Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Only 7 performances but Hot fell to $550k at 52% capacity. That includes comps. Yikes. Next week is probably the only week it might make money this year…or season. Ain’t no mo jumped to $765k near capacity. That is a 50% increase from last week. I doubt that is celebrity buyout of performances at this point but actual ticket sales. Strange loop ($283k) and 1776 ($130k) can’t close quick enough for producers. Take me out at $224k for 6 performances. Clearly it was a mistake to commercial move of the tony winning revival. |
|
| Link | https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses.cfm |
| reply to this message | |
| Could SLIH Still Tour? | |
| Posted by: Glamourboy 07:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| If the show is a flop on broadway, could the show still tour? Word of mouth has been so positive...I think it would do well on a tour. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Could SLIH Still Tour? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 10:01 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Could SLIH Still Tour? - Glamourboy 07:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Can you tell me how you know for a fact that "word of mouth has been so positive"? You obviously have not spoken to a number of folk that I know. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could SLIH Still Tour? | |
| Posted by: Glamourboy 02:19 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Could SLIH Still Tour? - seenenuf 10:01 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I've read many people on this board raving about it. My niece who lives in upstate NY is coming down to see it with about 10 friends, they've heard good things. A family that I know here in LA are in NY doing a theater trip and the show was their MUST see based on hearing that it was good. And you are right...I clearly have not spoken to ANY of the folk that you know. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Could SLIH Still Tour? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:11 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Could SLIH Still Tour? - Glamourboy 07:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| If anyone can whistle, anything can tour, but if the WOM has been so positive, where are the audiences? To me, if it can't muster an audience on Broadway, why would we expect one on tour? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Tours are different because of locked in audience for subscription base | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 12:24 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:23 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Could SLIH Still Tour? - ryhog 09:11 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| i think it is a splashy logo and somewhat familiar title that can sell a show for 1-4 week run in subscription houses. There are many flops that tour like Pretty Woman, Tootsie, Oklahoma, Prom, Jagged Little Pill & Beetlejuice that were probably welcome additions to subscription houses. Does it make money on the road? only the producers know. But there is really no reason that it won't tour. I think Almost Famous will also for similar reasons. KimberlyA and Strange Loop are lot harder to tour because of the smallness of the show and subject matter doesn't really appeal to the masses. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. Cross Dressing | |
| Posted by: Musicals54 09:41 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Although it may be the best of the bunch, cross dressing may not have the humor it once had as bathroom bills and bigotry are increasing. The right is doing great harm. Yes SLIH may be better than Tootsie or Doubtfire, but both of the flopped. Tootsie got good reviews but closed before the pandemic. SLIH got better reviews but is doing worse business. Shows give 7 perfs the week before Xmas so the can give 9 Xmas to New Year’s Eve. Sugar played when 500 + perfs was a long run. Larger population now and other factors cause hits to runlonger. Now 1000+ perfs are a long run. In this time of right wing hyteria, cross dressing is not fun or funny |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. Cross Dressing | |
| Posted by: NeoAdamite 07:59 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. Cross Dressing - Musicals54 09:41 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Nobody has ever bought a ticket thinking "men in dresses are funny, let's see that." The premise in SLIH is the same as SISTER ACT - "escape danger via an outlandish disguise" - and the show flies or fails on what the writers build on top of that well-understood premise. Cross-dressing is inherently interesting because it implicitly critiques social conventions of various kinds. At the moment it's under intermittent attack (from all directions) by those who confuse how we enact gender with how we inhabit it. It's stupid, but it will pass. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. Cross Dressing | |
| Posted by: Broadwaywannabe 09:35 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. Cross Dressing - NeoAdamite 07:59 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Dame Edna | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| ... lets give a thought to a middling musical created by some of Broadway's leading lights: SUGAR based of course on the same film, SOME LIKE IT HOT, opened on April 1972, and ran 505 performances. It had a Jule Styne/Bob Merrill score, and a book by Peter Stone, and direction & choreography by Gower Champion. Sets by Robert Wagner, orchestrations by Philip J Lang. And stars. Robert Morse and Tony Roberts. And Cyril Ritchard. And a world class producer. Unlike SOME LIKE IT HOT, which got mostly very positive reviews, including the TIMES, SUGAR was lambasted by Clive Barnes. "If you go expecting the worst you certainly won't be disappointed." But star power, and Morse and Roberst and Ritchards fabulous performances kept the show open well over a year. Then it toured. SOME LIKE IT HOT has none of the elements that SUGAR had, although it may be a better show (I'm seeing it in a couple of weeks). But it looks doubtful that it will eke out a run anywhere as long as that of SUGAR. I would imagine the producers will try to keep it open until at least Tony nominations time ... but at the moment I dont think many Tonys are in this show's future. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| " It had a Jule Styne/Bob Merrill score, and a book by Peter Stone, and direction & choreography by Gower Champion. Sets by Robert Wagner, orchestrations by Philip J Lang. And stars. Robert Morse and Tony Roberts. And Cyril Ritchard. And a world class producer." Because of the pedigree of the talent involved, expectations were very high for SUGAR, and many (not all) reviewers were disappointed. But SUGAR was great fun. I love the score, and the OBC CD is terrific. Penniless Bums, The The Beauty That Drives Men Mad, Sun On My Face, Hey Why Not, What Do You Give To The Man Who Has Everything, It's Always Love, When You Meet A Man In Chicago and the title song are all first-rate Style. It is still one of my most frequently played CDs. The musical direction and vocal arrangements by Elliot Lawrence are excellent. Morse and Roberts were hilarious, and Elaine Joyce was darling. Cyril Ritchard's two numbers have not aged well, but that character is, for my taste, about the only improvement in the new musical adaptation, which is entertaining, but completely generic. SUGAR was vaudeville. And forgive me, but SLIH lacks lust, which was a driving comic force in the movie and in SUGAR, which was revived, retitled (SOME LIKE IT HOT) and revised in London, starring Tommy Steele. I didn't see it, and the CD is not as good as SUGAR, but still worthwhile. Some SUGAR songs are cut, and other Bob Merrill songs have been added (Romance, Magic Nights and Dirty Old Men from "Breakfast at Tiffany's). I wish SLIH well, and who knows why audiences don't seem interested, but I think SUGAR is a much better musical, and I'm surprised that it's so consistently dissed here. The real question is why SUGAR wasn't a bigger hit, although it ran a respectable 500ish performances. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Jack1009 03:44 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Exactly my feelings. Great CD. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| More about SUGAR | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 10:07 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:06 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw a fantastic production of Sugar (retitled Some Like It Hot) on 9/5/1999 at a Chicago area theater (in Munster, IN). The estimable Katrina Lenk starred as Sugar Kane and was able to evoke Marilyn Monroe without doing an actual imitation. Other top notch Chicago veterans like Felicia Fields (Sweet Sue), James Harms (Bienstock), Marc Robin (Spats), and Dale Benson (Osgood) rounded out the terrific cast. This production was during the tenure of Michael Weber as Artistic Director of the Theatre at the Center. I agree that the score of Sugar is highly enjoyable, although not regarded as one of Styne's greatest scores. Unfortunately, Sugar seems to be forever tarnished by the mediocre 1992 London revisal and the disgraceful 2002 tour with Tony Curtis as Osgood. I also love the OBC recording and listen to it often. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: Ann 09:38 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:36 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - toros 09:28 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| There was also a U.S. tour of the renamed Sugar/Some Like It Hot with a book by Peter Stone in the early 2000s, with Tony Curtis. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: toros 12:03 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 09:36 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| And, if you can believe it, I saw it in Italian in Rome about 10 years ago. They cut a lot of songs and added Marilyn Monroe songs (Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend, My Heart Belongs To Daddy, A Little Girl From Little Rock, etc.) It was called "Sugar Il Musical: A Cualcuno Piace Caldo." It was very sexy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 04:20 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| What do you mean it has none of the elements of the (mostly forgotten) Sugar? Tony-winning songwriters, check. Tony-winning book writer, check. Tony-winning director and choreographer, check. Tony-winning lead actor, check. The main difference between the two - aside from the critical response - is that Sugar has stars at a time when stars could be theater famous. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Singapore/Fling 04:20 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I mentioned that about the stars recently. Robert Morse had done a good deal of film and television work, but I think only the film of How to Succeed had been successful at the box office (and that probably only modestly). But he was a theatre star, and the prospect of him in the role, combined with Gower Champion, David Merrick and Jule Styne brought in a big advance, much of which was theatre parties. The big advance helped it weather the reviews. It never really did great business, except during the tryout. And Cyril Ritchard added another name. Neither Morse nor Ritchard on his own would have helped a show's advance sales all that much, but the combination of all these people did. Can we safely say that Gower Champion, Merrick and Styne all had a lot more name recognition (Champion and Merrick particularly) than their counterparts on SLIH? Or am I too out of the loop in thinking that? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: raydan 09:37 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Robert Morse was also in a few films, TV variety shows and more importantly, a TV star having his own series with EJ Peaker in That’s Life! He was already ‘known’ having been in people’s homes via TV and in movie theaters. Not one of the 3 aforementioned leads in women’s attire on Broadway have had that much exposure. Plus he had a very likable, marketable personality on both sizes of screens. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:34 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - raydan 09:37 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| That was why I wrote, "Robert Morse had done a good deal of film and television work," and mentioned the How to Succeed film. I didn't specifically mention That's Life!, partly because it was not a hit, but still it did reach millions during its single season so it certainly helped his name to remain out there for a whole television season. Borle was prominent on Smash, which might be considered comparable to That's Life! No question, however, that Morse had far more name recognition than Borle, which is what I was saying. Even people who had missed him in his several flop films might have seen them on television, and he did star in one fairly successful film. At least I think the How to Succeed film was fairly successful. It had possibly been on television between its release and Sugar, although a quick search did not bring confirmation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: dbdbdb 11:06 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 11:01 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 10:34 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| As noted below, according to Wikipedia, the film of How to Succeed lost money, bringing in $2.9 million on a budget of $3.5 million. I suppose it might have made up the difference over the years, but not a stellar performance at the box office. Other films with Morse, like A Guide to the Married Man and Where Were You When the Lights Weren't Out were successful. Even The Boatniks looks like it made money. By the time of Sugar, however, his time in features was basically over and he was reduced to making occasional guest shots on shows like Love, American Style. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 11:01 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I forgot about A Guide for the Married Man and didn't check for a list of all his movies, and I don't remember ever before hearing of The Boatniks, although I must have. Thanks for looking into this more thoroughly. I generally don't trust stuff on Wikipedia as I have found so many errors there. I can't tell you that the numbers on Wikipedia are wrong, but what I feel I can reasonably say, having looked at the Wiki pages and at what Variety reported as the gross for each of the films, is that the fact that Wiki uses different sources for different films when reporting this info makes it hard to judge the accuracy. For instance, Wiki uses Variety for both How to Succeed and The Boatniks, and the figures there are the figures reported in Variety. But the figure for A Guide for the Married Man comes from a book on 20th Century Fox, and it is rather more than the Variety figure. Wiki reports $7,355,000, while Variety reported $5,000,000. By January 7, 1976, Variety reported that it was up to $5,500,000, still well under what Wiki reports. Either way it did bring in a lot more (for the time period) than How to Succeed, but which is correct? With Where Were You When the Lights Went Out?, the figure in Variety was $3,500,000, while Wiki, using a website called The Numbers, reports a much higher $7,988,000. That higher figure is also not reported in the Variety of January 7, 1976, which listed all films that had grossed $4,000,000 or more. I don’t see Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? on this list, although I might be missing it as it is a very long list. But it is definitely not in the area of films that made between $7,500,000 and $8,000.000. It’s possible that the figures not from Variety are, in fact, the correct ones or at least closer to correct, but then is it possible that the Variety number for How to Succeed is also too low? In any case, it would seem that How to Succeed did least well of these pictures, which is too bad. Maybe it was too long after the show. Perhaps it would have done better a year or two earlier. