Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.155186 seconds.