Hamilton: More Seats idea... Brilliant or Dumb?

[CurtainsUpat8]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:11am

I haven't seen Hamilton. I have played the Lottery everyday since it started. I know I should have bought a ticket the first day they were on sale but I didn't. Not I can fear I will never see the show. I don't really have time to spend too much time searching for a ticket.

I was thinking... would it be stupid of brilliant to open another. identical production of Hamilton ON BROADWAY in another theatre? Different cast of course, but same design, director, etc. Another production of the same show. I know this has never happened, but if there is a demand to see the show why not? If I couldn't see the original cast I wouldn't care. Or maybe some of them could go to the second production.

There is a demand for this. Why can't we think out of the box? To Lin Manuel (or any cast member) if you are reading this please send me a private message to let me know what you think.

I want to see your damn show!

[pickles2]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:32am

They kind of are, though? They are working on putting together a tour and a production in Chicago, which makes more sense to me than opening another show right next door.

[Huss417]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:37am

DUMB

[rebeccmam31]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:39am

As much as I love Hamilton, if there is an available theater, I would want to see something fresh and new fill the space instead of a duplicate of a show already there.  So while I won't say "dumb," it's not something I would like to see happen.

 

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

Posted: 3/16/16 at 8:58am

Well, it's not entirely without precedent... didn't the Weisslers once host the national tour of the Tommy Tune Grease at City Center at the same time as it was on Broadway?

Edit: Yes, they did. Quoting this 1998 Playbill article: "So many people wanted to see Broadway's Grease! during the 1996 Thanksgiving holiday, producers Fran and Barry Weissler brought a second production of the show -- the national touring company -- into New York's City Center, making it one of the rare instances in which the same show was playing in two Broadway theatres simultaneously."

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 08:58 AM

[jjcasual]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:09am

While I like your enthusiasm, there will be three productions by this time next year. Having two on Broadway doesn't make much sense.

This is purely fan fiction, but I can get on board with the tour company doing a week of shows at the Apollo. I would also LOVE a one off performance of The Hamilton Mixtape with The Roots, the OBC, and the other featured artists at Carnegie Hall (hey, a girl can dream, right?!). 

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 09:09 AM

[NJ_BroadwayGirl]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:14am

Let's put Hamilton in ALL the theatres!

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:21am

NJ_BroadwayGirl said: "Let's put Hamilton in ALL the theatres!

 

That just took me out of my bad mood and made me laugh out loud! Thank you!

 

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

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:23am

Another bit of precedent, from Lorrie Davis' Letting Down My HAIR, the behind-the-scenes story of her time in the original Broadway cast of Hair:

"A tribal meeting or two later, Michael [Butler, the show's producer] hit us with his Hair-In-The-Streets idea. He wanted to put on a kind of wandering Hair exhibition for kids in the slums. The plan was to decorate and repaint a truck to look like the Hair stage set, then take it all over the poorer sections of the city for free performances.

We all liked the idea, but the [Equity] strike, which only lasted a few days, ended before we could get it on. Then we decided to go ahead with it anyway, for half a day's pay, on Sundays, but nothing ever came of it. In time, the cast just lost interest."

I mean, it didn't eventually happen, but it just shows the OP (and the Weisslers) weren't the only ones to think of this idea. Do I think it's necessarily a good idea for Hamilton? Eh, maybe, maybe not. But CurtainsUpat8, don't feel bad for thinking of it. You're not the first.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:26am

The optimism is sweet, but this is a dumb idea. Like others have said, there will be multiple nationwide productions coming up, and it also sets a bad precedent in terms of supply/demand for the industry.

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

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:28am

If it's so dumb, why has more than one person come up with this idea for a hit show, and at least one team pulled it off? I don't necessarily think it's the best move for Hamilton either, but you could at least concede the OP's a smart thinker, whether the thought is rooted in naive optimism or not.

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:52am

Not dumb - but not smart.

First. As "Book of Mormon" has proven recently, there's a real payoff to keeping demand high by using a venue smaller than the demand. Five years after opening, they're continuing to rake in the bucks, even as (two?) companies have been on the road for three years. Right now, I suspect the Hamilton demand is effectively infinite, but a year from now, that extra capacity could start affecting the scarcity premium. 

Next. It's not as if Broadway houses are readily available and, still importantly, it's expensive to mount a production. Even without development costs, cast and crew must be hired, sets must be built, costumes, wigs, lights, sound et al must be paid for. 

Also. They are already probably very busy with replacements, swings and alternates for the current production, with planning for the announced tour and the planned London productions. There's not an infinite well of talent at the doorstep.

Finally. With two concurrent productions, especially with the prices and hype, I think the normal human suspicion that the "other" show was probably better might cause undue negative reaction.

Not worth it.

Updated On: 3/16/16 at 09:52 AM

[vdirects]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 9:58am

Maybe Off-broadway, like at the Public, but NOT another Broadway Theater.

 

First of all, you have to think about how expensive that would be, I don't think filling the seats will every night would be enough to justify paying for the space, the second crew, cast, etc. etc. 


