Cursed theatres / Lucky theatres

[Theatrefanboy1]

I was wondering if the Neil Simon is considered a cursed theatre very few shows running a year (Cher, cats, superstar, last ship...) since hairspray closed. I know the marquis is said to be cursed what others are considered to hold a curse? Lunt?

Also. Are there any theatres that are said to be lucky theatres for long runs or successes. Im guessing the majestic and Schubert would be considered in this category

[Broadway61004]

Certainly the Rodgers would be considered lucky, having housed more Tony winning productions than any other theatre. And I think their current tenant will be there a while.

[MollyJeanneMusic]

The Kerr hasn't done great with some of its recent musical outings (Amélie, A Gentleman's Guide), though I think if anything will break the "curse," it'll be Hadestown.

[bwaylyric]

Circle in the Square has had three Tony-winning productions in the past five years.

[Mike Barrett]

Marquis for sure. Its one of, if not the biggest theatre on broadway, probably costs a lot in rent, and most shows can't sell that many seats. So ya, Marquis id say. The theatre itself isn't anything special design wise but theres great sightlines throughout the theatre. 

[kdogg36]

I think you’d have to put the Winter Garden on the “lucky” side, too. Ultimately this is a question that can be answered pretty precisely through the analysis of data that’s readily available, though I demur from taking on the project. :)

[Emmaloucbway]

I think the Majestic has been fairly lucky, especially since its current tenant has been running since the late 80s...

[JSquared2]

kdogg36 said: "I think you’d have to put the Winter Garden on the “lucky” side, too. Ultimately this is a question that can be answered pretty precisely through the analysis of data that’s readily available, though I demur from taking on the project. :)"

 

Actually, no it can't be answered by "analyzing data".  You can't measure "luck" --- you can only measure levels of success based on what shows have played in a particular theatre.  Hamilton and Phantom would be huge hits no matter what theatre they were in.  Amelie, Gettin' the Band Back Together, Dr. Zhivago, Soul Doctor, etc. would be flops no matter what theatre they were in.

[kdogg36]

JSquared2 said: "Actually, no it can't be answered by "analyzing data". You can't measure "luck" --- you can only measure levels of success based on what shows have played in a particular theatre."

Of course I agree with you as you’ve stated it, but it seems like the gyst of the conversation has revolved around the simpler question of which theaters have hosted shows with long or short runs.

[Fosse76]

Mike Barrett said: "Marquis for sure. Its one of, if not the biggest theatre on broadway, probably costs a lot in rent, and most shows can't sell that many seats. So ya, Marquis id say. The theatre itself isn't anything special design wise but theres great sightlines throughout the theatre."

The Marquis isn't anywhere near the largest theater on Broadway. The Gershwin has over 1900 seats, whereas the Marquis has 1611. In fact there are several theaters with greater capacity than the Marquis (New Amsterdam, Minskoff, Broadway, St, James, Palace). 

[RippedMan]

I feel like the Marquis is a last ditch theater. I don’t think anyone WANTS it. The stage always feels far away no matter where you sit. And it just feels cavernous compared to the Gershwin.

[HogansHero]

I think most of us are sensible enough to know that there is no such thing as a cursed theatre or a lucky one. There are more and less desirable theatres and the less desirable ones tend to have the less promising offerings. That's it; everything else is nonsense.

[BroadwayRox3588]

There's a whole history involving the Longacre being allegedly "cursed." 

[goodlead]

For many years the Belasco was a down-on-its luck theater.  Often vacant, and apparently the last choice of producers. It's seen a resurgence in recent years.  Not sure why.

[Cora Hoover Hooper]

I think the Hellinger in its later years had problems attracting long run shows (aside from Sugar Babies). I think that's one of the reasons the theater was leased, then sold to the Church that owns it now.

[Smaxie]

goodlead said: "For many years the Belasco was a down-on-its luck theater. Often vacant, and apparently the last choice of producers. It's seen a resurgence in recent years. Not sure why."

It was beautifully restored in 2009, which made a huge difference.

[BritCrit]

Fosse76 said: "Mike Barrett said: "Marquis for sure. Its one of, if not the biggest theatre on broadway, probably costs a lot in rent, and most shows can't sell that many seats. So ya, Marquis id say. The theatre itself isn't anything special design wise but theres great sightlines throughout the theatre."

The Marquis isn't anywhere near the largest theater on Broadway. The Gershwin has over 1900 seats, whereas the Marquis has 1611. In fact there are several theaters with greater capacity than the Marquis(New Amsterdam, Minskoff, Broadway, St, James, Palace)."

The Marquis is only the 9th or 10th largest theatre on Broadway, but it still hosts musicals which would be more comfortable in a medium-sized venues. I'm not sure how the size of the theatre affects attendance levels, but Tootsie is stuck in a position that most musicals dread - it is making over a million dollars every week, but is still being considered a disappointment because it is only 2/3rds of its potential. Putting an adult-orientated adaptation of a 37 year old comedy with a highly problematic premise in such a big theatre is a rather risky move...If the Marquis provided more family-friendly fare like the other 1600+ seat theatres, it could enjoy a pretty big hit.

[BalconyClub]

I curse only when the show is dismal.