Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 10:57 pm EDT 06/21/18 | |
|
|
|
| I loved that original set, but I do understand that many did not. Of course, it does demand performances of a certain size. Even in 1968, one of the studies that Goldman commissioned for The Season suggested that the presence or lack of presence of tourist audiences made a difference to how well several plays did. If that was true for plays in 1968, I think it would have been more true for a musical in 1980. Sweeney did well enough while its original stars were in it that with bigger names as replacements perhaps it might have jad more life in it than turned out to be the case. Admittedly, it didn't pay off during the time that the original leads were in it, mostly because of the combination of what may have been the highest production cost ever at that time along with what was believed to be the highest weekly nut ever. As it turned out they probably should have closed it more quickly than they did. They lost a lot after the original leads left. As far as I can tell, looking at the grosses, I think they probably lost money every week except closing week, although perhaps royalty reductions and smaller star salaries meant that they more or less broke even some of those weeks. Had the original leads played a second year or even another six months on Broadway, it probably would have paid off. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? | |
| Posted by: garyd 07:11 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - AlanScott 05:20 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| I certainly did not hate the set. As a matter of fact, I liked it though, at first, as said, I found it distracting and, well, a bit TOO obviously symbolic or metaphorical or both. I got over all of that pretty quickly and on other viewings came to love it as much as many others do. I have always thought of the play to be a theatre crowd piece and not too much of a tourist draw except for the presence of Lansbury. Of course, the tourist trade was significantly different back then. Many 'tourists" who went to NYC were theatre fans to begin with. Most friends or acquaintances who either stayed with us or at our house if we were gone were quite wary of venturing out. Even if they stayed at a hotel in the theater district, they always took a cab to the theatre even if it was just a few blocks away. Seems ludicrous today but things were different then. I know a bit about the financial situation during the run but little about it subsequent to the stars leaving. I imagine your hypothesis is sound. |
|
| reply to this message |
| "The Box Office Boom' NYT 1981 | |
| Posted by: garyd 08:28 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Could the original have run longer with bigger star replacements? - garyd 07:11 pm EDT 06/24/18 | |
|
|
|
| Many here have probably already read this or something similar. It is still interesting. | |
| Link | https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/10/magazine/the-box-office-boom.html |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
Time to render: 0.010648 seconds.