Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Ain't no more made $500K last week | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| clearly black artists buying out the performances helped the show. Some Like It Hot increased a bit but probably still losing money. Kimberly dropped $70K to $500k which is probably also losing money each week. The real loser is 1776 at $212K, roundabout is losing a lot on this show. But Funny Girl hit $2M for the first time. I wish they would record this show for the cinemas. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Ain't no more made $500K last week | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 08:18 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Ain't no more made $500K last week - dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think AINT NO MO’s producership, its ferocious self-marketing game, is quite revolutionary. More exciting than the show’s content, or any Broadway show’s content. Let’s get butts in seats is really what’s needed and wanted. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Ain't no more made $500K last week | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:04 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Ain't no more made $500K last week - dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Pretty soon it's going to be called Isn't Any More. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ain't no more made $500K last week | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 04:22 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Ain't no more made $500K last week - dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Good for FUNNY GIRL. She's a genuine star. Very happy for her. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ain't no more made $500K last week | |
| Posted by: readers12572 02:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Ain't no more made $500K last week - dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| As far as 1776 is concerned I've see the musical twice, that's enough for me. What I would prefer is a non musical version of the the story....did one ever exist that covered the founding of our country? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Ain't no more made $500K last week | |
| Posted by: Zelgo 09:58 am EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Ain't no more made $500K last week - readers12572 02:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. In fact, the book to 1776 is so strong that the songs get in the way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That rewrite should include | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:01 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Ain't no more made $500K last week - readers12572 02:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| President Trump as a founding father since he says he was a better president than Washington and Lincoln. Facts don't matter anymore so why isn't he a founding father? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 02:45 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Ain't no more made $500K last week - dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| But the actual dollar amount went up. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 04:58 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 04:57 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIH actually decreased 17% - Ncassidine 02:45 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| The slight b.o. bump for Hot is likely due to the infusion of $60 “rush” seats and three houses full of TDF seats (I was in one). As noted elsewhere, the show is shockingly undersold this week - tonight and tomorrow afternoon almost nothing sold upstairs - and almost as bad for the big holiday week when most shows typically pick up full price sales. January looks bleak. By any yardstick. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 03:59 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIH actually decreased 17% - Ncassidine 02:45 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| .. to $800,000 - which is net to production of $720,000 - which is likely under running costs when you take into account royalties, and theatre share if any. Same territory which caused Almost Famous (a smaller show) to post closing. (cast of 19 v 26, SLIH bigger band) M |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 04:27 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SLIH actually decreased 17% - NewtonUK 03:59 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I mean, AF has been running (and presumably losing money) for a lot longer. I don't think that's a good comparable. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:33 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SLIH actually decreased 17% - Ncassidine 04:27 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| also, its producers have about as strong a collective pedigree as one can muster, starting with the Shuberts who have a lot on the line, in multiple ways | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| No Star | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 10:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SLIH actually decreased 17% - ryhog 10:33 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Good show, but no recognizable names in it. Makes it a tough sell right now. Bill, in San Diego, who saw SLIH in November |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: ErikInTheCity 06:20 pm EST 12/24/22 | |
