PRODUCER’S PERSPECTIVE Ken Davenport, Broadway Producer, Off-Broadway, Theater

What will tomorrow's audience want from their theater?

Yesterday, we chatted about how difficult it is to get the multitasking generation to the theater because they can lay on their couch and channel surf, web surf and Wii surf, all at the same time.

That got me thinking . . .

There have been a number of theories tossed around lately about how the current crop of musicals on Broadway have a certain sound or are from popular musical catalogs, because the current theater-going demographic (folks 40+) is the first group of theater-lovers who grew up on rock and roll. 

Simply put, the traditional sound of musicals has changed, because the traditional audience has changed.

Well, in the 1980s, another entertainment game-changer hit the stores:  the personal computer and the video game.  

According to my calculations, that puts us about 10 years away from the next group of 40 year olds who grew up on something that their parents didn't; a something that had a major impact on their lives, and their entertainment.   

So . . . if Rock and Roll had such an effect on our product . . .  can you imagine the effect that the computer will have on our product?  Or the video game?  

Or, I guess what I'm saying is . . . our audience is about to turn upside down pretty dang soon.  The computer is the car of the last 30 years.  And that's going to have a ripple effect and change what people want from their theater.

If you're a writer, get ready to adapt and expand, because our audience is going to want so much more if we expect them to turn off and sit still for two hours. 

- - - - -

Update:  I wrote the above blog two days before this article about the "Theater of the Arcade" appeared in the NY Times.  Read it here.  Interesting stuff on its way.

Sing. Sing a "long." Make it simple . . .

No, this isn't a post about a Carpenters jukebox musical (although I did inquire about the rights to that catalog about 10 years ago).

This is a post about another property I went after, but was denied . . . because the film company had their own plans.

This Thursday, the 'Grease Movie Sing-A-Long' opens at the Loews Village 7 in New York City and all over the country. (Full disclosure, when I was inspired to try and do a Grease sing-a-long, I went after the rights to Grease 2.  Why 2?  Well, I never thought I'd get the rights to the original, and, I mean, come on . . .. can you imagine a sing-a-long to "We're Gonna Boooooooowl tonight!")?

If you're not sure what a sing-a-long is, well, it's exactly what it sounds like.  The movie plays, along with karaoke-like lyrics ("Summer lovin', had me a blast!"), and the audience is encouraged to sing along with the film score.  In addition, audiences are encouraged to dress up, slick their hair and more.  Hopefully, a Rocky Horror element emerges as well, and props and choreography are incorporated (Hand jive, anyone?).  Sing-a-long movies started with The Sound of Music way back in 2000 (and I believe the craze started in Europe).

It has taken a decade, but Grease, and its 4 chords, 3 jokes, and billions of fans, looks to be the biggest one yet ("Summer Nights" is one of the most requested karaoke songs of all time).  

The New York Times wrote a piece about the sing-a-long, which included some very insightful comments from Adam Goodman, president of the Paramount Film Group, which apply to what we do as well.  Adam said, "The goal is to create a true event.  How do you get groups of young people going to the movies and having a great time?"

The author of the article continues with Adam's query.  

The key term is "young."  Older movie goers may still prefer to sit in silence, but younger audiences, the ones studios work hardest to motivate off the sofa - are increasingly programmed to interact and multitask.  Sitting quietly in a theater starts to feel like a bore when you can watch the DVD at home while texting a friend, playing a video game and posting witty comments on Facebook.

Creating unique events are essential for anyone producing entertainment in today's market, especially if you are trying to get young people off the couch, and off their phones, and their Facebooks, and whatever else they are on these days.

But what do today's multitasking generation's habits mean for tomorrow's market?

Whoa . . . that's heavy.  I need a night to think about it.  Tune in tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's a little cerebral palette cleanser.  And while you're watching it, sing along . . . and maybe Paramount will hear us.
 

A sad day for Shrek.

Yesterday, Shrek confirmed what had been circulating the street all week: the ogre will be leaving Broadway and heading back to the swamp on January 3, 2010.

How could one of the most powerful entertainment brands of the last twenty years not survive on the Great White Way?  Too expensive?  Maybe.  Too much Hollywood influence?  Who knows.  

I believe the closing of Shrek represents the end of an era; an era which attempted to capitalize on kids first, and put adults second.  

Over the past year and a half, we've seen the premature closings of shows like Shrek, Little Mermaid, and even my own, 13.

