Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: ianx73 02:30 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I liked it a lot. Had no expectations but did wonder why were they doing it. ( Sugar was a flop) but I did think it was going to be color blindy and too politically correct. It's not that at all The show works because everyone involved made some very smart choices and they’re all show biz smart people at the top of their game. Adrianna Hicks as Sugar does nothing to compete with the memory of Monroe (as if anyone could) She makes Sugar Kane her own. She has a couple of good torch songs and looks great but nothing like Monroe. First of all she’s black and it’s not ignored . No one pretends otherwise even though the idea of a black singer in an integrated band in 1933 is kind of unbelievable. But I guess possible The boys also do nothing to imitate Lemon and Curtis. Christian Borle is playing Josephine and is hilarious because he makes her into a very dowdy librarian type with a Baltimore accent (Says he was imitating his 4th grade teacher), Daphne is not hilarious in the way of Lemon but this non-binary black actor, J. Harrison Ghee is extravagantly talented They makes/make is it plural or singular) the character their own in a very surprising way. Their 2nd act number You Coulda Knocked Me Over With a Feather is a show stopper that gives I Am What I am a run or its money. There is no attempt to be slavish to the movie's plot. There’s no St Valentine's Day Massacre, no train berth scene, no Cary Grant impersonation but the plot remains intact in a very clever manner. The famous lines are incorporated into a song or a piece of throwaway dialogue. In other words, it’s not an attempt to musicalize the film but it is its own thing and because Marc Shaiman and Scott Whitman are so talented a team they make it work;( unlike Tootsie which just dragged along trying to hit every point from the movie. plus it had a mediocre boring score) Supporting cast is excellent. NaTashaYvette Williams as a black Sweet Sue is very funny and looks like Bessie Smith and in act 2 Gladys Bentley. (I'm sure intentional) Kevin Del Aquila was sensational as Osgood (and he steals the show, a tall order here). The score is professional and serves the material without any great songs but it moves the show along in just the right way. There’s a lot of tap numbers (maybe too many) as the girls in the band are showgirls too. ( very smart choice) It never drags and moves along at a clip. It’s going to be a huge hit Try to get discount tickets soon cause they won't be around after the show opens We were in dead center orchestra. Amazing seats courtesy of TDF |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: ianx73 01:22 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) - ianx73 02:30 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| In typical ATC missing the forest for the trees mode . I don't care whether or not it recouped or it was in the Best Plays anthology, my point is if you ask 20 theater people below the age of 65 if they have ever heard or know about Sugar, probably 19 would not. Sugar wasn't one for ages and that's what I meant | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:02 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) - ianx73 01:22 pm EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think we all got what you meant. And your post was interesting and worthwhile to read. I am sorry you're annoyed that a part of your post that you intended as a footnote, which you put in parentheses, took off to become the focus of a subthread, but it is normal for tangents to be pursued in chat-group conversations. You yourself say this is normal on ATC. I would say it is not just on ATC. It's pretty much everywhere. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't be annoyed by it. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: FinalPerformance 07:13 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) - ianx73 02:30 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| TDF put you in da Orchestra and da other poster did a $40 rush and also sat in the orchestra.So why was I congratulated on winning the lottery an paid 45 bucks for a third row balcony seat ? Ain't no fair I say. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Au contraire! "Sugar" was a hit. | |
| Posted by: FleetStreetBarber 02:53 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) - ianx73 02:30 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Source: Variety and the annual Best Plays volume after the show had closed. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 07:20 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:16 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Au contraire! "Sugar" was a hit. - FleetStreetBarber 02:53 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Best Plays took its info from Variety. In this case, I think there’s a good chance that the trade rag was wrong. In August 1971, months before the tryout started, Variety said the show was to be capitalized at $750,000. When it closed, Variety wrote that it had made a profit of approximately $100,000 on an investment of $750,000. It seems extremely unlikely given the cost overruns during the hellish tryout — among which overruns was the hiring of a new set designer and the replacement of all the sets — that it didn't end up costing something more like $950,000-$1,1000,000. Or more. Even if John Anthony Gilvey was correct when he wrote in his bio of Gower Champion that Champion ended up paying for the new sets — I am a bit doubtful — there was still the cost of lots of rehearsals. Admittedly, the show did great business during the tryout, probably covering the costs of all the rehearsals as it went through tons of changes, but it did not do great business on Broadway. Several sources (with the