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)

Previous: Since only a quarter of musicals recouped - dramedy 11:10 am EDT 10/11/21
Next: **dramedy this is NOT aimed at you -- haha god what a bad typo (nm) - Chazwaza 09:37 pm EDT 10/12/21

Privacy Policy

Time to render: 0.062663 seconds.