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 05:27 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 02:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the figures listed on Wikipedia may reflect long-term sales, such as video, while the Variety figures may not be so up-to-date. That's just a guess. It would explain the startingly high figure (for 1971) for The Boatniks, which, being a Disney film, was possibly subject to multiple re-releases and DVDs, etc. Anyway, I think it's fair to say that, by the time of Sugar, Morse's star had faded considerably. He was, I'm sure, still a name to contend with on Broadway, however. And, to your earlier point, the combination of him, Champion, Merrick, plus Ritchard, and even Roberts -- not to mention the Billy Wilder association -- surely explains Sugar's healthy presale. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 05:27 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, if we trust Variety, the figure for The Boatniks is low. The 1977 reissue, mentioned on Wiki but the additional grosses were not included, led to a rental figure of $8.9 million by January 1978, after it had been listed in January 1976 at $6.6 million. I'm not sure the explanation is long-term sales for the differences where the source on Wiki is not Variety. I mean, do we think that Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? has been that popular on video? Perhaps it was reissued and did well, although I don't recall a reissue. As I recall, it turned up on television pretty quickly. I do think that the Variety figures are often on the low side. If my understanding is correct, and I’m not sure it is, this is because it represents the rentals to the studio or distributor rather than the actual gross. This is why comparing numbers found in different places can be misleading because some sources will give the total gross and some will give the rentals. Anyway, after searching around for some explanation, I think that may explain the big discrepancy on Lights. But then I wonder how Variety gets those figures. Are the studios really that forthcoming with them? And have they been that forthcoming for all this time? As opposed to Broadway, where, at least until the 2009 change, we have a better idea of grosses if we look back at Variety (although even there we know that at times figures have been reported that were higher than the truth, but that seems, surprisingly, to have been quite rare). As for The Boatniks, I guess Disney films just tended to do well, but that one seems to have done better than some others that are now better-known titles. If anything, its relative success — not a smash but a solid performer — on its first release suggests that Morse's name may have had pretty good currency at the time of Sugar. In 1971, he also showed up on Night Gallery, Alias Smith and Jones, and Love, American Style so I think his name meant something in 1972, although hardly a superstar. Am I the only one who has no memory at all of The Boatniks? Wotta title. I fear this is a confusing post, and I should probably give it a rewrite before posting, but this has been enough for one day. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:10 am EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 07:58 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have no memory of The Boatniks. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: dbdbdb 12:37 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 02:10 am EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, it was a Disney picture, and, depending on one's age, it might have slipped by one's notice altogether. I was only dimly aware of it myself, having cycled out of Disney pictures at that point. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:16 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - dbdbdb 12:37 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Right. I saw a number of good films that year, but definitely not Disney fare. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:04 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ann 02:16 pm EST 12/30/22 | |
|
|
|
| Although I was not seeing Disney fare at that time — not even Bedknobs and Broomsticks — I feel like I at least remember hearing about the others, seeing ads. I must have seen ads for this one, I probably saw reviews in at least one paper, even if I didn't read any, but the title seems totally unfamiliar, which is odd because it clearly did pretty well at the box office. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 09:32 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:26 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 10:34 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| According to Wikipedia, A Guide for the Married Man (which co-starred Morse) was a commercial success, but sadly the film version of How to Succeed was not. However, the same source shows that Robert Morse made at least 15 appearances on network TV from 1954 through 1971 so he certainly was well known to millions of Americans before starring in Sugar, and that doesn't include his performance with the How to Succeed cast on The Ed Sullivan Show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 02:17 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - BroadwayTonyJ 09:26 am EST 12/29/22 | |
|
|
|
| Sad about How to Succeed. That's Life! was broadcast for 26 episodes, according to imdb, and Morse was on every one. So that ups his number of television appearances during that time. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:50 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think Gower and Champion were possibly bigger names, but for the same reason as Morse, because theater had more cultural cache. It’s hard to think of someone who should be more well-known today than Casey Nicholaw, who has consistently turned out hit shows for over a decade and often has three shows running on Broadway simultaneously. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:13 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Singapore/Fling 06:50 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think in the Broadway world, Casey is extremely well known. Very few... no, sorry, zero Broadway directors get to be "known" if they don't make a film that is a hit and/or an awards buzz movie. But I'd also say that while his work is usually, but not always, very good... he is one of the most overrated and overused directors and choreographers working today. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:11 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Singapore/Fling 06:50 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think Champion and Merrick were vastly bigger names. Champion, of course, had a career as a performer and he was famous for that before he became a regular presence on Broadway as a director-choreographer. (Phrased that carefully.) And Merrick was a self-promotion genius. Nicholaw has turned out a few misses so he hasn't been quite consistently turning out hits, but a great track record, no question. Anyway, I think we can all agree that things have changed in several ways. And even if Sugar paid off, as Variety reported it did but I have doubts, it was a very mild hit that went through tryout hell. Maybe this material just shouldn't be a musical, even if well-done. I'll use this post to mention that do still have group sales, and even group-sales presentations, as there used to be presentations for the theatre-party ladies, so perhaps that is one thing that has not changed as much as I suggested in other posts. This brings up the question of whether we are in a period of super-low group-sales attendance or if SLIH does not appeal to the group-sales people. I wonder if SLIH didn't do a group-sales presentation, but I would be surprised if it didn't. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 04:51 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - AlanScott 04:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| The market for shows in 1961 was light years different than it is now, during a pandemic when shows cost millions and millions to produce. It's apples and oranges, no matter who wrote it or produced it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:20 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Ncassidine 04:51 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. For one thing, incoming shows don't try to book theatre parties as they used to do. Still, some shows come in nowadays with a big advance and some shows don't. Some things can still cause advance interest. Anyway, I was replying to Singapore/Fling, who was replying to NewtonUK, so that's how those statements and questions came up. No question that things have changed since 1972. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sugar did not tour | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 04:23 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:10 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| It's easy to get confused because it was produced in 1974 by the Civic Light Operas of Los Angeles and San Francisco for a run in each city, but that was it. It seems to have been pretty much a recreation of the original production, although with some adjustments to the song list, but Cyril Ritchard was credited as director, and Denny Martin Fiinn (a swing in the original) with the choreography. I am guessing Champion was credited as being the original director and choreographer but I'm not sure. David Merrick had nothing to do with this production. Over the several years after the Broadway run it showed up at a few — just a few — of the big regionals that did mostly or entirely musicals. These included a Kenley production with Mickey Rooney, Ken Berry and Elaine Joyce, |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar did not tour | |
| Posted by: BobPlak 07:25 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar did not tour - AlanScott 04:10 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I saw Morse in Sugar at one of those big regionals, and it was unimpressive. The big problems with the show were summed up perfectly by Dan Sullivan in his review in the Los Angeles Times of Sept. 5, 1974: "... this is nowhere near as good a musical as 'Some Like It Hot' was a movie. Jule Styne's tunes and Bob Merrill's lyrics are dreadful, lacking charm, wit, style, texture - lacking everything, in fact, but insistence. (Kert's 'People in My Life' is the most promising song, but it turns into melted ice cream after after about eight bars). "Peter Stone's book is larded with jokes like: 'Do you play the market?' 'No, the ukulele,' which are not charming-because-dumb, but just dumb. "Not only is 'Sugar' labored, it is sometimes downright unpleasant, as when Gordon and a pack of arthritic crocks chug about the stage after a bevy of bathing beauties cackling that even 'naughty old men need love.' ... "But 'Some Like It Hot' was a personal pictture and 'Sugar' is an assembly-line, least-common-denominator musical, and that's the difference. "See it, by all means, for Morse and the other good people in it ... But don't expect a whole lot. When they are in it only for the sugar, this is usually the kind of show that comes out." As Ethel Merman said to columnist Earl Wilson after the Broadway opening: You'd think they could have come up with one good song! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar did not tour | |
| Last Edit: HelenHaze 04:31 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: HelenHaze 04:29 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar did not tour - AlanScott 04:10 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Saw this production of Sugar in San Francisco and it was a very faithful recreation of the Broadway production which I saw several times. Robert Morse and Larry Kert. Gale Gordon played the Osgood part and he was terrific including his trademark cartwheel. I think Leland Palmer played Sugar but my memory might be faulty on that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar did not tour | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:36 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar did not tour - HelenHaze 04:29 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| At the link, there is some info on the production. Cyril Ritchard was originally to have played Osgood, but he suffered a heart attack a day or two before the first preview, and Gordon replaced him. |
|
| Link | Sugar 1974 CLO info |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: And then there was SUGAR ... | |
| Last Edit: Jack1009 12:48 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: Jack1009 12:47 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I have seen both the original Sugar and SLIT. I'll take Sugar any day. Great score and funnier. No attempt to 'say' something and make a social point. Just fun. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SLIT? | |
| Last Edit: Ann 01:01 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: Ann 12:58 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - Jack1009 12:47 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why are the changes in Some Like It Hot "social points"? Aren't they just things people couldn't talk about in the past, and now we (hopefully) can? I've seen both as well. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| SLIH | |
| Posted by: comedywest 01:55 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIT? - Ann 12:58 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think the problem is not that people couldn't talk about in the past, and now we (hopefully) can, but that the show is set in 1933 and they wouldn't talk about them back then, and they didn't in the movie. In the past, when they adapted a work as a musical, the creators renamed it to show it was rethought (My Fair Lady, She Loves Me, Oklahoma, etc.). When you take the title of the movie, people expect the movie with music. (It's the old Jerome Robbins question: "What is this show about?" In this case it's about the movie.) The movie SLIH has I think one warm-and-fuzzy moment (when Josephine kisses Sugar), and even that is undercut with Josephine bolting. That said, I think they should have stuck to the farce and called it Some Like It Hot...or gone for the more social points/warm and fuzzy (whatever you want to call them) and named it something else, Or done something completely original. For what it is worth, I have no problem with woke musicals--The Prom was pretty woke, and it was the best musical of that season (ahead of Beetlejuice and way ahead of Tootsie). But it was an original musical set in the present, and it also didn't take its wokeness too seriously. Finally, drag is only funny when straight men are uncomfortable about it and put in situations where they have to be in drag. (La Cage's funniest moments are when Dindon is forced t dress up.) A lot of the movie's humor is lost here with Daphne acceptance of being non-binary. It is not bad in and of itself, but it is not the movie. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: SLIH | |