| In reply to: No Star - BillEadie 10:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Good point. Happened to be standing near the Shubert box office entrance last week and overheard a gaggle of women who'd stopped to read the cast list say "I've never heard of any of these people." They kept walking. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:13 pm EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: No Star - BillEadie 10:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Responding here partly also to those who replied below. I can't say how much stars would have helped, but I think there are shows that don't need stars and there are those that at least profit from having stars, and this may be one of the latter. I know a lot has changed in 50 years, including that we can watch the movie any time we want, not to mention everything else that has been much discussed on this board, but one thing they did right in 1972 was cast at least one genuine star in a role in which people could imagine and expect that he would be very funny. Robert Morse was not a superstar, but he was a theatre star and had done enough film and television that his name really was well known. I think Christian Borle (in a different role here), talented though he is and funny (even inspiredly so) as he can be, has not broken through in that way. Would a star, the right star, have helped? Probably, but again a lot has changed in 50 years. And as I discussed here recently, I am doubtful that Sugar actually did recoup, even though recoupment was announced. It had a good advance but obviously much less good reviews (after tryout hell) than the current SLIH and it never really took off at the box office. It did well enough to run as long as it did, but there wasn't even really a tour. Still, it did better than SLIH is doing so far. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:28 am EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: No Star - BillEadie 10:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Without getting into whether a star can be important to a new musical (as the post below urges and tbh there is not a huge mass of evidence in either direction), if that were the only impediment, the producers could easily solve the problem by tossing one into the mix. I think the problem (as is the case with most shows right now) is marketing that does not break a sweat. I also think it doesn't help that the audience for this show is not especially broad. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:12 am EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - ryhog 09:28 am EST 12/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the audience could be broad, but agree that the show doesn’t know how to market. I think they thought that “Some Like It Hot” was a recognizable brand name, when the movie isn’t that well known to people below their 50s or 60s, and those who do remember it well are the most likely to be upset by the changes (as we have seen on this board). So they expected the title to sell tickets, and when that didn’t work, they strangely doubled down by selling the show as the movie but different, which still doesn’t tell me what the show is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:45 pm EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - Singapore/Fling 10:12 am EST 12/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with everything you've said except the broad audience idea. I just think selling this show to younger audiences is tough, not just because of the lack of connection but also because, despite the updating, it is still not very relatable to Gen X forward and even some older audiences have probably tired of this. Sorry, but I think this is a niche audience (which is not to say I think the marketers have broken a sweat on this one). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:41 pm EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - ryhog 03:45 pm EST 12/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| It’s a toe-tapping, feel good musical written by a diverse team that captures both the glory of classical musicals with the sensibility of the modern day; if that can’t be seen as having a broad audience, I think we’re seeing the demise of an entire school of musical theater… which maybe we are. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: writerkev 06:20 am EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: No Star - BillEadie 10:53 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| This excuse just doesn’t fly. There are no recognizable names in almost any of the musicals doing good business. It’s actually rare for a new musical to have recognizable names. This idea that it’s common is being recognized as fact lately, and I’m unclear where it’s coming from. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:07 am EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - writerkev 06:20 am EST 12/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| There may not be stars in many of the current hit musicals, but there are recognizable names of some sort. This season, we have the Neil Diamon show doing well, where Diamon is the name, and we have & Juliet, where people know a lot of the songs and there is the familiarity of Romeo & Juliet. So I think the crux of the argument stands. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 07:14 am EST 12/22/22 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 07:08 am EST 12/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - Singapore/Fling 10:07 am EST 12/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well if we’re stretching the word “star” to mean “recognizable material” (which is weird, but I get your point), I guess the implication is that a show like “Six” is doing well based on the strength of people’s attachment to Henry VIII’s wives or something. But if that’s the case, SLIH has a “star” in that it’s based on a very popular (very old) movie. Just seems like it’s not one that people care about. Perhaps there’s some truth to the notion that many are—rightly or wrongly—perceiving it as yet one more “man in a dress” comedies and simply not worthy of making it to the top of the list. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 05:00 pm EST 12/22/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - writerkev 07:08 am EST 12/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| I was focusing on the words “a name”, rather than Star. I certainly think that the Henry VIII story is a hook for “Six” and contributes to why it’s done so well, but also, I don’t think we’re talking about hard and fast rules. And while I really enjoy the film, I don’t think Some Like It Hot is a cultural touchstone or “very popular” in a meaningful way. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:22 am EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - Singapore/Fling 05:00 pm EST 12/22/22 | |
