I think that's more about the productions than the theater.
Posted by: GabbyGerard 09:55 pm EDT 09/26/23
In reply to: Playing the Marquis - BroadwayTonyJ 09:51 am EDT 09/26/23

There are a few theaters that I think are so mammoth, they make it very hard for shows to turn a profit, or that are laid out in such a way that it makes it difficult for audiences to connect to the show they're watching. I don't think the Marquis qualifies as either (though I was surprised to learn it has only 10 fewer seats than the Lyric).

When I look at what has played there since The Drowsy Chaperone, I think the head-scratchers--as in "How did this get to Broadway? Who thought this would be either commercially or artistically successful?"--far outnumber the productions that "should" have been hits.

After Drowsy closed in 2007, I don't think a remotely good production played the Marquis until Follies in late 2011, and that was always likelier to be a succès d'estime than a commercial hit.

Follies was followed by Evita, which, in theory, should have been a hit...but it was a pretty terrible production with an atrocious leading lady. It was only able to sell tickets because of Ricky Martin who, despite being a draw and quite charismatic, didn't have the vocal or acting chops to convince non-fans that he made the production worth seeing.

If I push myself to be generous, I could maybe see a world in which Once Upon a One More Time should have been hit, but I think it was badly produced and--coming on the heels of of & Juliet and Bad Cinderella--the victim of awful timing.
reply

Previous: ON YOUR FEET -- at the Marquis - BroadwayTonyJ 04:01 am EDT 09/28/23
Next: "Along Comes Love" song from New Yor, New York? - claploudly 09:03 am EDT 09/25/23
Thread:

    Privacy Policy


    Time to render: 0.013211 seconds.