'In the Heights' and other shows that passed by Indy to play IU

May 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

While the Broading in Indianapolis series for 2011/12 consists mostly of revisits ("Fiddler on the Roof," "Beauty and the Beast," "Les Miserables"), audiences looking to see newer musicals can get their fill at IU Auditiorium.

The lineup for 2011/12 includes Tony-winning Best Musical "In the Heights" (Feb. 28-29), better-than-I-expected-it-to-be "Shrek: The Musical" (Nov. 15-17), and "Young Frankenstein" (April 26-27). Another tour that skipped Indy, "South Pacific" (based on the Lincoln Center revival), will come through Bloomington for two days in March.

Beyond the big musicals, IU Auditorium will also host Jon Stewart, Stomp, Bernadette Peters, Evidence dance company, and more. For a full schedule, click here.

Your thoughts? Anything here that will send you down 37?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Importance of Supporting
    anonymousMay 10, 2011 10:28 AM
    Lou -

    It is frustrating to see those shows going to IU before coming to Indy, but maybe we should start focusing on the importance of the Indy audience supporting the touring Broadway that comes to Indy so we can get them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but SHREK will be the scaled-down non equity version, IN THE HEIGHTS is also non-equity now. All shows are also only there for shorter runs than what Indy sees.

    Maybe you should do a blog calling out for more support for brave theatre (on a larger stage) in the Indy community... just a thought.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Size Matters
    UrbanDwellerMay 10, 2011 1:18 PM
    I recently heard from a well connect source that said Indy is bypassed a lot of the time because Murat is not large enough(seats).
    Granted the IU Auditorium is cavernous but seems that Clowes is large enough. Can't believe there is more market in Bloomington than Indy.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Nothing for the serious theater lover
      SandyRMay 10, 2011 1:54 PM
      There's nothing in the touring season for the serious theater lover and hasn't been for years and therefore season ticket sales are probably down.

      I wish we had a locally owned organization behind the Broadway series like there used to be. I think that's part of the problem. The national or regional 'Broadway Across America' company is obviously not interested in offering us a good season of quality productions. Non-equity tours anyone?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Too Inconvenient
      AlanMay 10, 2011 1:56 PM
      Bloomington is just too difficult to get to and around in. It will never replace Indy because of its lack of good traffic access and the terrible parking difficulties.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Re: Size Matters
      Robert_JonesMay 10, 2011 1:57 PM
      Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't The Old National Centre actually holds about 600 more than Clowes Hall. Shows also don't pass us by. They simply don't get booked b/c of routing or financial issues. It is really...REALLY expensive to put a Broadway show on. I'm pretty sure Bloomington gets a break by booking non-equity shows for 3 days (a Tuesday-Thursday none the less) because it costs far less to produce, thus lessoning the financial risk for the backers if the show doesn't sell well.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Sesting
      UrbanDwellerMay 10, 2011 3:09 PM
      I stand (during intermission) corrected. Clowes has approx. 2200 seats and Murat approx. 2500. No wonder there is no leg room at the Murat.
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Maybe Frankenstein
      BarbaraMay 10, 2011 4:04 PM
      While I would certainly see these in Indianapolis if they came here, the only one I would possibly make the trek for is Young Frankenstein, but that's just because I'm a huge Mel Books fan. I agree with several of the previous comments. Why can't we get the good stuff in Indianapolis?
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment

    Post a comment to this blog

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    ADVANCED SEARCH
    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

    2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

    3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

    4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

    5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

    ADVERTISEMENT