Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Posted by: jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Your opinions requested. | |
| reply to this message |
| Anyone here see the 2020 Paris production w/Christina Bianco? (nm) | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 09:41 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| nm means neue marrant | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Posted by: den 04:53 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I, for one, am optimistic about this production and looking forward to it. Whatever the faults of the book -- and I'm not sure what, exactly, they are, I just know everybody talks about them -- the score is pretty amazing, one of Styne's best and that's saying something. I find myself listening to the CD (yes, you read that right, CD) more often than I listen to other show scores and it's not just because of Streisand's singing. As for Beanie -- well, I find myself charmed by her. I had to flip through my playbill at intermission when I saw Hello, Dolly to find out who this odd, exotic creature playing Minnie Fay was. Loved her in Booksmart. Was completely won over by her rendition of "Dancing Through Life" on some streaming benefit or other. (I think it's on YouTube.) Can she sing like Streisand? Of course not. But then, neither could Fanny Brice. So what? I think she has the personality and charisma -- and the talent -- to play the role. My only concern is that it's a LOT of singing every night. I can think of no other musical, in fact (though I'm sure I'll be corrected) that requires its lead to carry ten songs (I'm including the two Ziegfeld numbers and "You Are Woman" here; the others are solos.) That is one heavy load! But I wish her and the production well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 05:01 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 04:58 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - den 04:53 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The first act of "Song and Dance" is pretty much non-stop singing for its lead actress. She's the only one on stage for the approximately 1-hour act as well, with "Unexpected Song" probably its most memorable power ballad. Bernadette Peters was terrific when I saw her in it. She then appeared at the very end of the second act for its finale, if I recall correctly. That might be comparable in terms of sheer amount of singing to "Funny Girl" in its vocal demands. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Last Edit: keikekaze 01:48 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 01:38 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I reviewed the facts in the case in an earlier thread on this same subject. I'll repeat them here: Funny Girl was and is a musical that was tailor-made for Barbra Streisand. It isn't a great show without her, due largely to a stodgy, old-fashioned "showbiz-bio" book. (Even in 1964, nobody thought it was a great show. It was generally seen as a great production with a great star in a dullish musical with a predictable first act and a second act where nothing much happened except that the great Streisand got to sing some more.) The revival would be an iffy prospect for recoupment with a major "name"; Feldstein isn't a major "name." The jury may draw its own conclusions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I saw the recent revisal in London | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 04:16 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - keikekaze 01:38 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| A lot is made of the show's mediocre book. I have not seen the show on stage in its original form, but I found the revisal to be very enjoyable and did not feel the book creaking or groaning. I think we should consider that a mediocre show from the mid 60s might look like gold against most of what we get today. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the recent revisal in London | |
| Posted by: PurpleMoney 07:39 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: I saw the recent revisal in London - HadriansMall 04:16 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I enjoyed Funny Girl at Menier because it had a cheap look and ‘immersive’ in a small venue. I was front row, last minute sale, and was thrilled. That production imo would be swallowed up in a larger venue. If that’s what’s coming to Broadway it may fit well at The Golden or The Booth. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the recent revisal in London | |
| Posted by: sf 11:58 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I saw the recent revisal in London - PurpleMoney 07:39 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| The creative team for Broadway isnt exactly the same as it was at the Menier, which suggests it's being rethought at least a bit. I loved it at the Menier - and for a venue that size and with their budgets, it certainly didn't look cheap there - but it's long been an issue that their productions get transferred to much larger venues without being scaled up in any way. I chose not to pay to see Funny Girl again in the West End or on tour; judging from the performance they filmed, in a venue more than ten times the size of the Menier, that was the correct choice. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| the film of Menier looked VERY cheap | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:21 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I saw the recent revisal in London - sf 11:58 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| and Sheridan seemed like Andy Millman (from Extras) as Fanny Brice, apologies to all. At least the parts I watched. It didn't look that worthwhile to watch the whole thing but I'm sure I will some day. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the film of Menier looked VERY cheap | |
