All That Chat - ''Big Fish'' - What could've made it a bigger catch?

HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH FLAT MODE E-OPINIONS

not logged in

''Big Fish'' - What could've made it a bigger catch?

Posted by:	WaymanWong 10:41 pm EST 12/02/13
In reply to:	re: Big Fish - What happened? - NeoAdamite 05:25 pm EST 12/02/13

''Dull'' is subjective. Even among critics, ''Big Fish'' has its champions. And critical acclaim doesn't guarantee success. We can all name shows that reviewers raved about, that closed. And that are long-running ones that defied the negative notices. Various factors play into whether a show takes off ... or not. For instance, though ''Big Fish'' is based on a Tim Burton movie, it wasn't one of his critical or box-office hits. It's not as beloved as other Burton films, like ''Beetlejuice,'' which might've been more commercial. One thing that might've overridden the unknown quantity of ''Big Fish'' would've been the casting of a bigger star (which is easier said than done). Lippa's previous show, ''The Addams Family,'' had two major things going for it: a much more recognizable title (especially to tourists, families, etc.) and the inimitable Nathan Lane. Still, on the two times I went to ''Big Fish,'' the audience reacted with lots of enthusiasm, just as if it were at a hit.

reply \|

Previous:	re: Big Fish - What happened? - NeoAdamite 05:25 pm EST 12/02/13
Next:	re: Big Fish - What happened? - huskyital 10:30 pm EST 12/02/13

Thread:

All That Chat is intended for the discussion of theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)