of the theatre have nothing to do with what is designed inside?

[Robbie2]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 11:21pm

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 11:48pm

Totally. But I'd assume they're all part of the same design team, no? They aren't going to design a marquee for a play they haven't seen or read or talked about? They aren't jobbing it out to some guy in India who has no clue. Why would you put up different artwork on your website, which at least hints at what the play is about, and not put it on the marquee? I mean, who cares, people will come for Al Pacino. It just seems so half-assed. The Gin Game is going to be a tough sell anyway. 

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/8/15 at 11:55pm

"If you have seen Gin before, the only remote reason to see it again is because you are fans of either or both stars."

That doesn't fly around these parts.  We're only about THE SHOW.

I wonder if Roxy has noticed Mamet's politics?  I do remember he thought Mamet was going to "jumpstart the conversation about race."  That worked out terrific.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/9/15 at 12:56am

No they are not, and sometimes the designs are indeed jobbed in from afar (the classic example being work by Dewynters (the iconic Cats and Les Miz artwork is theirs). Incidentally, they are owned by the same company that owns Spotco and they work on projects with them. By the looks of it, I would not be surprised if the Hamilton artwork comes out of their shop. Marketing artwork designers certainly read and talk about the play, but not normally with the theatre designers. In fact, oftentimes the marketing pieces exist months before the set and costumes designers have anything finalized. (And web design is a separate animal as well.) While all this may surprise you, what I think you are missing is that they all have wildly divergent objectives. As I said before, the goal of a marquee and front of house art, as well as a lot of "street" advertising, is to grab attention and burn it into our psyches. This the aforementioned Cats and Les Miz, or those Avenue Q taxi tops that were ubiquitous at one time. (The same is of course true of other industries-think about what Coke shows, or Apple, which doesn't even have text in their logo.) 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/9/15 at 1:11am

And I totally get that. I do. But how does a a plain font, with no graphics, entice anyone to want to buy a ticket? Unless you're an Al Pacino or a Cicley Tyson fan, you aren't buying a ticket based on those materials. If you're on the fence, I can't imagine that would set you over. Sure, I know it's different than what they sent out or what's online, but as someone who walks by it daily, it just looks so damn boring and uninspired. Similarly, to the Heidi Chronicles marquee. It looked like a bad rom-com. People didn't want to see it, and it closed early. I wish people would pay attention to these things. I know it's Al Pacino, who I have no desire to see, but I'm sure it will sell well regardless. But still. C'mon. At least make it look like you care a little. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 7/9/15 at 1:59am

Well here is my take on the China Doll. (I don't want to talk about The Gin Game because everything about it seems stupid to me.) 

1. You (and I) are not who that marquee is trying to attract.

2. The show (an unknown quantity, obviously) is not the attraction, and neither is Mamet (or Pam M.)

3. When you look at that marquee, you eye is drawn, by placement, size and color, to Pacino. People on Broadway looking down the street will see that; people on 8th will see that. And the assumption is, that will sell tickets. 

Now could it be a miscalculation? You bet. But that's the thinking. They are selling Pacino for $150. If you read what I wrote in another thread about what I think of celebrity worship, you'll know I wish it were not thus. But it is. 

[EchoParker]

Posted: 7/9/15 at 2:55am

"China Doll & The Gin Game have to have the most boring logos/marquees around. I know they're just banking on the names to sell, but c'mon. You couldn't at least pick some clever font or something? It's all so basic. Oof."

Ripped Man - Funny, I passed these two marquees yesterday (Wednesday) and had the EXACT same reaction as you. Then I got on here and saw your post. 

But I have to admit if China Doll weren't right NEXT to Gin Game, and I hadn't seen the two one after the other (as I walked beneath them), I might not have had that reaction to the China Doll marquee. The production really is selling Mamet and Pacino, and the bare text-ness of the marquee might even be a hint, I'm thinking, to the content of the play, which some press materials have led me to believe might be (more or less) Al Pacino and a telephone. Just the presence of a marquee got me to stop and look at the front of the theatre, which also has a quote from the play which piqued my interest. So... I think they did their job there.

As for The Gin Game, though, I am in total agreement. It's not just bland, it's bleak. It's The Grim Game. I know [SPOILER ALERT!] the play deals (eventually) with mortality, but... it's not The Visit. It's The Gin Game, not Endgame. My thought was, I saw a beautiful production of this play with Charles Durning and Julie Harris (in Chicago - pre-Broadway? Post Broadway?) and the production design created such an inviting yard or patio where they were sitting that you would have loved to... well, if not live there, VISIT someone living there. And there's wit in that script, and humor. I mean, you're inviting people to come watch James Earl Jones and Cecily Tyson play cards for two hours. It ought to look like a lovely way to spend an afternoon. This just doesn't say any of that to me. 

Okay, I don't think I thought ALL of that walking past yesterday. But I DID think... is this the final draft? Did you just ask someone to throw up some letters while you think of a design? Is black and white cheaper than... something more compelling that black and white?

Or, to quote you, "C'mon."

Updated On: 7/9/15 at 02:55 AM

[EchoParker]

Posted: 7/9/15 at 3:22am

"Well if you can't judge a book by its cover, I don't see how you can judge a play by its birch trees. You do realize, do you not, that the folks who design what goes on the outside of the theatre have nothing to do with what is designed inside?"

Hogan - first of all, I'm a long-time reader, first time responder, and I always admire your insight and explanations on theatre from the production and money side. May I respectfully suggest that the reason "You can't judge a book by its cover" is an expression is that people do it all the time? There's a lot of effort and money put into designing book covers, because it is a sales tool. And publishers know the effort and money often pays off. The same must be true, too, with the poster work and the marquees of all these Broadway theatres. The ads and poster work (and all the signage at the St. James) for "Something Rotten" made me want to see that show before I'd heard any word of mouth from friends - to use one recent example. ("Now in previews. See it before it's ready!") I successfully fool myself into thinking I'm pretty savvy, but I think I judge books (and lots of other things) by their covers every day.

Updated On: 7/9/15 at 03:22 AM