| Posted by: Ann 02:29 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: SLIH - comedywest 01:55 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I definitely don't think the problem is that it's got the film title but it's not the film. And I also don't think unfortunately men in dresses is funny. But there are probably a lot of things contributing to this failure. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. | |
| Last Edit: ShowGoer 09:13 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 08:55 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: And then there was SUGAR ... - NewtonUK 07:47 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| The thought-experiment, and it’s a fascinating one, is what if Some Like It Hot had opened in 2019 (or, possibly, 2024 or 2025, a few years from now)? Is it not doing well because of something inherent in the property itself - either the title doesn’t excite people (or has little name recognition nowadays), the subject matter seems stale, or mode’s the pity, is just a matter of poor timing coming after the superficially similar Tootsie and Mrs Doubtfire - in which case one could argue the show wouldn’t have done well no matter what…. … or is it just a misfortune of being the first new big splashy tired-businessman’s-type musical to open since the pandemic began? Some have questioned whether the show in fact actually has good word of mouth- but in addition to the critics-aggregate website didtheylikeit ranking it with 9 raves and only one negative review, the audience aggregator Show-Score has it at 85% (closing in on 400 reviews) – which is currently higher than the last two Best Musical winners, “Moulin Rouge” and “A Strange Loop”. For my money, while not quite as good as “The Prom” (which was still doing better than this), it’s more consistent in quality and tone, more targeted for a wider general audience, and just overall superior, to most of the last few Casey Nicholaw shows, “Mean Girls”, “Aladdin”, and even “Something Rotten”. Five years ago I can’t help but think these reviews would have made the show a sell-out for at least a few months on New York theatergoers and Broadway sales groups alone… (and yes, Music Man did well a year ago, but a large number of its sales predated 2020, and Leopoldstadt sold well opening in early fall, but that was before people started worrying about a ‘tripledemic’). So as every major fall and holiday film that isn’t an action or horror movie disappoints at the box office, and without the NYC Broadway tourists back in full force, despite the few relative success stories of the last year this show more than any other has me wondering: are people just not ready to come back en masse to the theater yet? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. | |
| Posted by: HunterHailey 02:19 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. - ShowGoer 08:55 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Agreed. The anti-cross-dressing fringe has zero to do with this. The fact is this type of old-fashioned musical just has not done well lately. Non-star driven, a movie with little current name recognition anymore, no major gimmick spectacle, etc. The weather and COVID also hasn't helped. Broadway has unfortunately killed itself with it's business model. Outside of the "tourist" shows - what does well anymore? Too many seats to fill for too long a period to make any money. To expensive for people to spend money on something that already hasn't proven to be a hit. However, I am surprised that it has done this poorly so quickly at this time of year. But I also don't think it has been marketed well and that it relying on too many things that they thought would just make it a hit. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:32 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: It’s a really strange situation and poses tons of questions. - ShowGoer 08:55 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| As it often is, I don't think it can be blamed on any one thing and I think it is all of the above. I also note that the Tootsie/Doubtfire fatigue is more of a local audience phenomenon whereas the absence of a star has an obvious effect on the tourist audience. Additionally, this is a show where the demographics of the critics diminishes the size of the portal: the critics know and like the "stars" of this, but tourists don't. (Note also how many of the wider-audience publications tended to be more middling (not pans but with lots of "buts" and "howevers." And nothing about this (including Casey Nicholaw's work that impresses the older, whiter critical platoon) is very appealing to younger and broader audiences that are essential now, or to a family looking for a holiday outing. Add that to the fatigue of the locals and you are starting to get the formula you don't want. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 01:53 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| A Beautiful Noise also had lousy box office numbers last week. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: bobjohnny 11:31 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - lowwriter 01:53 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why is no one talking about the success of "& Juliet"? Paulo Szot is hardly a big star, and yet that new musical is doing well. And several other long-running musicals are selling out. So tourists are paying to see shows they want to see. "Some Like It Not" just isn't that good. Poor word of mouth is the problem, not the pandemic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 11:48 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - bobjohnny 11:31 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| & Juliet is a familiar trope (Romeo and Juliet) and pop music. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:42 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Ncassidine 11:48 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I’ve written before that & Juliet had a couple of good hooks to interest an audience, but the main reason it’s a hit is that, much like Six, it’s a fun show that lives in the idiom of a younger, pop-culture-focused generation. Aside from the poor marketing and the surprising lack of enthusiasm for a new-fangled, old-school musical, I think Some Like It Hot has been a victim of its source material; people who know and love the film are upset with the liberties the show takes (and are in a demographic that tend to be more conservative on social issues, compounding the problem), while people who don’t know the film aren’t being given a strong enough reason to choose the show over other options. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:38 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Singapore/Fling 03:42 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Why are they so swayed by that, while ignoring the rest they're hearing and reading that is great? Do you think Sugar would be doing better? I don't. I also don't feel theatergoers, even older ones, whom your referring to, are overall socially conservative. Yes, there are some. I think there are probably more in that demographic who are still not attending live events, so that's a factor. