Once coming to West End

[AnythingGoes23]

Will go on sale Mid October time.

[Jonwo]

Guessing a Spring/Summer opening, didn't expect it to come so soon, was thinking late 2013 or early 2014. Wonder what theatre they are going into?

[Phantom of London]

Do you know where? I would of thought of somewhere like the Gielgud or Aldwych.

Once I predict will be the new Chicago and run for a very long time on both sides of the Atlantic, the weekly operating costs must be very very low, as the set is static, so producers don't have to pay for a elaborate set and more importantly they don't need many stage hands or stage managers, like a big show the wardrobe is basic, the show is actor/musician and has a cast of 8,the wage bill will be very low, you cannot stunt cast the show, as you have to be talented and play a instrument, All in all this could easily play half filled theatres for years to come.

[Mark_E]

Or maybe even the Phoenix. Will be interesting, the video I have seen seem boring.

[bob8rich]

It's pretty much the exact opposite of boring! John Tiffany's direction and, especially, Stephen Hoggett's stunning choreography make this show utterly compelling to watch. Add to that a beautifully subtle, funny, moving and charming script and some seriously amazing songs and you have a brillianbt piece of musical theatre.

I loved this when I saw it Off-Broadway last year. I've been thinking hard about how the hell I can fit in seeing this again while in New York in November with all the new shows I want to see in the week I'll be there. If it's coming over here, it solves the problem! But one way or another, I really want to see this again!

[Dubliner]

I hope it goes into one of the shabbier, smaller houses. The Garrick would be perfect.

[AnythingGoes23]

Not Garrick...rock of ages eyes that theatre hence the delay on Duchess theatre announcement, they are waiting to see how Loserville fairs

[bdn223]

Once could go either way in the West End. For a small show its running costs are actually relativly expensive at least on Broadway, around $500,000 a week, which is a $100,000 more than the Hair Revival which had tripple cast size and an actual pit. Realize that it likely stems from the instrument maintaince, since they are now technically "props", as well as the on stage bar, which although cool is probably an insurance nightmare.

I honestly thought the show is beautiful, but at times it is as boring as watching paint dry. Its plot is about as thin as a guitar string, not to say that is a bad thing becuase it is definitly part of the beauty of the show, but it drags.

The near impossibility of stunt casting definitly will hurt the show in the West End, as well as the artsy nature of the show. It could be a Spring Awakening in all honesty. Although is Once is a hit I do think that the West End production of Next to Normal will finally get off the ground, showing artsy musicals can work in West End and not just at the National.

[Dubliner]

It would be lovely if it could tryout in Dublin first. There's been no talk of it alas.

[Phantom of London]

I think the producers would look to trim cost significantly for the West End, I have no clue why the Broadway costs $500k a week to run, I guess you have to pay the actors a lot more as they play their own instruments, but then you have no one sitting in the pit, so that cost is gone.

Once deserved its Tony and I enjoyed the show, but didn't love it.

I would love to find out about the production costs.

[DeNada]

Everything costs more on Broadway. No West End musical should cost anywhere near as much as £300k a week to run, and some cost less than £100k (and still don't make any money!). I'm genuinely shocked by that figure, though - how could the show have ever run at NYTW with running costs like that?

Riedel quoted a nut of around $325k (£200k) in an article before the show opened, which although still very expensive for London will come down when the show plays here.

[bdn223]

NYTW is a non-profit off-broadway...the actors there are paid a pittance compared to what they are currently paid.

[Owen22]

The actors are paid a pittance off-Broadway, and some of the technicals (such as ushers) aren't paid at all. But on Broadway each and everything member of the working show gets at least union scale which adds significant amounts to a show's running cost. I don't think London is as union heavy a theatre town as NYC.

[Phantom of London]

I would think with Once, you would have a significant enhanced payments for the actors, as they have to act and play their own instruments, this would attract a hefty premium, also advertising I guess a fair share gets spent on adverts, with the obligatory advert in Times Square, I guess there will be other adverts such as media and leaflets, after-all it is pointless winning the Tony if no one knows about it.