| Posted by: sf 05:18 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: the film of Menier looked VERY cheap - Chazwaza 02:21 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| One more time for the hard of reading: it wasn't filmed at the Menier, it was filmed at the end of the subsequent tour in a venue ten times the size (the Palace in Manchester). Yes, it looks cheap in the film. That's what happens when you take something designed for a 180-seat theatre and shove it into a 2000-seat barn without rethinking it. It didn't look cheap in the venue it was designed for, and was actually slightly more elaborate in the Menier than it was on tour (in the Menier there were conveyor belts to bring set pieces and furniture on and off stage). And yes, sure, it didn't help that Smith's performance deteriorated after the run at the Menier. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 06:25 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:24 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: the film of Menier looked VERY cheap - sf 05:18 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| One more time for the dude who doesn't get it: yeah, we know it wasn't filmed at the Menier. I thought it had been filmed at The Savoy, you're telling us it was filmed at the Manchester Palace, either way we're talking about the same thing: a tiny production plopped onto a big stage as a legitimate West End musical. That is what matters for our purposes. We're not concerned that this Funny Girl won't be compelling and wonderful in a tiny Off-Broadway house, we're concerned that we're going to get a tiny production plopped into the August Wilson Theater and looking just as anemic as the West End/UK Tour production. Hopefully, Sonia Friedman and Michael Mayer know that they need to go bigger and deliver more, and hopefully the Menier is just listed as a producer because they birthed that first production, but only time will tell. But if they think they can Night Music us again, they're going to be sorely mistaken. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) | |
| Posted by: sf 07:36 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) - Singapore/Fling 06:24 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| And speaking of people who (loudly) don't get it, if you'd bothered to read any of what I wrote before you typed your knee-jerk response you'd realise we're on the same page. That's why - as I said somewhere else - I didn't go back after it transferred. As for your first line, when someone heads a post with "the film of Menier looked VERY cheap", then no, sorry, it is not clear that they understand that it was not taped there. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 09:35 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:32 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) - sf 07:36 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| It really doesn't matter WHERE it was filmed... it was the only film we got of the supposedly acclaimed hit UK revival of Funny Girl starring Sheridan Smith and directed by Michael Mayer... is that not what the film is? Is that not what I was reacting to/describing? Is that not who is directing this revival of Funny Girl too, also with someone known more for comedy than singing? My only way of seeing that production is that film. I'm so very very sorry that I didn't differentiate that the version of it I got to see on film was the Menier *production* transferred into a different theater. The August Wilson is way bigger than Menier too... if this is Mayer's take on directing Funny Girl... or transferring that "take" into a bigger space, I'm worried. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 07:45 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 07:43 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) - sf 07:36 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yeah, I read what you wrote, and that didn't excuse the way you spoke to the poster (who was actually agreeing with you), so you can take that shade right back. It is common parlance to refer to transfers by the name of the original producing theater, so this was the Menier production of Funny Girl, wherever it was filmed. Again, since the poster was Yes, Anding you, I don't know why you turned around with a knee-jerk put down, but here we are. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) | |
| Posted by: sf 07:46 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: the film of Menier TRANSFER looked VERY cheap (and we're hoping we don't get that same rink-a-dink production) - Singapore/Fling 07:43 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| "Yeah, I read what you wrote..." If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the recent revisal in London | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 02:17 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I saw the recent revisal in London - sf 11:58 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| The sparse set didn't really bother me. If I think a production is well acted and well directed - even if there are just a couple of chairs - I can let my imagination take me on the ride. To me, that's the beauty of theatre. It doesn't have to be literal. All my opinion, of course. I don't equate ticket value with set/costumes/cast size. I did wish that the chorus had been augmented a bit. Different strokes :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I saw the recent revisal in London | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 04:26 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: I saw the recent revisal in London - HadriansMall 04:16 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| It's probably Jule Syne's second best score after Gypsy, although a lot of his other scores could qualify for that achievement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Bells Are Ringing | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 04:57 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: I saw the recent revisal in London - BroadwayTonyJ 04:26 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I would argue (for me) BELLS ARE RINGING is his second best score but a great score does not a great production make. Look at the last BELLS ARE RINGING revival. Very well cast but the production was not good. If we get similar with FUNNY GIRL, it will flop unquestionably. All cylinders will need to be firing to get this one off the ground. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You Never Know | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 06:31 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Bells Are Ringing - HadriansMall 04:57 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| From what I knew of Chicago (not much) prior to the Encores! production, I would have thought that a revival would never be a commercial hit. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Look to the "art work" for your answer NMI | |
| Posted by: icecadet 01:08 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| mmm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:03 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| How can we possibly know at this stage of the game? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Posted by: FinalPerformance 07:12 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - Chromolume 12:03 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Was not to impressed seeing it in London. It was a cheap production at The Savoy and sure looked it. The Savoy theatre had ambiance but Funny Girl looked summer stock. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 07:15 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - FinalPerformance 07:12 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I did not think the physical production looked cheap necessarily, but I did wish for a larger chorus - especially in the follies numbers. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Funny Girl | |
| Posted by: FinalPerformance 07:27 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - HadriansMall 07:15 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The Minier Chocolate Factory production did it first and I was there. A year later the show looked the same after a West End transfer. The same mediocre dresser and two chairs, I noticed. A small cast that in no way could come close to a decent Follies chorus. A very limited set design didn't add a thing. Sheridan Smith was fine. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Will Funny Girl be a hit or flop? - jeffef 11:04 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The odds are against it. I think a revival needs a star like high jackman to sell tickets. What’s her name is not a star. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 02:13 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:12 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm so tired of the idea that if a show doesn't make a profit then it was just a flop, period. It simply is not a term that works to sum up how a show succeeds or not on Broadway, it maybe makes sense still for investors on a bottom line level but I'm not talking about it as used between investors who are specifically thinking about their financial return, I'm talking about critics and fans and social commentators using it. I mean just consider the nuances of things like the fact that show x could recoup after 1 year and show z, with the same number of tickets sold, might need 3 years, let alone that since *most* shows do not see an actual profit, it can't possibly be than MOST shows are flops, even some of the most beloved, acclaimed and popular shows. There has to be at least ONE level between hit and flop. And also this makes even less sense in the non-profit world, where a ton of musicals are produced and its those non profit productions that the history is written from. On IMBD it just looks like any non-profit show that didn't have a MASSIVE extension or transfer to a different theater was a huge flop, without acknowledging that it was meant to and scheduled to run a very short run for Broadway standards and there are many things at play in considering whether it'll go any amount of weeks after the scheduled run. Okay, unsolicited rant done. (also Dramedy this is aimed at you, I know you weren't even using the terms this way, but rather just replying to someone who did) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| **dramedy this is NOT aimed at you -- haha god what a bad typo (nm) | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:37 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - Chazwaza 02:12 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:01 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - Chazwaza 02:12 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not going to rant back, but if you don't like a word and its accepted meaning, might I suggest you advocate for a new and different word that conveys the meaning you want to express because hit and flop are taken. A side point: Broadway is a business and the fact that there are non-profit businesses does not mean that they are unconcerned with making a profit. They are, often more desperately than for profit enterprises. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:43 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - ryhog 03:01 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| This is such a tired reply to this. And if your view of non-profit productions with regard to this term is that shows that don't extend or transfer are flops because non-profit theaters also want to make a profit... then we flatly do not see this the same way at all. That is bonkers, and quite opposed to the idea and schedule of non-profit theaters. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:25 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - Chazwaza 09:43 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure what's tired about saying that you shouldn't misappropriate words instead of choosing available ones but I'll yawn if it makes you happier. On non-profits, whether a show extends or transfers misses the point. Shows are budgeted (expenses, ticket revenue, and contributed funds if you are lucky) and need to hit certain targets. Non-profits still have to cover costs or suffer the consequences. Whether you call it a flop or a dud or something else, the "idea" of a non-profit is not to lose money. I'm happy to discuss this with you more, in a non-snarky way, if you want to flesh this subject out any more. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:41 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - ryhog 03:01 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Why does there have to be only one word, when there could be many words that refer to success? Why must we have a binary that is either "made money" or "lost money" which determines how a show is talked about culturally and artistically (at least by a certain type of theater person)? It's a tired way of seeing the world, and one that I hope we all most past. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:19 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - Singapore/Fling 03:41 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| there is not and I never suggested there was. My issue was with the misappropriation of hit/miss, terms that go back decades or maybe longer and actually mean something. I am all for having words that mean artistic and cultural success (especially because I think most financial successes on Broadway are artistic if not cultural failures). But if you want to be non-binary in your analysis, then you have to also know that there are lots of different kinds of theatre people and they view success or failure differently. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:04 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - ryhog 04:19 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think we're saying more or less the same thing in different ways, or from different aproaches. What's interesting here is that you used the terms "hit" and "miss", but "miss" is not the same as "flop", and the conversation on this board generally insists that things are either Hits or Flops (as in, more than one person has literally written that a Broadway show can only be one or the other, and that anything short of a hit is a flop). Perhaps it's the way the word sounds, or perhaps it's the way the word became entangled with Ken Mandelbaum's book, but "flop" carries a much harsher judgment than "miss", in the same way that a "bomb" or a "turkey" carry a much harsher judgment than a "miss" or its kissing cousin a "misfire". Since there are lots of different theater people, and they do view success or failure differently, shackling us to only two words - Hit and Flop - is wrong. And what's interesting, again, is that in defending the usage of those two words, both you and another poster used other words, which I believe is all that the OP of this sub-thread asked for. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop | |
| Posted by: ryhog 06:23 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop - Singapore/Fling 06:04 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| my use of "miss" was 100% a brain fart. I would've sworn I typed flop as I definitely meant flop. to be clear (and I thought I said this in the prior post but now I have started questioning myself), I am in no way advocating for the exclusive use of hit and flop to mean anything other than made money/lost money. I am very happy with the use of any other words to mean a success or failure on other than financial terms. In fact I would be delighted if we just used success or failure as those two words, and let them cover any subjective assessment of a production. But hit and flop are terms of art and I do think it is wrong (imo) to misappropriate them as some seem to do. I also have a thing about cast recordings and soundtracks, but that's another song. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Cast Recordings | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: "Flop" does not equal "Miss", which is why we're asking for more words than just Hit and Flop - ryhog 06:23 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I just accepted a few years ago that the Cast Recording ship had sailed, lol | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cast Recordings | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:34 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Cast Recordings - Singapore/Fling 06:27 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| lol. well, I think that for the general public that is certainly true but for people who purport to be theatre people on any level (the same people who pay attention to hits and flops and successes and failures etc in anything beyond a superficial sense), I still think the distinction remains in effect. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cast Recordings | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:04 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Cast Recordings - ryhog 08:34 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| I have heard more and more industry people use the word "soundtrack" in recent years. And I think they all know that "cast recording" is the most "proper" term - but they don't seem to care so much anymore. When one of my students uses "soundtrack," say, in an email to me, I will tend to respond by referring to it myself as a "cast recording," but I also don't specifically correct them or say they can't use "soundtrack." We're just going to have to accept the more contemporary usage. It's like "begging the question," which doesn't mean what most people think it does when they use it - but when they use it that way, we know what is meant, and it's become rather silly to argue about it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| They do if they're used properly. | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 02:42 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: which is why the terms "hit" and especially "flop" as originally defined make no sense in modern broadway. - Chazwaza 02:12 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| As a former critic and still a historian of the theater, I call a show that had a long run and made money a "hit," a show that had a short run and lost money a "flop," and a show that had a respectable run but lost money a "show that had a respectable run but lost money." There is also, of course, a category of shows that had quite short runs but still made money and were thus hits, because, for example, they opened in 1906 (like Forty-Five Minutes From Broadway), or played a star-driven, SRO limited engagement in 2006. The terms "hit" and "flop" do not necessarily correlate in any way to the length of the run. Still less do they correlate to the quality of the show--Broadway history is awash with masterpiece flops and also with hits that were absolutely dreadful. They only refer to financial success or failure. If you like the term "masterpiece flop," you're welcome to it, or any other mitigating adjective you like. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The rule on this board is you can't make a third category (joking, but also not) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:43 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: They do if they're used properly. - keikekaze 02:42 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| On this board, there are some folks who only recognize the two categories as Hit and Flop. Your third option of respectable run is sacrilege to many, hence the regular occurrence of posts questioning the binary of those terms for people who find them too restrictive and reductive. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: Ann 07:23 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Do you really not know her name? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 10:06 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:05 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - Ann 07:23 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Well, Dramedy doesn't seem to know Mr, Jackman's first name either. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: Deirdre 06:48 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| "what's her name" is the reason I'm interested in it. I didn't care at all when Lauren Ambrose's name was attached a few years ago. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:43 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I really don't think High [sic] Jackman would make a good Fanny Brice. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:57 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - Chromolume 05:43 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| what about hijack man? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 06:27 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - Chromolume 05:43 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I really don't think High [sic] Jackman would make a good Fanny Brice. Oh, I imagine it depends on how high you get him! ; ) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 07:50 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 07:48 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - keikekaze 06:27 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| He'd probably enjoy playing both Nick and Fanny, the way he likes to do the "Rock Island" number from "The Music Man" by himself. Hopefully he doesn't try to do that thing as a curtain call encore at "Music Man"! It's not as impressive as he thinks it is (and it's a pretty long show without adding in the possibility of overtime for the crew). But I'm mostly likely not going to see it anyway with its incredibly high prices. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: jo 12:04 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - PlayWiz 07:48 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Not likely. He already did that in BackOnBroadway - a semi-biomusical variety show, as it seemed he played Salesman # 8 in his own high school musical in his native Australia. What I do wonder about is if there will be a tap dance number from him and Sutton, as he has uploaded clip of himself rehearsing a tap dance routine for a supposed finale number? Or maybe that is only one of the options being considered for the revival? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Shipoopi with a tap dance break? | |
| Posted by: jeffef 11:27 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - jo 12:04 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Could be. John and Jeffrey very excited to be coming back to see musicals. Yay | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Say Her Name: Beanie Feldstein nm | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Not so hard. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 12:05 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Regarding book musicals, maybe only one in ten recoup. Specialty shows like Springsteen, American Utopia, Freestyle Love Supreme are responsible for a significant number of musicals recouping. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Last Edit: carolinaguy 12:05 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: carolinaguy 11:56 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think this is going to need help from the critics to really succeed. But I'm wondering if there is a certain similarity to where Streisand was in her career at the time and where what's-her-name is in her career now. Both had done one Broadway show previously (Streisand a supporting role in a minor success; Feldstein a supporting role in a massive hit revival). Streisand had released three or so hit albums and had a profile from that. Feldstein has been in a couple of high-profile films, one in a leading role, and currently has a leading role in a high-profile TV project. She also has a leading role in an Oscar-bait movie that will be released before the revival opens. It's highly doubtful lightning will strike twice with this property, but I find the parallel interesting. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:37 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - carolinaguy 11:56 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think their careers at this point are comparable even slightly... not even slightly. Other than "rising star who is established in some way". And more importantly their vocal ability, as we currently understand it, isn't even in the same world. I don't think Funny Girl is funny or good enough as a play (including lyrics, meaning they aren't that funny) for the show to succeed based on a funny person playing Fanny if they can't wow with the vocals. (I also think the show deflates if the Fanny can only sing but isn't funny). But I can't wait to see it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 03:30 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - carolinaguy 11:56 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| The question mark about Feldstein is her singing. We all knew Streisand had a great voice when she went into Funny Girl but I am not going into this revival thinking Feldstein will dazzle us with her voice. She will probably be funny, though. I do love the score for Funny Girl and don’t really think the book is a disaster. I am hoping there will be an alternate for matinees whom I can see. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: theaterdude 04:46 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - lowwriter 03:30 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| you are 100% correct to worry about her singing. those in theater circles are already saying that she's known as a "mixer" not a belter. that doesn't sound too promising for these songs. and unlike an earlier poster, i thought that the London revival was dreadful. sure, it's nice for fans of the show and score to hear and see it back on stage after so long, but without that Streisand magic, it's pretty flat. and unfortunately, whether it's fair or not, everyone always makes comparisons to Streisand. I don't think the recent teaser trailer did Beanie any favours either. All that said, of course I'd love to be wrong and for it to be fan-tas-tic... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 05:06 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - theaterdude 04:46 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Honestly curious as to what you found "dreadful" about the recent London production. Also curious if you saw it at the MCF, the Savoy or the filmed version? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| How many stars were made from revivals? | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - carolinaguy 11:56 am EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Usually it’s an unknown in a new musical that makes someone a star. I assume it’s tough to establish oneself when compared to the original star like Streisand. I doubt American crime story will make anyone a household name actress. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How many stars were made from revivals? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:47 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: How many stars were made from revivals? - dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| There's no such thing as a household name anymore. There are so many channels and so many streaming services plus TikTok and other social media. Somebody that you think is famous may be completely unknown to random 13 year old in Iowa and someone she idolizes would be unknown to you. There are people that theatergoers will pay to see like yes, Midler and Jackman. But "household" names are a thing of a past. I work at a mental hospital and run a game group. We were playing Wheel of Fortune and the puzzle was "S_NNY AND C_E_" and no one could guess it. I was floored. Most of them (ages 20 to 60) did not know who Cher was. Times have changed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Helen Gallagher in Revivals of PAL JOEY and NO NO NANETTE | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 07:59 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:57 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: How many stars were made from revivals? - dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Gallagher won a Featured Tony for the '52 revival of Pal Joey and got bigger roles, star billing (briefly), more respect, and steady employment after that show. She won the Best Actress Tony for the revival of No, No, Nanette, which led to her getting the lead role in the long running TV daytime drama Ryan's Hope for 13 years and a long, successful career. Although she never became a big star, everyone in the business that I know respects and even reveres her. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: How many stars were made from revivals? - dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Todd McKenney created the role in 1998. The Broadway version with Jackman in 2003 was revised with a different production team. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:57 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| But that was its Broadway premiere, so it wasn’t a revival on our shores, *and* Jackman was already a star when he did the show, so it’s not really a great comparison. