| re: Broadway's longest running play ... |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 08:23 pm EST 12/30/17 |
| In reply to: re: Broadway's longest running play ... - keikekaze 05:47 pm EST 12/30/17 |
|
That's so interesting to me that people said those things about Matilda and Billy. I appreciate the context and reminder. I don't remember that, but I probably wasn't paying close attention. I am probably using my personal filter of not being very fond of either of those shows--therefore absolutely shocked anyone would think they would run for a decade. But that's not fair because we're talking about how long people thought the runs would be before they opened here and before most Americans had seen them. :-)
That said, I am sticking by my original musing. The Harry Potter movies grossed over 2 billion dollars domestic. Matilda did 33 million and Billy Elliot did 22 million. And that doesn't even consider the book sales. I just don't think it's a terribly useful comparison. I think your pointing out that it's a PLAY is actually a more compelling warning against its possible longevity than comparison to the high hopes for those other properties. |
|
reply
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Broadway's longest running play ... - keikekaze 05:47 pm EST 12/30/17 |
| Next: |
re: Broadway's longest running play ... - Thom915 09:29 am EST 12/29/17 |
| Thread: |
|
