| Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:28 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Did the original Broadway production of CHICAGO make money, lose money, or break even? - FleetStreetBarber 03:51 pm EDT 09/06/18 | |
|
|
|
| That is a Best Plays I have, and I should have looked in there. I was going by what was said in a Variety article titled "Broadway Getting More and Costlier Shows; Scorecard of Hits, Flops," from the issue dated August 31, 1977: "Two shows, 'Chicago' and 'Shenandoah,' did not completely recoup their original investments, according to the Attorney General's report." And yet in the Variety list of the financial statuses of 1976-77 Broadway productions, in the edition dated June 8, 1977, Chicago was one of three shows listed as hits among four that were "Previously Not Classified." The other two hits were The Belle of Amherst and Me and Bessie, and the flop was Knock Knock. Since Best Plays took its info on hits and flops from Variety, it makes sense that they would have listed it as a hit in the 1976-77 annual, but I wonder why at the end of August Variety contradicted what it had stated on June 8. Had the producers announced that it had recouped but the Attorney General later said it had not? Or . . .? I don't know. FWIW, I can't find anything more on the question in Variety, which doesn't mean that there wasn't something more published that I'm just not finding. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Did the original Broadway production of CHICAGO make money, lose money, or break even? - FleetStreetBarber 03:51 pm EDT 09/06/18 |
| Next: | re: Puzzlingly contradictory info in Variety - ryhog 09:28 pm EDT 09/06/18 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.013348 seconds.