Time to say goodbye? Unclog these theatres!

Yeah was resisting on bashing Tina and BTTF for this as I feel I do that too much but those two definitely feel like they were aiming to be the next tourist-y shows but they always feel like they're limping along looking at the seats and how often they go on sale. Two shows I'd be quite interested to see their box office takings.

I haven’t been to see it since they did it, but pretty recently they closed for a week to give it a refresh - at least set and lighting wise. Jokes are probably not that imaginative still but hey, if the kids are laughing something is working

Get rid of Phantom and Les Mis. They aren’t even the original productions. Tour them till eternity.. give us back 2 theatres!

For purposes of unclogging what are we defining as "clogged?"

More than 5 years?

So:
Wicked
Matilda
Phantom
Les Mis
Lion King
Mamma Mia
Harry Potter
Book of Mormon
Hamilton
Six

There's about 50 "West End" venues of one form or another (according to Theatre Monkey website) so as a back of fag packet calculation we could say 20% of theatres are "clogged."

This does leave 80% of venues unclogged with cycling of their inhabitants and in theory available for the fabled new work people are excited about (I personally can't think of a single show I am desperate to see that can't come to the West End due to clogging but am sure others do).

I guess the question more is - is 20% of our theatre real estate handed over to productions that people on this forum have lost interest in but tourists love and they bring in millions for the local economy, an acceptable figure? To Us?

Not to mention these long runners become their own kind of ecosystems, which I kinda love.

So yeah - kinda obvious from what I've alluded to - but I think 20% clogged and 80% unclogged is fine.

I do get it though - and out of the list above I'd get rid of 9 of them - but then it comes down to personal preference rather than the greater good. The argument of unclogging collapses when it affects a show YOU love. I love Les Mis - so I'd be gutted to see it go - clogging or not! Torn on Phantom - I am an ALW nut but Phantom is one of my least fave of his shows. I think I've reached a point where I'd like to see it dramatically reimagined by man of the moment Jamie Lloyd or similar. I think I'd prefer to see that alongside the original rather than instead of.

Also it's the same in NYC I suspect - don't they have 10 cloggers? And as for all the new work - they all come and go within 6 months or so (the odd exception aside) so it's not as if there is epic new work waiting to take the world by storm that simply can't get in!

And even if these theatres are unclogged - everyone wanting the unclogging would have a very different view of what should go in, so I rather suspect most people would be disappointed!

And finally, I don't think we have any more theatres clogged now than in any other decade since the 80's do we!?

I don't feel strongly on this though. These are random musings...... But it does come up time and again as a subject people feel strongly about!

This all reminds me of an interview Patti LuPone gave where she said there should be a time limit on how long a show should run on Broadway/West End. As it can turn a great show into an overrated show, and stops people (especially tourists) from experiencing new material or interpretations as they will end up going for the safe familiar options which ends up limiting their enjoyment of theatre.

So basically: "I've seen it, so let's close it now, so I can watch something new".

I suspect both are there until the theatre owners have new shows in place, Paddington the Musical is eyeing the Adelphi and I could see The Illusionist go to the Aldwych.

Agreed, considering how the arts were in peril during the pandemic, I think wanting shows to close en mass is a bit ick IMO.

I would say that perhaps we need better quality control for long runners just to keep things fresh. 

I wouldn't mind The Mousetrap moving back to the Ambassadors so that the St Martins can finally have a new tenant and a refurb

I find it really weird when people say they want to remove very popular, very successful, moneymaking shows from theatres. Why? Audiences clearly still enjoy them. Have we really forgotten what 2020 was like when we couldn't go and see live theatre Why on Earth would you want to take these shows away? Let the popular shows run and run, a packed theatre to see The Lion King is better than a half full new production any day, not to mention the amount of actors who get their first professional credits in shows like The Mousetrap.

Pretty much this is what I mean (ugh, I am agreeing with Patti LuPone on something?!).

People will go for something that they have vaguely heard about at some point like Phantom or a jukebox musical where the music rings a bell (say, Mamma mia). They just consume this and move on. If there is more choice of fresh material and far fewer of those tourist traps, people would be encouraged to give those a go - and ultimately new writers and directors of fresh interpretations would benefit, too.

Everyone's current darling Jamie Lloyd would never had had a chance to create something as fresh and innovative as the current Sunset Boulevard revival if the original production was still running the way Phantom is still running. Neither will we see any new fresh interpretation of Phantom while the original is running.

Same goes for the other long-runners. Yes, Julie Taymor's design for Lion King is absolutely iconic, but still it would be interesting to see Lion King done differently. I'm reminded of Cats, where some non-replica productions veered away from Napier's junkyard to settings like a dusty attic, an abandoned circus or an old theatre. Let there be creativity! 

As for the 80% "unclogged" theatres - the problem for musical theatre specifically is that the 20% clogged theatres comprise a great many of the mid-level houses that are big enough for bigger musicals but not so big that they are difficult to fill and make producing a show viable. 

We've seen that the truly big barns have been struggling in recent years and have been used for tours and such rather than a sit down production. And the smaller theatres with a higher churn rate (Garrick, Ambassadors, Criterion and so on) can only accommodate smaller shows. 

Aside from closing shows far quicker, Broadway does another good job in shunting off smaller shows to places like New World Stages, freeing up a bigger theatre ON Broadway. 

Yeah as a fan of various long runners I ponder this a lot! I think ultimately it's a mixture of both and teasing out which is dominant is really really tricky. (You kinda need to take a teenager getting in to musical theatre and see what they say lol!)
I've felt going through the motions more with Wicked than say Phantom and Les Mis which I think CM and resident teams do a pretty good job of keeping performances top notch.

Also really long runners do go through phases. Starlight in Bochum goes through periods of looking a bit tired, then it gets a kick up the ar$e and it's in great nick again! Must confess as well, though the majority of (extensive) changes that show has had over the years aren't for me - they DO keep it fresh as well as keeping it interesting for the performers!

Suprised, and frankly, not quite happy with the existence of this thread.

Long running shows provide relatively stable jobs to crew, staff... and even cast. London Les Mis wouldn´t be the same without Sarah Lark or Chris Jacobsen. We were all disgusted, rightfully so, when Philip Griffiths was fired from POTO during the pandemic. And also, they generate so many jobs for recent graduates, providing an excellent starting point in a very difficult industry.

And yet, the quality is never compromised and the talent, never not top-notch (well, except a certain male romantic lead); showcasing West End theatre in all its glory. Even those shows that have its issues (Wicked, Phantom)... are miles better than some of the new stuff. Yes, we do need better quality control. But my point still stands.

Thanks to their roaring commercial success, they attact tourists. Don´t forget we tourists (I do not live in/near London) are a huge part of the West End audiences and for every 1 pound spend, we generate almost double for the London economy. Long running shows also attract families, lighting up children´s love for theatre. These children will be the local paying costumers in 20 years time, don´t forget that. I may now go to London as much as I can and see new work; but I wouldn´t be going at all if it wasn´t for those commercial long runners my family took me to when I was little. My love for theatre wouldn´t exist. Didn´t we all love the pre-show announcement for Frozen?

Wishing for long runners to close is self-indulgent and completely unnecessary. They do so much good for the industry. And they make people happy, isn´t that fantastic?