Also that would not just meet demand for the current show but will overall LOWER demand for the show, as  less people will start to see it. Supply and demand works like this: the lower the supply and higher the demand, the higher the price. If you meet demand by increasing supply, the value of the show decreases and demand will probably decrease.

 

Part of why Hamilton is so popular IS because it's so popular and hard to see. If you make it accessible to everyone less people will covet a ticket.

[JM226]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 10:07am

many people on here dont understand basic capitalism principles like free market and supply & demand economics... or even when they do, they just ignore it. don't waste your time explaining it, vdirects! even though you are COMPLETELY CORRECT!

[haterobics]

Posted: 3/16/16 at 10:16am

Given they are already starting two touring productions and probably the West End in the immediate future, they have enough logistical challenges without a second Broadway version. Not to mention, that version would also start with the same pricing, and everyone here would want to see/compare/contrast both casts anyway...

[mpkie]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 12:18pm

I agree that it's a silly idea, but I also agree dreamers can dream. Myself included, as I'd like to see the show this side of the decade without traveling afield.

By the way, this reminded me how there were three simultaneous productions of Les Mis in London during the 25th anniversary. Link

10 - 25 years from now, maybe they will do something similar for Hamilton! LOL.

Updated On: 3/18/16 at 12:18 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 12:45pm

 

Actually, this is the kernel of a BRILLIANT idea. Have each of the touring companies "try out" for 2 to 3 months at an empty Broadway theater and then go on tour.

This would reduce the current frenzy of ticket buying down to the normal level for a sold-out Broadway show and reduce the ill feeling created by the ticket hoarding, 3rd-party ticket sales and impossible waiting lines for cancellations and lottery seats.

Theatergoers who want to see the original cast would still have to wait for tickets to be available for the production at the Richard Rodgers, but tourists, casual theatergoers and (most important) school audiences would be able to see the show without waiting until 2018.

And since the producers are preparing the subsequent companies for the tours, there would not be the same additional and prohibitive cost there would be for a second open-ended Broadway company.

 

Updated On: 3/18/16 at 12:45 PM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 1:12pm

I will be curious to see how this unfolds eventually in the West End;  not sure If the show will have huge appeal in the UK for obvious reasons.

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

Posted: 3/18/16 at 1:16pm

PalJoey said: "Actually, this is the kernel of a BRILLIANT idea. Have each of the touring companies "try out" for 2 to 3 months at an empty Broadway theater and then go on tour.

This would reduce the current frenzy of ticket buying down to the normal level for a sold-out Broadway show and reduce the ill feeling created by the ticket hoarding, 3rd-party ticket sales and impossible waiting lines for cancellations and lottery seats.

Theatergoers who want to see the original cast would still have to wait for tickets to be available for the production at the Richard Rodgers, but tourists, casual theatergoers and (most important) school audiences would be able to see the show without waiting until 2018.

And since the producers are preparing the subsequent companies for the tours, there would not be the same additional and prohibitive cost there would be for a second open-ended Broadway company."

And this is why PJ would make a great producer.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 1:41pm

They should have a sit down production in DC

[phan24]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 1:42pm

From Riedel's Razzle Dazzle, David Merrick also once wanted to open a second company of 42nd Street in 1980 due to its initial demand, but was shut down by Phil Smith from the Shubert Organization as he thought the press had the freedom to review it again and could freely express its dislike in comparison.

I also personally don't think it would be a good idea for the momentum of the show on Broadway currently.

Updated On: 3/18/16 at 01:42 PM

[funhamilton_rent]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 1:54pm

Call_me_jorge said: "They should have a sit down production in DC

 

"

I live in DC so from your lips to God's ears. 

[KCW]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 2:00pm

What I thought you meant was adding seats in the Richard Rodgers temporarily, which I think is briliant.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 2:09pm

QueenAlice said: "I will be curious to see how this unfolds eventually in the West End;  not sure If the show will have huge appeal in the UK for obvious reasons."

 

Plenty of people from the UK (including myself) have seen the show and loved it. Our most popular, long-running show is about the French Revolution. Most Americans aren't well-versed on Alexander Hamilton's life either. It will do well here, just like BoM did, despite us not having the same Mormon culture.

[pupscotch]

Posted: 3/18/16 at 2:25pm

aaaaaa15 said: "QueenAlice said: "I will be curious to see how this unfolds eventually in the West End;  not sure If the show will have huge appeal in the UK for obvious reasons."

 

Plenty of people from the UK (including myself) have seen the show and loved it. Our most popular, long-running show is about the French Revolution. Most Americans aren't well-versed on Alexander Hamilton's life either. It will do well here, just like BoM did, despite us not having the same Mormon culture.

 

"

I think the sentiment is just that the name of the musical is Hamilton: An American Musical, which has an entire character and several songs mocking the British King. It is based around rap and hip hop music, which is a huge part of American culture, but it also just might be weird to have British actors with British accents playing distinctly American characters.