Normally, I wouldn't keep pursuing this just to be argumentative . . . but, as it happens, I have little else to do today! ; )
There is nothing in "a hit made money and a flop didn't" that demands that a show run three to six years to be a "hit," not even today. As you noted, The Band's Visit recouped in less than a year and a half, and so, I believe, did Fun Home, Hello Dolly! (with Midler), The Full Monty (a little more than a year and a half, but less than two years), and other big musicals, not to mention a lot of plays, and well-attended (star-driven?) "special events" and limited engagements.
The Band's Visit returned its investment in less time, that certainly does not mean The Band's Visit was a hit and Sunset was a flop.
Why not? That's exactly what they were. Unless you're trying to get run-lengths to conform to theory, but I thought we'd already agreed that length of run should not be the arbiter of anything. Or maybe it was only I who'd agreed to that. ; ) But surely it's clear that "hit/flop" in the financial sense has nothing to do with run length, nor should it. Personally, I never consider length of run when I use either term. And, except when I'm talking in the financial sense, I tend to refer to a show that had a very respectable run but lost money as a "near miss," or some such term. Unless I really, really didn't like it! |
