LOG IN / REGISTER



Threaded Order Chronological Order

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


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


Privacy Policy


Time to render: 0.009430 seconds.