later sources, admittedly, probably depending on whatever source said it originally) say that The Happy Time was the first musical to lose more than $1,000,000. When it closed, Variety reported that it had closed at a loss of $375,000 on an investment of $500,000. But this was another show with big cost overruns during the tryout, which Variety seems to have not bothered to estimate or perhaps just didn’t realize. (Neither Merrick nor Champion was likely to tell them.) Whatever the actual loss, the show clearly cost more than $500,000 to open. I admit to being a tad skeptical that it lost more than $1,000,000, but perhaps it did. Presuming Variety in its estimate was correct about the weekly nut and how much it consequently returned, it would have had to have cost at least $1,125,000 to have lost a million. In 1968, this seems unlikely, but I suppose possible. By 1972, with a big, lavish show, a final production cost of over $1,000,000, especially with the nighmarish tryout, seems quite possible. Certainly, the idea that it cost only $750,000 to open is hard to believe. A year later, A Little Night Music, a much smaller show, was capitalized at $650,000. I don’t know what it cost to open, but it had a very smooth tryout, certainly in comparison with the Sugar tryout. And since it ended up playing four cities (two were added after it opened out of town, and the Broadway opening was postponed), there were the costs of moving a big show from city to city. Night Music played one city: Boston. Minimal cost. As mentioned above, I looked up Sugar’s grosses. I didn't check every week of the run, but I checked the grosses every month or so. And since Variety gives you both the previous week's gross and the week before that, I saw about half the grosses. Looking at the grosses did not lessen my skepticism but increased it. If Sugar did pay off, it could only have been because Champion covered the cost of the new sets and perhaps Merrick even prevailed upon him to cover other costs out of town. In which case, can we really it was a hit? If it paid off, it was a subsidized hit, with Champion the donor. Here is another odd thing. Just three weeks before it closed, Variety did its annual summary of the season, in this case of 1972-1973, including the list of successes, failures, holdovers not previously classified, etc. At that time, Sugar was by itself in “still not classified.” To me, there is something a little fishy here. Variety did not know whether it had paid off by May 31, but a month later it had not only paid off but had made a profit of $100,000. The grosses suggest that it probably lost money those last few weeks, even closing week. So something is wrong. It may be that if it hadn’t truly paid off when it closed, revenue from later productions led it to eventually pay off, but I am very skeptical that it had paid off when it closed. Btw, this is something that I have wondered about for a while. That's why I just did all this searching around to see what I could find. It has never made much sense to me that Sugar paid off. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 08:58 am EST 11/21/22 | |
| In reply to: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 07:16 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| The Happy Time, which I saw during its tryout in Los Angeles, had elaborate projections, as its protagonist was a photographer. The projections showed the photographs he was taking. It was the first time I had seen projections like these in a stage show, and I was very impressed. I’m guessing that they cost a bundle to create, though. Bill, in San Diego |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:41 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 07:16 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Suskin in More Opening Nights states that Sugar recouped. He's pretty reliable about shows recouping or not. Or don't you trust him? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 08:02 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BroadwayTonyJ 07:41 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I believe his sources generally are Variety and/or Best Plays. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:24 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Suskin has challenged Variety in the past when he thinks it is wrong. I believe Variety (and, of course, Best Plays) called The Act a hit, which it definitely was not. Suskin writes an entire chapter about this show's financial problems in Second Act Trouble. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:54 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BroadwayTonyJ 08:24 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| First, let me say that nothing I wrote was intended as criticism of Steven Suskin. I will say, however, that theatre books, even some of the best, tend to have errors. Mr. Suskin was probably working with a deadline. Unless someone does not have a contract with a publisher (or unless the author has unusual pull), there is a point at which even the most meticulous historians writing books simply have to say, "I have no more time. If there are any errors, then there are errors." If you look at the bottom of page 23 to the top of page 24 in More Opening Nights on Broadway, you will see that he acknowledges that there is a limit to the financial information he can find: "Where exact figures have been impossible to find or verify, we offer well-educated guesses." That is the best you can do sometimes. And just before that in parentheses: "Showmen have a tendency to exaggerate, expecially when not under oath." I take this as acknowledgment that there may be — even perhaps likely are — some inaccuracies. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: mikem 11:30 am EST 11/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 10:54 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know if it's always been like this, but I think of Variety's primary emphasis as film. I don't know if they would have done their own investigation of finances and may have just taken the word of the producers (which may or may not have been accurate). Although if I were an investor in Sugar and David Merrick was telling the press that there was a $100,000 profit, I'd be wondering where my check was if he was just making it up. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:27 am EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - mikem 11:30 am EST 11/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Although film has been closer to the front than theatre for a long time — maybe since the beginning — I think of theatre as being a nearly equal, or perhaps altogether equal, part of Variety's focus. And Variety has often done its own investigations into theatrical financial matters. Re Sugar: First, I should reiterate that I'm not saying definitively that Sugar did not recoup and return a smallish profit. It's all just very odd. I just saw that the week it started previews, Variety said that it had been capitalized at $750,000 (which, as mentioned in an earlier post, had also been reported the previous August), and had opened at approximately that cost. But what of the completely new sets that replaced the original sets? While there might have been overcall included in the $750,000, would there have been enough to cover completely new sets and fees to a new designer? As also mentioned above, Gilvey wrote that Merrick told Champion he would have to personally pay for the new sets, and Gilvey wrote that Champion did, but I am skeptical. And if Champion initially paid for the sets, might he not have reasonably insisted that he be paid back before any money was delivered to the investors? (There have certainly been times when people who provided overcall money got paid back before the investors.) Or at least that he be paid back once the investors were paid off. (Btw, what I have attributing to Gilvey mostly comes from Howard Kissel’s bio of Merrick, although Kissel doesn’t say that Champion did pay for the new sets. Kissel’s sources were interviews with various people, although neither Merrick nor Champion was among the interviewees so . . .) And was there no overtime for the tremendous amount of rehearsal that went on during the tryout? I just checked the tryout grosses. They were excellent in three of the four cities but not good in Toronto. In fact, someone either in the Merrick office (probably) or from the theatre reported to Variety an inflated gross for the first week, which was corrected a week later. But while the D.C. business must have provided good profits because it was in the Kennedy Center Opera House and grosses were almost twice the weekly nut, in Boston at the Shubert and in Philadelphia at the Forrest, even playing to full or nearly full houses produced a rather lower gross because of their smaller capacities. I doubt that the grosses in those cities, which would have been quite good under normal circumstances, provided enough profit under these circumstances to have contributed significantly to recouping. So I am finding it really hard to believe that it opened at $750,000, unless Champion not only covered the costs of the new sets (and the fees to Robin Wagner and his assistants, who must have been working hard) but did not expect to ever be paid back. Even if I take the $750,000 figure as correct, the Broadway grosses just don't seem like they would have led to recoupment. Not with the $75,000 weekly nut. Re the question of the investors raising a stink: I think that by this time, Merrick did not have many investors. And most of them had been investing with him for a long time. They had made a lot of money thanks to Merrick. They were unlikely to raise a stink. It wasn't like the cases of Irene and Chicago, where the investors threatened legal action. Did they end up taking it in the case of Irene? I can't remember. Chicago did end up recouping, but I think not till after the investors raised a ruckus. The other possibility is that United Artists contributed the bulk of the money or possibly even all of it. That seems possible. They would have been unlikely to want to publicize a loss. It may also be that Variety was relying on its own, possibly wrong estimates or on hearsay, and that neither Merrick nor anyone in his office ever told anyone at Variety that Sugar had recouped and returned a small profit. Variety did its own estimates regularly and perhaps still does. But since just three weeks before saying it had recouped and produced a small profit, Variety had declared it “still not classified,” it may well have been Merrick who gave them that info. Anyway, to me the grosses just do not say recoupment. I could be wrong. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 09:43 am EST 11/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 02:27 am EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I've spent a lot of time with Variety and -- well, let's put it this way: It's not as reliable as we'd like it to be. Your analysis is very good and you're almost certainly correct in your conclusion. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:44 pm EST 11/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 09:43 am EST 11/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, Variety has often been quite sloppy about facts, and this goes back decades. One area is performance totals, which are generally not to be trusted, and previews totals have sometimes been obviously wrong. For that matter, performance totals in most of the places we look are not to be trusted. They're not always wrong, but they are surprisingly often. If we take them as approximations, fine, but when we say something like "That show ran three more performances than this one ran," well, that sort of thing may well be wrong surprisingly often. The trouble is that getting correct totals now for so many shows of the past is essentially impossible. All we can do is make educated guesses. This is something that Suskin discusses. When you go back in time and you look at different contemporary sources, you may well find two, three or even four (maybe more sometimes) different totals, and the least trustworthy often seems to be Best Plays, which is often the source for the totals we find online. Other times the source for what we find online seems to be Theatre World, which used Variety as its source, and therefore seems to have been wrong surprisingly often. I have sometimes done what Suskin mentions doing: go week by week, checking different sources, trying to come up with answers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 11:26 am EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 07:44 pm EST 11/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| So true. I think the best example is "Toys in the Attic". Its listing in Variety in the theater grosses the week it closed contained the typographical error that it had run 556 instead of the correct 456 performances -- which would be obvious if one multiplied the number of weeks given (58) by 8 to know it couldn't have been more than 464. Yet that wrong number was copied over into the very unreliable "Best Plays" -- which was somewhat significant, because that put it on its Long Runners list (500 or more performances), where it didn't deserve to be. The IBDB had 556, also, until someone had them correct it. I know this for a fact, because I was that person. :) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 06:40 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:39 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 11:26 am EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's good that they made the correction. Since Toys opened on a Thursday, it seems to me that it probably isn't 456, as that is a multiple of 8, and it's unlikely that it played four extra holiday performances during its run. Unlikely that it played any extra ones, although the schedule might have been altered some weeks to include a holiday matinee (with another performance canceled), but I think it's a bit unlikely that it ever gave a total of more than eight in a single week. Anyway, it seems to me that 460 is more likely the correct total. 57 full weeks plus four in the opening week. This is what I come across often: Variety and other sources giving totals that are multiples of eight, no matter what day the show opened on. Even with some shows sometimes playing more than eight performances during a holiday week, it's fairly rare that a show that didn't open on a Monday (or Tuesday once the Tuesday through Sunday schedule became more common for shows from the beginning of their runs) will have played a run that's an exact multiple of 8. At one time — through the 1920s and into the early 1930s — it was very common indeed for shows to open on a Monday, but then it became less common. It started to seem smarter not to close out of town on a Saturday and open two days later on Broadway. Almost unimaginable now that this was so common. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 07:10 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 06:39 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, the situation for "Toys in the Attic" involves the strike of June 2-12, 1960. You're correct it only played four performances its first week, but it shut down due to the strike on Thursday, June 2, 1960, so that was a second week of only four performances. So 456 -- 464 minus 8 -- is the correct figure. The more I study Variety the bigger a mess it becomes. For years they considered the week to run from Sunday to Saturday, which is true on the calendar, but it was clear the "theatrical" week was Monday to Sunday, which they didn't wake up to until sometime in the late '60s, I think. By the way -- while I have you -- how do you get show titles in italics? I tried the [i] [/i] thing and it didn't work for me, and I don't see anything to click on for italics or bold or anything. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 08:58 pm EST 11/25/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 07:10 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the specifics on the strike in 1960. I knew there was some sort of strike that had caused all the long-running shows of the 1959-60 season to seem to lose four performances, but hadn't realized that it had actually been 12 performances lost. That's why long-running shows that opened on Mondays that season, like The Sound of Music and Fiorello!, are generally listed with performance totals that you'd expect to see for a Thursday-night opening (1,444 and 796, respectively), and long-runners that opened on Thursdays, like Toys and Bye Bye Birdie, are generally credited with performance totals you'd expect to see for a Monday opening (456, 608). Apparently, everything that was still running in June lost 12 performances. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 11:04 am EST 11/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - keikekaze 08:58 pm EST 11/25/22 | |
|
|
|