All seemingly fantastic sells . . . except for the fact that they happened to be plopped right in the midst of one of the most difficult economic climates in our history.  And no demographic was hurt more than families of four from the suburbs.

When family folk was trying to decide on a show to see, here's what happened:

- Shows that just the kids might want to see went out the window.

- Shows that appealed to both kids and adults went bye-bye as well (Grease, Legally Blonde, Hairspray, etc.).

What's left on Broadway now is more adult fare . . .because the parents that are still going to the theater are leaving their kids at home (another reason why plays are doing so well).

Why do you think Disney doesn't have anything in the immediate pipeline?

I don't think you'll see another animated feature making its way here anytime soon, do you?

Why did Obama give the Queen of England an iPod of Show Tunes?

What do you give a Queen who has everything?

That was the big Q put to Obama's administration . . . and guess what they came up with?

Two things:  

• A rare songbook of Rodgers and Hart tunes
• An iPod preloaded with 40 of the best of Broadway tunes

Haha!  Score one for the Broadway branding team!  How you like them apples, Hollywood?  You don't see the Queen getting an video-pod full of Pulp Fiction and Porkys, now do you?  Booya!

Truth is, I think the gift was a bit of a shock to all of us . . . but it makes sense.

The Broadway musical . . . that ultra specific theatrical art form . . . is one of the few things that we can say is truly and uniquely American.  It was born here.  It was perfected here.  And it's gonna stay here.  So it remains one of the most perfect representations of who we are.

It's also something that I will snobbishly say we still do better than anyone else.  Yes, the Brits had a nice run in the late 80s and early 90s, but so did the Republicans.  

In a way, it's like football, another great American pastime that no one does better, despite repeated attempts (and we also modified it from a pre-existing form, just like we did with the musical).  

But, I heard the Queen already has a set of shoulder pads and a helmet.

Rock it out, Queen E.  The next time you're in town, let me know.  I'll take you to see Hair . . . just so I can see yours blown back.

- - - - -

Only 15 Days until the 1st Theater Bloggers Social!

Thursday, April 23rd.

6 PM

Planet Hollywood

For more info and to RSVP, click here.

In defense of the screen to stage adaptation.

While watching Honeymoon In Vegas the other night, I took a twitter poll asking for a quick thumbs up or thumbs down on the idea of making Honeymoon into a musical (a project that is currently in development).

Thanks to my recent linking of my twitter and facebook status, I got a flock of a lot of responses before you could say "Wasn't Sarah Jessica Parker in that movie?".

Here are a few:

Enough with the "from the screen to the stage" and "remake" crap, please. 

There are so many amazing new works we can enjoy... :)

I totally agree with this [the above post] in the nicest way possible. :)

Aren't there any original ideas?

I think they need to start bringing originality back to Broadway.

No more musicals that were movies - unless it's Beetlejuice!

Yikes.  Insert sound of clawing kitty here.  

Original sounds awesome.  And it's what I'd prefer any day of the week.  But it's not as easy, prevalent or desired as you think. 

I've written about the rise of screen to stage musicals before, but this time, let's look at stats on originals: 

This season, there will be only three completely original new musicals on Broadway that were not based on any pre-existing source material, movie or otherwise:  13, Title of Show and The Story of My Life. 

What do they have in common?  I'll give you a hint.  They all closed.

Last season, there were only three original musicals on Broadway as well:  In The Heights, Passing Strange and Glory Day (plural cruelly omitted purposefully).  Kudos to Heights, but disappointment for the other two.

Two seasons ago?  No originals.

Three years back?  Two:  In My Life and Drowsy Chaperone.  Chaperone worked in a small window, and then went away.

Four years?  Two:  Brooklyn and Spelling Bee (The Bee was actually based on an improv play, but since the play hadn't achieved any sort of notoriety, we'll include it here).  The Bee succeeded but the Brooklyn investors would have been better off buying a bridge.

What's interesting about these stats is not the winners.  I just named 10 shows and 2 recouped and that's consistent with the commonly quoted stat that 1 in 5 shows make money.  We're on par.

What's alarming is that the other 8 shows were very quick flame outs, resulting in a loss of the entire capitalization or close to it (or in some cases, maybe even more?).

Now, all you tweeters  . . . knowing these much higher risk statistics, are you really surprised that Producers and Writers look to source material before their own brains for ideas?

