Is Broadway Musical Theatre becoming oversaturated?

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 11:42pm

I know this is the best problem to have ever, but have you ever seen a season with so many new musicals? I love new musical theatre, but there are so many, I can't keep them straight. Great Comet, Dear Evan Hansen, In Transit, Amelie, Bandstand, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Come from Away, Groundhog Day, Prince of Broadway, War Paint, Holiday Inn, Bronx Tale. Is Broadway Musical Theatre becoming oversaturated?

[bigbelterbaby]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:21am

um, no. There have been MANY seasons where there were hardly any new musicals, (especially good ones). you should feel blessed to live in a time when we are getting a large amount of newer works, because it will not always be like this. (and again, not all of these new musicals will be open long/be good in general/will be forgotten within a year).

..

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:26am

No, it's a blessing. Take as many as you can get when you can. It's a free market industry, so competition will sort them out over time. That's why Broadway is so beautiful. 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:40am

this season has the most new musicals in decades. we have no right to complain in my opinion.

Updated On: 12/10/16 at 12:40 AM

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 1:27am

If there were several shows all exploring the same era, or subject matter, perhaps that would be an issue... but there is nothing about a musical in and of itself that dictates anything. If you go to Dear Evan Hansen, Great Comet, and any of the others... are you have a similar experience at all, except for the aspect that the cast sings?!

[¿Macavity?]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 2:49am

In this case, there is no "too much of a good thing" code.

[Different Drum]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 10:39am

It does appear that Broadway is becoming oversaturated, and the onslaught of film to stage projects originating in Hollywood will see no respite. But many of the new musicals jamming the 2016-17 season feared going up against Hamilton last year. Next season is not looking quite so full.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 11:00am

Really...you can't keep them straight? what's to keep straight ?

[gypsy101]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 11:16am

dramamama611 said: "Really...you can't keep them straight? what's to keep straight ?"

lol apparently he can since he named every one of them

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 11:44am

It is never a good idea to generalize from a snapshot, and that's all this is. Broadway is largely driven by real estate and the economy. When we have a bad season in which most shows open and close quickly, the supply of theatres is larger. Unless the economy is horrible and there are demand concerns, there will always be shows to fill a void. Not all of those shows (and this is certainly true this year) have legs, and indeed some of those on the list either have had or will have dim prospects. 

A positive sign that is more worthy of remark is that we seem to have returned somewhat (obviously not entirely) to a time when talented people are actually writing shows at the expense of brain dead corporate enterprises. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:07pm

The only thing Broadway is oversaturated with is these ridiculous long-runs.  Look at the list of longest running shows ever...most of the top ones are still open.  To me, they fill theaters that might otherwise be available for other shows.  

I wonder what would happen if a bunch of them closed.  Would the theaters sit empty or would audiences who go to see them end up seeing other shows.  That is the question that I don't have a good answer for.  Given today's prices, are very infrequent theater goers choosing the safe bets, instead of going for the shows they are not sure about, e.g., Bright Star, Honeymoon in Vegas, both of which got generally good reviews.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:15pm

When faced with the possibility of what might happen under the circumstances Jarethan describes, I believe it might go something like this:

Let's say a bunch of the longest running shows closed. Many of these long running shows still have tours going. One possibility is that the city would no longer be as tourist-driven, because all one would have to do to fill the Broadway gap with regard to royalties is to expand the touring market. If the touring market expands, people might be less inclined to go to NY when it's coming to their backyard. With Broadway no longer being about tourist attractions, a good possibility would then exist that new work might obtain a stronger foothold.

It's only one possibility, one of many, and an extremely hopeful one (for those who want new work to gain a foothold and succeed on its own merits) at that.

Updated On: 12/10/16 at 12:15 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:30pm

Infrequent goers are only seeing shows they have heard about.

 

I don't have a problem with long running game shows....if they can still turn a buck, good for them. doesn't  mean I'm going to see them again.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:39pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "When faced with the possibility of what might happen under the circumstances Jarethan describes, I believe it might go something like this:

Let's say a bunch of the longest running shows closed. Many of these long running shows still have tours going. One possibility is that the city would no longer be as tourist-driven, because all one would have to do to fill the Broadway gap with regard to royalties is to expand the touring market. If the touring market expands, people might be less inclined to go to NY when it's coming to their backyard. With Broadway no longer being about tourist attractions, a good possibility would then exist that new work might obtain a stronger foothold.