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 09:43 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - Singapore/Fling 08:57 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Jackman did (sort of) become a star in the London revival of OKLAHOMA!, which is the project that really brought him to attention and led to him getting cast in the first X-MEN movie, which then brought him the kind of wider attention that actually made him a movie star. Had X-MEN not happened, Jackman would still likely have become a top musical theatre leading man after OKLAHOMA! and might still have been able to break into film or television based on that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Last Edit: jo 12:03 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: jo 12:01 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - JereNYC 09:43 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| What actually happened was that XMen producer Lauren Shuler Donner ( whose then assistant was Kevin Feige of Marvel Studios now) saw and met Hugh in Oklahoma! in London. He wasn't the studio and the director's first choice but when the original Wolverine leading man ( DScott) was injured filming Mission Impossible 2 and could not meet the filming deadline for XMen, LSDonner suggested that they bring in Hugh Jackman. At that time, filming was already taking place for the past few weeks. Donner will produce all his XMen major movies, including the LOGAN valedictory. Hugh trained in dramatic theatre, not musical theatre... so it is hard to tell if he would stay in the theatre as his longtime career...or pursue film as his first career priority. Of late, post-Wolverine, he has been pursuing drama and dark comedy and some film noir cum thriller, even if the first movie he did after his last XMen movie was The Greatest Showman. Ironically, he earned a Grammy for being the principal soloist in the cast recording ( at least 51% of the sung material). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:55 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - jo 12:01 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| If his movie career had not happened, or if the X-MEN films had fizzled, I'm pretty sure that Jackman would still have been a sought after leading man on Broadway, in the West End, and on stages in his native Australia. He'd likely have come to New York with OKLAHOMA! and that revival might then have been better received that it ultimately was (Patrick Wilson was fine, but there was a general sense that the production wasn't as good in New York as we'd heard it was in London). Had his performance been as well-received as it was in London, he would not be lacking work on New York stages. I think it's likely that Jackman would have pursued film roles, as many actors probably do, but, without the serendipity of walking into a franchise at the last moment after another actor's injury, it's unlikely that he would have had any easier a road than any other actor whose "bread and butter" is theatre. For example, I see Aaron Tveit on television now and then and he's terrific, but he's not setting the world on fire in TV the way that he does on Broadway. Maybe he just hasn't found the right role (and it's unquestionable that, for Jackman, Wolverine was the right role), but Tveit will be in demand on Broadway for leading roles, especially now that he has a Tony, probably for the next 20 years. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Posted by: jo 08:37 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - JereNYC 03:55 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| Hugh Jackman is a classic leading man type for movies. Plus he has proven he can handle many genres, especially now that he has retired from his Wolverine role. Drama, dark comedy, thriller, film noir, musicals. He has the looks and the big screen presence to carry a movie. I doubt that he would have remained "undiscovered" for long. His LOGAN director ( who worked with him in LOGAN & Kate&Leopold, two directly opposite genres), James Mangold has described his talent plus "an incredible masculinity" that serves him well when handling leading man roles. His next film recently completed is heavy drama, another film adaptation from recent Oscar winner Froilan Zeller's drama trilogy called The Son. It will pit him against acting heavyweights like recent Oscar winners/nominees Anthony Hopkins, Laura Dern & Vanessa Kirby. On Broadway, I was surprised to read the comments of the late Oscar winner William Goldman about his perception of Hugh Jackman's appeal and talent when he saw him in THE BOY FROM OZ. Goldman said that he saw Brando in Streetcar and Merman in Gypsy, but nothing compared to his reaction when he saw Jackman in Boy From Oz. He must be referring to Hugh's charisma and very strong joy of performing....and triple threat talent. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 04:21 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 04:15 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: re: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - JereNYC 03:55 pm EDT 10/12/21 | |
|
|
|
| They had a hard time bringing in the Laurey who was British Equity at the time for that production, and I think American Equity finally allowed her over because she danced her own ballet, which someone deemed an American wasn't available -- (untrue probably, because Susan Watson years earlier in a production had danced her own Dream Ballet). This was a number of years after the whole Sarah Brightman "Phantom of the Opera" saga, where Andrew Llloyd Webber was threatening to cancel the production if she, his wife at the time, who he had written the role for, was denied to perform it in NY. With a whole bunch of American jobs at stake, she was allowed to open the show and perform for, was it, 6 months? But, Hugh Jackman wasn't a name here at the time of "Oklahoma!" other than the buildup he was getting from reviews over in London, so I don't think he necessarily would have been allowed over by American Equity then. Predicting someone's career trajectory in theater is difficult -- as they said the same thing about Faith Prince after she won her Tony. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sandy Duncan had 2nd lead in revival of "The Boy Friend" | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 07:55 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 07:54 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: Hugh Jackman starred in the REVIVAL of THE BOY FROM OZ - BroadwayTonyJ 07:45 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| which she stole the reviews from Judy Carne of "Laugh-In" fame, and had a top 10 TV show (until interrupted by her eye surgery) then starred famously as "Peter Pan" and in many tv appearances ("Roots', "The Hogan Family"), etc. Also led to movie leads in "The Million Dollar Duck" and "Star-Spangled Girl" -- ok, not as money-making as Wolverine, but she sure was box-office as Peter Pan and has had a long career. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Indirectly speaking... | |
| Posted by: jo 07:26 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: How many stars were made from revivals? - dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Hugh Jackman, an unknown, starred in the London RNT Oklahoma!...but while it brought him an Olivier nomination... the show eventually changed his fate. The XMen producer LSDonnner saw him in the show...and that led to his casting as Wolverine in the first XMen movie. When the first choice could not make the filming deadline, Donner suggested that they bring in Hugh Jackman to take on the lead. He went on to stay with the role for 17 years ...and that led him to other roles (including an Oscar nomination for his role of Valjean in the film adaptation of Les Miserables) ... and back on stage on Broadway. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How many stars were made from revivals? | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 04:51 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: How many stars were made from revivals? - dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Cynthia Erivo in The Color Purple comes to mind. It's an interesting comparison since TCP is not a good musical in and of itself (as Funny Girl is said not to be--I've never seen the book to FG performed on stage so I can't say from first hand experience). Erivo and Doyle elevated TCP into something more and it's a testament to them that Erivo came out of it a star because it also doesn't have great songs---although her big number packs a wallop. Whereas FG does have great songs. Of course the major difference here, to me, is that Erivo has an exceptional and extraordinary voice, in addition to being a fine actor. There is nothing I have heard or seen so far, that is available to the general public, that indicates that Beanie Feldstein has that kind of voice. I would say that people did know going into the original FG that Streisand has a special instrument. And wasn't she stopping ....Wholesale with her number prior to that? I thought Feldstein was wonderful and hilarious in Hello Dolly, and I also cannot remember if that character has a song, or if she sang any solo sections, and if she did cannot remember one thing about how her singing voice sounded. Which is fine. She's very talented. But is it fine for Fanny? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How many stars were made from revivals? | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 06:02 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:01 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: How many stars were made from revivals? - EvFoDr 04:51 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| In Dolly Beanie sings in 3 songs, "Motherhood", "Dancing", and "Elegance", with the others. Minnie has no solos. She sings "Dancing through Life" and "It Takes Two" on YouTube. In an interview with Jimmy Fallon, she claims that she has been singing the score of Funny Girl since (I believe) she was 3 years old. She's obviously talented, funny, knows how to create a character, moves with grace and charm when performing a musical number. She also knows how to come across as very Jewish, like Brice and like Streisand. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How many stars were made from revivals? FP & NL | |
| Posted by: TheHarveyBoy 02:48 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: How many stars were made from revivals? - dramedy 12:29 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Faith Prince and Nathan Lane became stars from GUYS AND DOLLS. Not megastars, though. Jessie Mueller got a good career from ONE A CLEAR DAY... but again not a megastar. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Audra! And more | |
| Posted by: Revned 09:26 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
| In reply to: re: How many stars were made from revivals? FP & NL - TheHarveyBoy 02:48 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| Audra McDonald shot to stardom based on her Broadway debut in the revival of CAROUSEL at Lincoln Center. Kristin Chenoweth's career got a huge boost when she played Sally in YOU'RE A GOOD MAN, CHARLIE BROWN. The first Broadway production, but it was a revival of a popular Off-Broadway musical. Alan Cumming made his name with the revival of CABARET. Other examples might be Debbie Allen (WEST SIDE STORY) and Craig Bierko (THE MUSIC MAN). And though she had several earlier credits and had already done THE LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, I would say that Kelli O'Hara's stature as a Broadway star is based largely on her performances in several musical revivals. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Bebe Neuwirth | |
| Posted by: Hair 10:33 am EDT 10/12/21 | |
| In reply to: Audra! And more - Revned 09:26 pm EDT 10/11/21 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.259431 seconds.