Flip the analysis around and look at some of the most successful musicals during that same five year period:  Wicked, Jersey Boys, Lion King, Mamma Mia, and so on with un-originals and so on.

In fact, look at the longest running musicals of all time:  Only 2 originals in the top 10 (I don't count Oh! Calcutta!)

I love an original musical.  Falsettos is one of my favs.  But the fact is that their artistic degree of difficulty is exceptionally high (and those critics that scream about lack of original ideas on Broadway should score them like Olympic gymnasts and give them extra points for the attempt).  The financial risk is the highest, and they have a recent history of lower returns.

The truth is, some of those originals I mentioned above were simply not very good.  And despite the statistical history, a great show can always make this post null and void.  So anyone dissatisfied with the lack of originality on the GWW (Great White Way), should get out there and write a great show and I'll be the first to line up to produce it.

But we do have to remember that Broadway is a very specific place.  It's a very thin slice of real estate in the center of the world.  Producing and creating theater is different from producing and creating Broadway theater.  And original just doesn't always work here, whether we like it or not.

Think about it this way.  Broadway is like a museum.  You know, like MoMA.  Unfortunately, not every painter gets his art hung in MoMA, no matter how good they are.  It's a museum of modern art.  The people that go there, go to see a specific type.  That's what they want.  And the curators have to pick shows that are not only going to satisfy their patrons, but are going to thrill them. 

That doesn't mean that painters of other styles should stop painting.  It just means that MoMA might not be the place where their art has the best shot at success (interestingly enough - a heck of a lot of painters adapt their images from subjects or landscapes, don't they?)

So don't blame the Curators or the Producers or the Writers.  You might just want to pick a different museum.

Still sticking to your guns and think that what audiences really want is originality?  We wondered that same thing on 13 . . . and then we tested a tag line that called the show the most "original new musical on Broadway" (Title of Show used a similar hook).  The results were as follows:

6% of those surveyed were definitely interested in the show based on that tagline.
15% were intrigued by the tagline.
79% of those surveyed said that this tagline "made them NOT interested in seeing 13."

These results are another example of what those of us on the inside would prefer is not necessarily what the majority of our audience prefers.

So maybe that Beetlejuice idea isn't so bad after all . . .

It's never too early to find your audience.

Super props to the Producers of the upcoming musical, First Wives Club, for not even waiting for their musical to be finished before they started looking for their audience.

As discussed in this article, after a series of focus groups (Kudos Point #1), the Producers launched a social networking site (KP #2) called FirstWivesWorld.com where divorced women could meet, interact and share their stories.  With several thousand members and a bunch of bloggers, they've created a world for their prime demographic that actually serves a purpose on its own (knowing our industry success rate, I'd bet that this site has a better chance of being profitable than the musical itself!).  If you look closely, you'll notice that there isn't even any branding for the musical at this stage.  They are taking the slow, safe, and smart approach (KP Hat Trick).

Musicals take a long time to be developed.  Smart producers use that time to do more than work on the 2nd scene in Act II.

Use that time.  It's never too early to identify your target.  That doesn't mean you have to attack them right away.  Just sit back, watch their moves, learn their habits, and when the time is right . . . bada-bing!  You'll have a marriage made in marketing heaven with no possibility of divorce.

A Purple Elephant?

Seth Godin would be proud.

It looks like Rodgers and Hart were great songsters and marketers, based on Edward Albee's reminiscence of his first Broadway show, in this Sunday's Times.

The first Broadway show I ever saw was in 1935 . . . and it was a musical starring a small elephant and Jimmy Durante.  It had a score by Rodgers and Hart, and it was called Jumbo.  It had in it such songs as "My Romance" and "The Most Beautiful Girl in the World."  It probably hooked me on theater, but I'm sure the hook was the small elephant.

What would Edward Albee remember if he saw your show today? 

It doesn't have to be wildlife, but it has to be something. 

(Do you think Durante would be peeved that the elephant got billing before him in Albee's quote?)

- - - - -

Only 13 days left to play The Producer's Perspective Tony Pool!  You can win an iPhone!  Play today!

The 'In The Heights' Prequel

I saw my favorite flop this weekend.

I braved a borough and traveled to Brooklyn to see the BAM concert of Capeman, which featured Mr. Simon himself. 

It was a wonderful celebration of a musical that didn't work on Broadway, and still has its flaws.  But those flaws are found in some of the most beautiful and unique music we've heard on Broadway in the last decade (Encores, if you're reading this, put down that script of Flora The Red Menace and call Paul).