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:33 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Ann 05:38 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| "I also don't feel theatergoers, even older ones, whom your referring to, are overall socially conservative. Yes, there are some. I think there are probably more in that demographic who are still not attending live events, so that's a factor." I thought the same thing when I read the comment from Singapore/Fling. Longtime regular theatregoers are hardly socially conservative. Maybe slightly in comparison with younger theatregoers, but minimally. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 01:19 pm EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - AlanScott 06:33 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I also think a lot of assumptions are made on here about people's age. I know we can infer from comments about certain shows we've seen etc. but we can't know exactly. In a thread I posted last week, ryhog stated that I must be in a similar age group to him (I think he mentioned he was nearing 60) I am not. I am at least 10-15 years younger) I also think we sometimes miss that there is an absolute army of socially conservative youth. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 06:53 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - AlanScott 06:33 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I can only judge from the comments on this board, in terms of which people are complaining about the show being too woke, too Black, and too gay. I think that we have different ideas of where the line is in terms of being socially conservative. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:07 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Singapore/Fling 06:53 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| "I think that we have different ideas of where the line is in terms of being socially conservative." Perhaps but then I wonder if you might consider me socially conservative, even though I am confident that the vast majority of Americans would regard me as extremely socially liberal, with a significant portion regarding me as excessively and even dangerously socially liberal. I agree with Ann that even though there is a handful of posters on this board who from time to time post socially conservative, even reactionary, statements, they are a small, almost minuscule portion who sometimes command an outsize degree of attention because those statements cause controversy and many replies. And, honestly, sometimes they don't defend themselves very well. I sometimes find myself thinking things like, "If I had posted that, even though I wouldn't, I could defend myself better than this." In any case, I think the number of regular theatregoers not buying tickets for Some Like It Hot because it is perceived as too socially progressive may be in the 10s. Even if in the hundreds or the lowish thousands, not enough to be the reason for the box-office troubles it is having. I am somewhat uncertain that even most regular theatregoers are especially aware of the adjustments in plot and emphases that constitute some of the differences between the source film and the current musical. Although I am far from the first (or even the 10th) to say this, I suspect that a lot of people just no longer find the idea of a man in a dress to be inherently funny or even likely to be funny. And perhaps, as others have suggested, after Tootsie and Mrs. Doubtfire having been found wanting both on their own merits and in comparison with the source films, regular theatregoers have no appetite for what they perceive as yet another in a series. It may be that a major factor is a perception that the show is socially retrograde rather than excessively socially conscious. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:56 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - AlanScott 08:07 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| From what you’ve shared on this site, I wouldn’t consider you socially conservative, but I do think there are posters who consider themselves liberal and proclaim themselves as such whole espousing regressive points of view. I hope I’m overestimating this site’s relationship to the larger, traditional Broadway audience. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Ann 07:03 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Singapore/Fling 06:53 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| You exaggerate and it doesn't seem like you consider the number of posters who make the comments you consider to be socially conservative. And to extrapolate that to a number that can actually cause a show to fail is kind of out there. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:15 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Ann 07:03 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Where am I exaggerating? You’re right that it’s hard to quantify the chatter here, but in terms of the people who actually post, it feels like a good 10 - 15% are in the Too Woke; Sugar Needs to Be Blond (we know what that means);The Men Aren’t Appropriately Competing for Sugar’s Love (we know what that means); I Wish There Was More Womanizing; Borle Isn’t As Pretty As Tony Curtis; etc. I’m presuming that’s reflective of the outside world, but yes, that could be a confirmation bias. Curious what you mean by, “it doesn't seem like you consider the number of posters who make the comments you consider to be socially conservative.” That sentence doesn’t quite scan for me. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Ann 03:05 am EST 12/29/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Singapore/Fling 08:15 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think you exaggerate (and often misinterpret) when you make your judgements. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:52 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Singapore/Fling 08:15 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| That it doesn't seem like you're taking into account that only a small number of people make those comments. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:11 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - AlanScott 08:52 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| It seems only a small number of people comment in general, so the question becomes whether the frequent posters reflect those who are quiet or not. Which… 🤷🏼♂️ your guess is as good as mine. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 08:17 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:17 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Singapore/Fling 08:15 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| ATC is not reflective of the real world. We’re in a tiny bubble discussing things that most people don’t care about. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 08:53 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - KingSpeed 08:17 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| We’re not reflective of the real world, but sometimes we’re reflective of the Show Fan world. (Has anyone found an inclusive version of “Show Queen”?) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: BillEadie 12:56 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Ncassidine 11:48 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| When I saw &Juliet in London, I didn’t know most of the music, but a group of young women seated nearby were bouncing in their seats, which was a good sign, I thought. My complaint about SLIH was that it looked too generic. The film was famously set at the Hotel Del Coronado, in San Diego. The Hotel Del has a very distinctive look that was captured in the film. The look of the sets for the hotel scenes could have evoked the Del’s architecture but didn’t. Mentioning “San Diego” several times in the script does little good, if what makes San Diego distinctive isn’t shown. The group also goes off to party in Tijuana, which, ok, was possible in the time period (much harder now, with border restrictions). But, Tijuana looks very generic, too. Part of the farcical effect is that a bunch of attractive people are having fun (and adventures) in “exotic” locations. I enjoyed SLIH when I saw it in early November, but what I’ve outlined here remain my criticisms of the version I saw then. Bill, in San Diego |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:27 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - Ncassidine 11:48 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| why or how does that take it out of the conversation? I think one of the problems on Broadway right now is that there is a disconnect between producers and audiences. And that's a BIG problem. We are still producing a lot of things for a generation that is decreasingly going to the theatre. As the post to which you responded said, "tourists [and non-tourists] are paying to see shows they want to see." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:20 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| A few points to place these things in a little context (which still does not offset the yikes nature of all this): 1. Most shows played 7 or less (ASL played 5 due to illness). Next week that phenomenon will reverse. 2. Not nearly enough like it hot. 3. There was a double whammy of terrible weather and the worst possible calendar (Sat/Sun) Christmas< to be repeated of course for New Years. (And yes, that did not seem to bother the established shows that tourists flock to.) 4. I think the ANM sales were almost exclusively via buyouts and the like. They were giving away tickets like crazy.) (And sadlt, "at this point," it is closed. 5. Yes TMO was a terrible awful miscalculation. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny | |
| Posted by: Musicals54 01:26 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - ryhog 10:20 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| As i wrote above too late to be noticed Cross dressing In no longer funny. Bigotry and bathroom bills from the right make gender identification a serious often deadly issue. Drag story hours in libraries are n the cross hairs. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Cross dressing is no longer funny? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 08:08 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny - Musicals54 01:26 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Aren’t drag queens all about humor with their names and performances? It’s absolutely still funny if done well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cross dressing is no longer funny? | |
| Posted by: seenenuf 10:31 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Cross dressing is no longer funny? - KingSpeed 08:08 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Drag Queens and Cross Dressing are not always the same. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Cross dressing is no longer funny? | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:24 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Cross dressing is no longer funny? - seenenuf 10:31 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you. But both can be cunny, or not funny, depending on the context. Almost anything can be funny if it's in a comic context. Sweeney Todd (particularly "A Little Priest") makes cannibalism funny - not something that's true most of the time. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny | |
| Posted by: Ann 01:38 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny - Musicals54 01:26 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, but I do think this production makes something good out of the premise. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny - Ann 01:38 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| Right. Cross dressing itself isn’t inherently funny, and thank God, because the king of humor is based on the idea that men shouldn’t wear dresses. But people in disguise attempting to not get caught is a solid comic premise, and it works marvelously here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:46 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot. Cross dressing is no longer funny - Singapore/Fling 03:44 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. And that's why it's better that Christian Borle doesn't "pass." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I forgot about the weather | |
| Posted by: dramedy 10:27 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - ryhog 10:20 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Advance sales wouldn’t be affected by weather but there are probably a lot of shows that are bought the day of where weather would be a huge issue. I didn’t realize ANMo closed so they probably also had a bump for that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 10:10 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:10 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Some like it hot took a nose dive and ain’t no mo is soaring. - dramedy 09:51 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Wow. Didn't Ain't No Mo close on Friday? Has it been extended? Unbelievable news about Some Like it Hot. Who would've thought an old fashioned show with a snappy score and good reviews would do this poorly at the box office? I'm guessing they need a star at this point. Borle isn't box office but his role is hard to cast. Maybe a name as Sugar. Is it too late to go that route? It saved Funny Girl. The Great Comet tried to save their show later in its run by casting Mandy Patinkin but we all know how that turned out. I bet it would've worked though. Who could SLIH bring in that would help? Surprising about Take Me Out too with all the full frontal nudity to draw people in. They should get Rhianna to play Sugar. Or Fantastia. She's proven. Could Jennifer Hudson do it? Where does her show tape? Heather Headley? I would go back for that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: StageManager 11:10 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar casting ideas? - KingSpeed 10:10 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| A few thoughts: Younger people don';t know anything about the movie and could not care less The character of Sugar Kane is a big black hole in the production, neither charming or funny or anything else For me just one (or more than one) tap dance number too far The Daphne characters embracing her "girlhood" just rings false in 1933 America. Does she want to be a gay man? does she want to have a sex change operation? Huh? Liked the show didn't love it. Sorry to see a lot fo talented people working their tales off up there and not connecting |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: Ann 11:24 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - StageManager 11:10 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| There were people living as the other gender in 1933. I had no huh? reaction to this. I agree about young people not knowing/carrying about the title. Tons of fun tap-dancing, some love it. Lots of people seen to like the door slamming bit, but that's what I thought went on for too long. Still, I liked it and would recommend it for anyone on the fence. I'd be very happy to see it succeed. I don't know what the NY marketing is like, but they're not clearing the hurdle. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: huskyital (huskyital@yahoo.com) 11:29 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar casting ideas? - KingSpeed 10:10 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| How about rewriting the role of Sugar making her the ditzy but vulnerable blonde that made the film such a success and the character so memorable. Marilyn's rendition of I wanna be loved by you was much sexier than anything that Sugar sings now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:40 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - huskyital 11:29 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Would you be happy with a blond wig or do you need that white skin? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: Ann 09:14 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - huskyital 11:29 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think the ditzy blonde thing works so well these days. I think they choose a problematic project for 2022, did a terrific job with it, but still have the problem of pre-conceived notions from the film and its premise. People who would probably like it are not going. And I'm not sure they have many discounts out there for non-insiders to give it a low cost try. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 04:12 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - Ann 09:14 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree about it being problematic for this moment. I adore the movie--agree with those who think it may be the greatest film comedy ever--but it was a product of ITS time (late 50s) and was able to do some of its gender stereotyping by harkening back to an even earlier era. I have not seen this production (simply not in the city this time) so can only go by reports, and I gather the actor playing Daphne/Jerry is wonderful, but it seems to wrench the focus of the plot so much by having a discovery of transgender identity in the story. It also sounds like the discovery of gender identity is accomplished by dressing up and imitating a stereotype of a woman--that doesn't sound particularly progressive to me, even for something that is farcical in genre. The lives of trans people deserve better and more thoughtful (even if in the form of comedy) dramatization than that! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: Ann 05:57 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - BruceinIthaca 04:12 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think it wrenches the focus (but there's so little focus on Sugar, it creates a void) and I didn't get the feeling the character is supposed to be trans, but non binary, to use a contemporary term. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: lanky 08:33 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - huskyital 11:29 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| While we're at it, how about rewriting all of Sugar's songs. The ones in the current version have little impact. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 09:43 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - lanky 08:33 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think part of that is because they are extraneous. They are mostly fine songs that don't need to be there. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Posted by: seeseveryshow 10:23 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar casting ideas? - KingSpeed 10:10 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Can Billy Porter tap dance? Won’t Hugh and Sutton be free in a couple of weeks? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sugar casting ideas? | |
| Last Edit: KingSpeed 10:26 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:26 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - seeseveryshow 10:23 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I thought of Billy (as Jerry/Daphne) too. He might sell tickets, not sure. I think he is a good enough dancer to learn the tap dancing in the show. Hugh will absolutely not free in a couple of weeks but Sutton might be. There's no role for her though. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| They aren't going to recast Jerry/Daphne at this point. mmi | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 07:49 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Sugar casting ideas? - KingSpeed 10:26 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You are right | |
| Posted by: dramedy 10:21 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Sugar casting ideas? - KingSpeed 10:10 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I knew it posted a closing notice for Dec 18 but I thought that was rescinded and tickets were on sale through Feb (I could have sworn I saw that a few days ago). But I guess it was extended only a week to 25th. I doubt stunt casting would save Hot. I’m shocked it is doing so badly and it hasn’t caught on. But some of your suggestions are way too old for the part—sugar needs to be young. |
|
| Link | https://www.vulture.com/2022/12/aint-no-mo-play-closing-broadway.html#:~:text=Broadway%20has%20decided%20that%20Ain,it%20opened%20on%20December%201. |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: You are right | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 10:27 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: You are right - dramedy 10:21 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Telecharge did have it on sale through February (at least, the calendar didn't end at 12/23 as it would have if they'd had that as the closing date) last week, in between the closing and the extended closing. Not sure what was going on there. Maybe whoever updated the database only read the press release as far as "not ending 12/18." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are right | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:25 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
| In reply to: You are right - dramedy 10:21 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Onstage, they could look younger. Also- I don't consider my ideas to be "stunt" casting. That is like casting Marcia Brady as Rizzo. What I'm suggesting is "star" casting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are right | |
| Posted by: Chatty2007 09:41 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: You are right - KingSpeed 10:25 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Those suggestions for Sugar replacements are absurd - they ARE too old. Even if they look younger, they don't look like they're 25. Plus, we all know they're pushing/are past 50. My main criticism of the show (which I enjoyed and am upset is failing commercially) is...why Christian Borle? HE's too old. I completely disagree with earlier poster who said it's a hard role to cast. I think there are a lot of guys, known and unknown, who could do it. Despite the jokes in the show about how his character looks old, it makes no sense that the two guys who were raised as brothers are 20 years apart. And it gives something of a "dirty old man" to his courtship of Sugar. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are right | |
| Posted by: winters 07:46 am EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: You are right - KingSpeed 10:25 pm EST 12/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Hey. I love Maureen McCormack. And the part of Rizzo is not exactly Hamlet. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are right | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 04:14 pm EST 12/28/22 | |
| In reply to: re: You are right - winters 07:46 am EST 12/28/22 | |
|
|
|
| No, I see Maureen more as a Viola or Rosalind. "Viola! Viola! Viola!" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.698388 seconds.