| And then there's Gypsy at 702. At 89 weeks with a Thursday opening you'd expect (89 x 8) - 4 = 708 performances. Four are accounted for by that infamous strike, giving us 704. What happened to the other two? Well, very early in the run Merman demanded (and got) the show to close for one day so she could attend her daughter's college graduation in Colorado. The other performance was lost in January 1961 when the same thing happened so she could perform in the new president's inaugural celebrations (even though she was a Republican). I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who thinks about this kind of trivia. And for anyone who might be thinking I need to get a life -- you're absolutely right! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:48 pm EST 11/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 11:04 am EST 11/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Just a reminder that shows missed 12 performances because of the strike, which started on June 2, 1960. (The Tenth Man started the strike on June 1 under circumstances that I don't feel like trying to explain, and it missed 13.) And it was resolved on Sunday, June 12, with performances restarting on the following day. Most Broadway shows played no performances from June 2 till restarting on June 13. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 08:02 pm EST 11/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 07:48 pm EST 11/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| There's something here I must not be explaining very well. That week when everything was totally shut down -- the week of Monday, June 6, 1960 to Sunday, June 12, 1960 -- isn't counted in the total of the number of weeks a show ran. Shows would shut down for even several weeks for various reasons, usually summer layoffs (which Gypsy did shortly after the strike, reopening in mid-August at the Imperial). Those weeks certainly aren't counted in the run of the show, nor is the week it was totally shut down due to the strike -- only the half-week is counted. So not counting the strike week gave Gypsy a run of 89 weeks, not 90. So those missed 8 performances don't have to be subtracted from what the total the show would have run without a strike. That's why I only mentioned four performances missed due to the strike, which were the only four relevant to the discussion. I guess I'm still not explaining this very well. :( |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:14 pm EST 11/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 08:02 pm EST 11/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, I get it now. I think I've just been slow in this situation. My bad, not yours. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 06:14 pm EST 11/26/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 11:04 am EST 11/26/22 | |
|
|
|
| When I was in the 10 to 12 age range and first started getting interested in theater, I was already kind of a math nerd as well. So when I started looking at theater records I noticed and wondered about any discrepancies that appeared from the standard eight-times-X-number-of-weeks, plus (if the opening wasn't on a Monday) some partial opening-week number. I noticed a particular cluster of these discrepancies in the (then recent) 1959-60 season and wondered what had happened. I found out later that there had been a strike that I assumed had cost everybody that ran through the strike four performances. It wasn't until your reply above that I discovered that they'd all missed 12 performances. So thanks for the explanation, and also for the specifics about Merman's misses in Gypsy. And isn't it wonderful how Republicans and Democrats used to co-operate--or at least speak to one another--once upon a time? ; ) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:37 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 07:10 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Hey, Bob. I completely forgot about the strike. Thanks for the reminder! But since performances were suspended starting on Thursday, June 2, 1960, and they resumed on Monday, June 13, wouldn't the correct total be 448? 12 fewer performances than the 460 it would have played if not for the strike? Maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't be the first time. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 08:42 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 08:37 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| No, the week of June 6 to 12 wasn't counted at all, since no performances were played. So there were 56 full weeks (448 performances) and two half weeks (8 more). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:04 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 08:42 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think that I must be coming to the limits of my ability to understand basic arithmetic. :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: Ann 07:22 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - BobPlak 07:10 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Use the angled brackets (like less than / greater than). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 08:46 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - Ann 07:22 pm EST 11/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks so much! My test of it worked. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 07:38 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: I think there is some chance that Variety was wrong - AlanScott 07:16 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| For my money SUGAR is the better show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:33 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) - ianx73 02:30 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with a lot of what you say. I felt they really didn't focus on the Sugar character and she was outshone by the others for that reason. Wondering how it's selling, since it seems we've all seen it on TDF. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) | |
| Posted by: mcurt9 06:33 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some Like It Hot Friday Night (Many Spoilers) - Ann 02:33 pm EST 11/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| we walked up 20 mins before curtain and got Row R center orch for only 40 bucks RUSH! totally worth it! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.457325 seconds.