As I listened to tunes like "Satin Summer Nights", I forgave so many of the problems with the piece (most notably that the lyrics tend to be more narrative and do not further the characters arcs).

What made me forgive?  Three words.  Mel.  O.  Dy. 

In the commercial musical theater medium, melody is so very important.  Common sense, right?  Then why do so many of the young and upcoming composers avoid it like an STD.  This not only goes for those fresh out of school, but also to those composers who have been anointed by the New York Times as being the future of musical theater (Has anyone realized that Michael John LaChiusa has never had a hit?  Doesn't it seem odd for him to be teaching Graduate Musical Theatre Writing at NYU?)

In their search to be the next Sondheim, so many seem to forget what artists like Paul Simon, Elton John, Billy Joel,  Andrew Lloyd Webber, Marvin Hamlisch, John Kander and Richard Rodgers knew so very well. 
A strong melody is like a drug to an audience.  It opens their mind.

And then, once they have smoked a little of what you've offered, you can say whatever you want to them.

And they'll believe you.

The Definition of a Jukebox Musical

Wikipedia is wrong.

According to everyone's favorite online encyclopedia, "A jukebox musical is a stage or film musical that uses previously released popular songs as its musical score."

I disagree.  And I'd bet another $100 that Hal Prince would too.  Would you want to tell him that LoveMusik was a jukebox musical? 

Here's my definition:

"A jukebox musical is an original stage musical not based on a film that uses previously released popular songs that have no direct relation to the story as its musical score."

Ok, so I'm no Webster's.  Let me explain with examples.

Mamma Mia = Jukebox Musical (An original story about a girl searching for her father using Abba music)

All Shook Up = Jukebox Musical (Shakespeare's Twelfth Night using Elvis tunes)

Jersey Boys = NOT a Jukebox Musical (Four Seasons music telling the Four Seasons story)

See what I mean?  Jersey Boys just doesn't feel like a Jukebox musical. 

Times They Are a Changin'?  Yes.  Movin' Out?  Yes.  Good Vibrations?  Put another dime in the jukebox, baby.

Lennon?  No. 

Lennon is dependent upon that music.  It couldn't be done with The Carpenters catalog.  Mamma Mia (with a different title), on the other hand, could have been attempted with Lawrence Welk music.  Sure, it would have sucked, but that's not the point.  Same thing with LoveMusik.  These are Bio Musicals, not jukebox musicals.

Xanadu, Saturday Night Fever . . . not Jukebox musicals.  They are musical adaptations of movies that already had the music integrated.

Here's what's crazy . . . both Wiki's definition and my definition make shows like Crazy For You and Forever Plaid, jukebox musicals. 

Maybe we should add something to the definition that states it only applies to shows after 2001 (the year when Mamma Mia hit Broadway).

Any other definitions out there?

Different is nice, but it sure isn't pretty . . .

Musical Theater and Straight Plays are different.

I’m not just talking about the fact that one has chorus girls and sequins and higher price tickets.

There is an inherent difference in the expectations of the audiences that creators of musicals need to recognize.

Need an example?

At the end of Romeo & Juliet, what happens?  They both die.  Tragedy.  Sadness.  Love itself dies with them.

Now, let's look at the musical adaptation of Romeo & Juliet, West Side Story, arguably the greatest musical ever written because of its seamless integration of music, book and dance.

What happens at the end of West Side Story?  Only ONE of them dies.  Ah ha!  Already you're starting to see the difference.

But wait for it . . . wait for it . . . West Side isn't over yet.  

After Maria's feisty "How many bullets are left" speech, the Jets start to carry off Tony's dead body.  But, like Jesus carrying the cross, they falter.  Who comes running to their aid?  A Shark!  That's right; the two warring gangs come together right before your eyes.  And a ray of sunshine is cast on what was a very dark tragedy.  Suddenly, there is hope that the future will be better.

Doesn't sound like R&J, does it?

Musical theater audiences don't mind tragedy.  In fact, they love a little drama.  But you can't leave them with a tragic aftertaste.  No matter how dark your tale, it's important to leave them with the idea that things could get better.  That the sun will come out . . . you know when.

Want another great example of this?  Look at the ending of the original London production of Miss Saigon.  Then look at what they did when they came to Broadway. It's a subtle change that demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. 

Email me if you figure it out.