|
|
|
| Wilder's Some Like It Hot has been universally acclaimed as being one of the greatest films and one of the greatest comedies of all time. The National Film Registry selected it for preservation "for being culturally, historically, or asthetically significant." This sentiment has been confirmed by the following organizations: Library of Congress, Time Out Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, AFI, British Film Institute, Sight & Sound, The Guardian, New York Times, Cahiers du cinema, and countless others. It was and continues to be wildly popular with movie going audiences. It was produced at a cost of $2.9 million and by 2020 had grossed $83.2 million internationally. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:51 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - BroadwayTonyJ 10:22 am EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think we're in agreement that it's an incredible film, and that people who love movies hold it in high regard. It's a mid-century classic up there with the works of Fellini and Truffaut. I just don't think it has much impact outside of that cinephiles. And I don't know how we can possibly talk about a movie continuing to be wildly popular with movie going audiences when it hasn't played in a movie theater in decades and it does not appear to be charting on streaming services. What I think we can say is that it's not a movie that tends to be quoted in other movies nor referenced a great deal in pop culture, at least to my knowledge. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:54 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - Singapore/Fling 02:51 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| You have no idea what you are talking about. It has definitely played in various revival houses in the Chicago area and even in libraries over the last decade. It's shown regularly on TCM and is available on both DVD and Blu-Ray. You can stream it on Prime Video. There are two Broadway musicals that are based on it. The Styne-Merrill Sugar and now the Shaiman-Wittman version. What other classic film comedy has inspired two separate Broadway musicals by teams that previously won the Best Musical Tony? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 12:01 am EST 12/24/22 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:55 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - BroadwayTonyJ 06:54 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| You’re proving my point, as much as you wish you weren’t. Revival houses, library screenings, even the bulk of TCM are aimed towards cinephiles and people who are old enough to have a familiarity/nostalgia for the film from when it debuted. Some Like It Hot is in the same company as Le Circle Rouge or Chimes at Midnight, which can play for a few weeks on a single screen, but I don’t know how that squares with the idea of being “wildly popular”. And I didn’t claim the film was forgotten, so citing DVD and the ability to rent the film digitally only tells us, again, what we already agree on: it’s a great movie that is held in high esteem by certain people. But also… I don’t get the sense that certain peels on this board are aware that “Sugar” Is not a well-known musical outside of this board. There’s a pop culture myopia on this site that reinforces itself in odd ways, and I think this movie and musical are an example of that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:52 am EST 12/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - Singapore/Fling 11:55 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I should have mentioned that Fathom Events presented Some Like It Hot at select cinemas around the Chicago area in 2017. When I saw it with my partner, the crowd definitely included some young people. The theaters selected were not revival houses, but popular local cinemas. Just saying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: comedywest 09:43 am EST 12/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - BroadwayTonyJ 08:52 am EST 12/24/22 | |
|
|
|
| and TCM is hardly just for cinephiles...it's just where old movies are telecast. Turner bought up most of those rights ages ago. I happen to love smart comedies, but good luck finding them anywhere in the theaters these days. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 07:37 am EST 12/24/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - Singapore/Fling 11:55 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I guess we travel in different theatre circles. Believe it or not, I do have young nieces and nephews who are teens and 20-somethings and I talk to them frequently about films and theatre. What exactly is your idea of a film comedy that is a cultural touchstone or is "wildly popular"? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film | |
| Posted by: comedywest 03:30 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - Singapore/Fling 02:51 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| It does play in revival houses, like Film Forum in New Yorl. I am not sure what films play in theaters after a their initial run anymore. and it is on TCM at least six times a year--one every couple of months--plus on demand for a couple of weeks after each run. I doubt many current movies will be in theaters or on TV much in a few years- Quoted in other movies? Like White Chicks--god help us? Some Like It Hot doesn't really quote other movies, even Lubitsch movies, which Wilder loved. That is not a standard I would go by. People who see the movie for the first time, laugh. When I saw the musical, people cheered more than they laughed. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The 2022 Sight and Sound ranking | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 01:43 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:42 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - BroadwayTonyJ 10:22 am EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| In support of what you write, I will add that in the most recent (2022) Sight and Sound poll of international film critics, it ranked 38 on the list of 100 greatest films of all time. It has been much noted that this year's poll was full of surprises, with a bigger, younger and more diverse group of critics being polled, with some very surprising results. A number of old favorites were ranked lower than in earlier polls and a good number disappeared altogether. So the fact that Some Like It Hot is there at 38 speaks to . . . well, it speaks to a lot. | |
