whether you make it would be dependent on delays which are unpredictable. I would wait until you reach the city to buy a ticket. The most efficient path from JFK is airtrain>LIRR to Penn Station; check luggage; buy ticket; enjoy show.
luggagehero has made storage options ubiquitous easy and cheap. By Penn Station you also have lots of conventional places. Some of them will also print out tickets for you if you want to buy online.
as it always has been, broadway has had the good the bad and the ugly. If you don like what's on offer, go elsewhere. I do. I see my share of Broadway shows (most of them actually) but I also see over a hundred shows a year off and off off broadway. It is silly to speak in generalities. what's great on broadway is really great, always has been, hopefully always will be. there are no rules.
Anyone who tells you that none of the 25 main risks in getting to JFK from Times Square in an Uber on a Sunday afternoon will materialize is irresponsible.
Were it me I would take the 4:55 (or earlier) train to Jamaica which should get you to the airport by 5:30.
LarryD2 said: "I'm shocked by the overall positive tone of the reviews (not Brantley, though -- he's a total star-<>). No hyperbole, every single person I know who's seen this thought it was dreadful, myself included."
Sounds like it is time for you to consider (1) reading a few more reviews, (2) broadening your group of friends, and (3) seeing more shows (because if you thought this was "dreadful" you have missed a lot...&nb
I don't think it had "momentum" from 2ST. Very few people in the Broadway audience have ever even heard of 2ST. For momentum, the show needs marketing that, to date, it has not done impressively. It's all going to depend on the reviews I guess though not sure why. I hope someone more competent gets hold of the steering wheel on this one. I just hope they at least find a way to get it going through February. FWIW I also don't think it is the surfeit of gay plays that is a
The reason shows don't last at Circle is because it is too small to make money unless you are a blockbuster. The demand for the venue is among the lowest. Broadway would benefit artistically by having more flexible venues, but not financially. What would be a benefit would be if Circle (or someone) were operating the venue (or some other one) as a non-profit company, and renting it out for appropriate situations a la RTC.
When Circle has a tenant that is rw&a, OOTI will be kicked to the curb. Likely, they do, and likely the date has been set. But one of your prerogatives is deciding when to announce. up to a point.
this discussion is threatening to come off the rails at a few points. First, while it is of course true that good and high profile shows enhance the brand, that doesn't even remotely address the question presented regarding competitiveness. Hamilton enhances the brand without any effort from the folks at Head Over Heels. Shows compete. Period. The paid touts at TKTS are not there to say nice things about someone else's show. Everyone is trying to sell their own tickets and convince ea
This is another one of those threads in which the header suggests one question and then the body asks another. "Shows" definitely see each other as competition, both in commercial and non-profit areas. But artists generally don't, at least until they are in a head to head award context.
And following up on the commodity comment, a commercial show, except for Disney, is a singular enterprise. It has only one thing to sell. So except for a few crazies, repeat customers
The question posed does not exactly match the one framed in the heading.
There is certainly enough new talent available but whether that talent finds enough work depends on one's perspective. The uncast new talent obviously think the answer is no. The cast new talent may think yes. The producer who is trying to fulfill his or her fiduciary obligations may think reducing risk makes sense. (We may disagree.) The casting director thinks the answer is yes because there is no lazi
