I found it fascinating that the London theatre business is such that a play must continue running for a minimum period (described in the article) even if it's a

I found it fascinating that the London theatre business is such that a play must continue running for a minimum period (described in the article) even if it's a failure. That's really bizarre. In my younger childless life, I used to go to the theatre fairly often and even had a Goodman subscription. I don't think I ever saw anything that would have qualified as a flop or even an artistic failure, but the Chicago theatre scene is pretty vibrant. While we lived in Los Angeles, we went to the theatre less often, but again a pretty vibrant theatre scene although not as risk-taking as Chicago (many smaller venues seemed to be actor-financed productions meant to catch casting directors' eyes, but none of these actor-producers had Ed Wood–like blindness to bad production, at least none that I saw). My sense is that New York is a lot more risk-averse, especially in the main stages. Perhaps things get more daring in smaller venues in the outer boroughs?