[Jonwo]

Shows in the West End usually cost less than their Broadway counterparts, I remember reading Sonia Friedman saying that Jerusalem cost £400,000 in the West End but $3.1m on Broadway.

[Phantom of London]

That would be £2m in our money and translate as costing 5 times as much as to stage on Broadway, I wonder why Broadway costs that much more to put on?

[AnythingGoes23]

It's confirmed for The Phoenix for Mardh

[sparepart973]

I think theatres cost more as do building sets, to hiring cast and crew (their wages are higher).

[Phantom of London]

But Once has a rigid set, which is a big Irish bar.

I have read elsewhere also that Once costs over $500k a week to run, which I still find bizarre considering that The Phantom of the Opera costs $600k.
New York Times article with Phantom of the Opera running costs

[Phantom of London]

Another spot on call confirmed today:

http://www.whatsonstage.com/news/theatre/london/E8831350031271/Tony+award-winner+Once+confirmed+for+West+End+run+in+Spring+2013.html

Look forward to this one.

[bdn223]

Phantom of London

Reasons for the high running costs of Once:

It plays in the Bernard B. Jacobs Theater, one of the premium theaters on Broadway due to its location on 45th Street. Theaters of similar size the Brooks Atkinson (Peter and the Starcatcher) and Ambassador (Chicago) have a lower rent due to their being not as much foot traffic on their respective streets, as well as their being a little further from Time Square. If Once were playing the Belasco, it's costs would be exorbitantly less due to its being east of Time Square. It may seem weird, but look at it this way Newsies which has basically the same running costs which plays the Neaderlander(130more seats than the Jacobs) pays much lower in rent since the theater is located on 41st, and due to that it can spend more money in other areas, but still have the same running costs.

Advertising:
Once is not a household name, and even after winning the Tony the show still has to spend a fortune on advertising.

On Stage Bar:
The producers now need to pay more for Insurance, not only because they are bringing people on stage, but also, similar to Rock of Ages seat side service, the likelyhood of someone getting drunk and disorderly at a performance is also more likely.
Also they have to have more ushers to help people on and off stage.

It set:
Despite being a unit set, the set is also made of mirrors, which have to be constantly polished, so matinence becomes slightly more expensive than more unit sets.

Props:
Due to the actor playing their instruments on stage, the instruments are now considered props, and the producers now have to pay for their matinence, unlike the instruments of pit musicians.

Children in the Cast:
Despite only being in the show for 5 minutes, making one wonder if having a girl onstage to play girl's daughter is completely neccesarry. They have to pay both child actors for a week of performances since even when one is not on for the night, she still has to be backstage if there is a mishap. The producers now also have to pay for a child handler backstage.


Since Once has already recouped its producers can now play with their numbers, since they no longer have to pay anyone back. Once's running costs are likly to decrease somewhat as time goes on, since money will be spent more efficiently as well, as the NYTimes article you are quoting states has happened with Phantom. It is actually quite amazing how Phantom is able to run on a budget of only $600,000 a week with its production values.

[Phantom of London]

I understand that Cameroon Mackintosh runs a well oiled, tight operation on both sides of the Atlantic.

With Once all its development costs are now payed off, so it is just the weekly operating costs that need to be payed now, so a shrewd production general manager should be able to get these down, operating costs being over $0.5m a week is complete madness.

I didn't know that your rental rates for theatre on Broadway, was dependent on location and footfall on the amount of people passing, I would of thought this would have been done on size of house as well, for example the Palace would charge a lot more than the Stephen Sondheim, anyway The Phantom of the Opera is as much as, in a desirable location as Once anyway, so would pay equal amount of rent for location, then more again for size of house. I agree that location does impact on rent.

The Majestic Theatre must be the jewel in the Shuberts crown.