It's only one possibility, one of many, and an extremely hopeful one (for those who want new work to gain a foothold and succeed on its own merits) at that."

This assumes (a) that more touring would be sustainable, (b) that there is not already a healthy amount of new work coming to Broadway and (c) that bringing in more new work would be sustainable. 

The tone-deafness of the suggestions you make is manifested in the essence of the list of shows identified above. One of the beauties of markets is that find their own balance more efficiently than one person's attempt to alter them. 

[vampire musical]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 4:18pm

Hamilton indirectly caused many 2014-2015 musicals and 2015-2016 musicals to shutter sooner than expected.  Couple that with new musicals avoiding last season because of Hamilton as a previous poster pointed out.  That left a lot of new musicals coming in this season taking houses from the shows that did not survive Hamilton.  Personally I think this year's Tonys will be very excited because there's no clear front runner coming into the season.  

Updated On: 12/12/16 at 04:18 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 4:44pm

shutter.

I'm not sure I agree. What would you give as an example that could be analyzed?

[vampire musical]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 4:54pm

Thanks for the spellcheck.  Just edited. 

Anecdotally, I would say the many producers of shows that closed citing Hamilton as the culprit.  The reason being that your average theater goer budgets X number of dollars per year to theater tickets.  If, let's say, a person's budget is $800.  And that $800 usually gets them 8 shows, but this past year there was a huge "must see" social media brag worthy show that cost them $800 for 1 ticket or even $400 for 1 ticket then that severely cut into their financial capacity to see other shows.  I don't think there's hard evidence of this.  But that's been the general attitude and thinking among those who do ticket analysis (like folks at the ad agencies).  Plus Hamilton sucked up all the air for press.  

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 4:57pm

Nothing closed because of Hamilton last season. It's a completely baseless claim. The supply of seats available at the Rodgers did not trounce the rest of the market. A lot of shows not having an audience, not being good, or being terribly marketed had more to.do with early closings. 

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 4:59pm

I can't think of one example of a show that wouldn't have closed soon after without Hamilton's existence.

Tuck Everlasting? American Psycho? Destined to flop. Fun Home had a nice run for the kind of show it is. We all know why Shuffle Along closed. Etc.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 5:01pm

This theory seems to require every person interested in seeing Hamilton to have bought premium seats the day they went on sale (not sure why they passed up the $200 seats if they were that on their game, though).

I actually thought the opposite to be true, which is that people who came to town to see Hamilton... had to pick something else, since there were no seats available aside from the secondary market (all of which were typically above your $800 amount).

Also, is there some show that was that amazing that is no longer with us? Nothing comes to mind.

[vampire musical]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 5:13pm

I did not say it directly caused other shows' closures but that it was an indirect factor.  

A majority of tourists who couldn't get tickets to Hamilton did not then purchase tickets to other shows.  They went and did something else with their limited time in the city.  I say this as someone who handles a lot of house seat requests for out of towners.  When Hamilton was unavailable a vast majority of folks were uninterested in other Broadway offerings.  Broadway is not an "all ships rise" market.  A lot of producers were desperate to claim that the ticket scarcity of Hamilton would lead to more sales for their inevitable flops (American Psycho, etc.) but that just didn't happen.  Whereas on the road Hamilton is surging sales for any shows lucky enough to share a subscription with Hamilton. 

Updated On: 12/12/16 at 05:13 PM

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 5:32pm

So they will usually get to see 8 shows for $800, but instead they had to spend that on Hamilton, and if they couldn't see Hamilton, they didn't see any shows even though they usually like to see 8?!

[vampire musical]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 6:01pm

The "they" you are referring to from my prior post is the average theater goer (local).  And yes, I know Hamilton tix go for more than $800.  $800 was just a place holder dollar amount.  An example.  

In my last post I referred to tourists coming into town looking to see Hamilton and not having interest in any other show.  Two separate groups of buyers.

  

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/12/16 at 6:24pm

I think the point is, if tourists eschewed other shows, it was because those shows weren't good. Of course producers blame it on the gorilla. Do you expect them to say their show sucked? I asked for a specific example, which you did not offer. Others did to the contrary. If you have one, toss it into the discussion. You could do the same with an example of a show that was ready to come in but didn't.

By the way, are those people who didn't want other house seats last year still not wanting them? Because Hamilton is still sold out and Comet and DEH et al don't seem to be lacking for business.