Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Bwayguy 02:59 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| C'mon Merrily is, was, and will always be a flop. There are just enough Sondheimites in NY to keep a small limited engagement going, doesn't make it good by any means. Any other show that ran a whopping 16 performances on Broadway would never see the light of day again. If you love the songs so much listen to the cast album and be happy it exists. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:38 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Any other show that ran a whopping 16 performances on Broadway would never see the light of day again." You mean like Little Murders, which ran 7 performances on Broadway in 1967 and ran 400 performances Off-Broadway in 1969 after having been a hit for the Royal Shakespeare Company in London? And then it was made into a movie. And what about Threepenny Opera, which ran 12 performances in 1933? I could make a list of shows that played 16 performances or less in their original productions and later came back to critical praise and longer runs, even if many of those later runs were for nonprofit companies. And the list of shows that were real flops, even if running more than 16 performances, in their original productions and are now considered classics or near-classics is a pretty long one. We could start with A Moon for the Misbegotten, which ran 68 performances in 1957 and has been back a number of times, most successfully in 1973 when it ran 313 performances, and that production only closed in order to tour. Tough show to do eight times a week for a long run. It could easily have run another nine months if not even another year on Broadway in that 1973 production. It was a huge success. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:16 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| There have been many successful productions of MERRILY. It's one of my favorite shows. The production in the U.K. that played in movie theaters a few years ago sold out in some cities. THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS had a very short run but I think it's one of the best shows of the last 10 years. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: schlepper 05:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - KingSpeed 05:16 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Are you really equating a filmed NT Live screening selling out 1 night (at $15-$20 bucks a ticket) in a 500 (at most) seat cinema screen to a several months long run in an 800+ seat Broadway house at $150-$200 a ticket (at least)? Also THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS was a complete and total financial failure on Broadway. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:52 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - schlepper 05:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I was just saying that the show is popular and people are interested in it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The Scottsboro Boys | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:21 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - schlepper 05:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| This is not a great example... besides that it was never going to run a long time with subject matter and content as dark and divisive as this show, especially as a musical... but this was a commercial run (god knows why). If it had been scheduled for a slot in a non-profit theater, it would have run a bit longer, and would have likely been a hot ticket item, maybe extended maybe not but it wouldn't have been a financial failure because the pressure would be off and it would have sold its run (if not sold OUT and extended). Not every good musical NEEDS to have an audience big enough to pay $150 a ticket for many months or even years, at 800-1500 people a night. Scottboro Boys is an excellent musical that got an excellent production with an amazing cast, and it shouldn't have been a commercial run. The fact that it ran as long as it did is almost impressive given what it is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Scottsboro Boys | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:35 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: The Scottsboro Boys - Chazwaza 09:21 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| But it was a non-profit run, and it did sell out and extended. Perhaps 25 years ago it would have moved to the Minneta Lane or the John Houseman, but theater economics changed, and Broadway was the only place to take it to give it more life. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:38 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Your logic is broken. The show has been performed thousands of times and has convinced people to fund many recordings of it. The complicatedly short run of the original production has no relevance to whether or not a non-profit company should do a revival of it, and whether they should do it in the broadway space or off broadway space. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Anyone can whistle had 9 post opening performances | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:53 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I wonder if there is a short run flop that has had a long life. Mack and Mabel had 66 performances and dear world over 100. I’m anxiously awaiting the dance of the vampire revival. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.023509 seconds.