| Link | 2022 Sight and Sound poll |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film--Thank you | |
| Posted by: comedywest 10:30 am EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film - BroadwayTonyJ 10:22 am EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am so glad you said this. It is well-written and wonderfully constructed, and of course well-cast and -acted. People who don't know it are really missing out. I am also guessing that $83.9 doesn't factor in for inflation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film--Thank you | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:46 am EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film--Thank you - comedywest 10:30 am EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| Wikipedia lists the gross for the original release in 1959 as $49 million, which is an astounding profit for that time. I remember going to the movies as an 11-year old kid with my friends to see it (even though the nuns and priests at my Catholic grade school told us we'd burn in hell if we did). I'm guessing that the $83.2 million figure in 2020 includes all the revenue from TV showings, video sales, theatrical re-issues, and stuff like that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film--Thank you | |
| Posted by: comedywest 12:03 pm EST 12/23/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SOME LIKE IT HOT -- the '59 Film--Thank you - BroadwayTonyJ 10:46 am EST 12/23/22 | |
|
|
|
| OK...$83.2 is still pretty darn good. I went to Catholic school too. Hell never sounded so good. I just saw it again a month ago. Every time I see it, i notice something new. Like this time a little thing: When Joe is to meet Sugar at the dock, she is ahead of him and waiting, so he has to take a bike. At the end, when his is running from the mob, he is at the dock first and she takes a bike. There are plenty of other callbacks, like the Hupmobiie references. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: No Star | |
| Posted by: raydan 11:29 pm EST 12/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: No Star - Singapore/Fling 10:07 am EST 12/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| The show looks great from what I’ve seen here and there but… Could we be ‘dragged out’ on Broadway at this point, famous names in the lead or not? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:36 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: SLIH actually decreased 17% - ryhog 10:33 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| And the show actually got good reviews and is a contender for end-of-season awards, which will likely encourage them to tough it out. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| since capacity includes comps | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:02 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIH actually decreased 17% - Ncassidine 02:45 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| i don't consider it a good metric. And the higher number capacity was opening week which would include a lot of comps for critics and fill the house. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH actually decreased 17% | |
| Posted by: JAllenC3 02:48 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIH actually decreased 17% - Ncassidine 02:45 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well given all the other metrics Dramedy was using were dollars and they never referenced capacity at all, I don't think it's a stretch to assume people knew when they said SLIH was up a bit they were talking gross | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Wrong | |
| Posted by: NoPeopleLike 02:37 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Ain't no more made $500K last week - dramedy 02:32 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| All of this is totally wrong. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| maybe you should back up your accusation. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:10 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Wrong - NoPeopleLike 02:37 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| My statements are based on facts of grosses. I state "probably" where i'm making a guess as to weekly nuts since those aren't published. But Hot is probably over $800K and i assume Kimberly would have to be over $500K. As for Ain't No Mo, selling out a performance at full price (which is what I assume the Smith's and Perry did) probably brings in $150-200K for each performance. I don't know when those performances occurred but I assume it was last week since the show was going to close last sunday and $150K from each would raise the grosses from $164K the previous week to $500K last week. There was probably some sales due to the publicity of Smith/Perry giving attention to the show. | |
| Link | https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses.cfm |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Wrong | |
| Posted by: JAllenC3 02:45 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Wrong - NoPeopleLike 02:37 pm EST 12/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| No it's not unless you object to rounding (ie Ain't No Mo bringing in $499,303.00 and calling it $500k) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.381862 seconds.