Shows that were expected to run much longer?- Page 2
Shows that were expected to run much longer?
#25Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 2:59pmCATS...Now and forever, duh!
Check out my eBay page for sales on Playbills!!
www.ebay.com/usr/missvirginiahamm
#26Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 3:08pm
The Patti LuPone GYPSY also received excellent notices but ran for under a year and frequently at less than capacity. I believe it was expected to run longer.
They were only going to run until the initial year-long contracts were up. So less than two months longer than they wound up running.
When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain.
-Kad
#27Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 4:12pm
RE: Sunset
I think if Webber had not had SOOO many problems with his leading ladies, he might have worked harder to get bigger names to come into the show in NYC- I know Bernadette was talked about or at least rumored to be a possible replacement at the time for Buckley or maybe even Glenn. I also know there were some pop stars whose names were tossed about at Really Useful to come into the show. But he had problems with almost all of them, and high profile problems with at least three of them, two of which we all know ended up in a courtroom.
It also kinda baffles me that Sunset is the show that always seems to be talked about as the show that broke his streak of major hits on Broadway, but everyone seems to forget that aside from Aspects of Love not running very long here, Song & Dance and Starlight Express had much longer runs in London than they did on Broadway.
#28Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 4:15pmI think it was seen as representing a shift in New York not having huge, extremely long running hits from England dominate each season. Of course the reality is there were only ever a handful of those really (Cats, Phantom, Les Miz and Miss Saigon seeming to be the major ones), but they did represent the time.
nasty_khakis
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/15/07
#29Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 4:15pmI don't think they were making far more on Mermaid simply because of rent. Disney owns the Amsterdam (well, not owns outright, but already pays a crazy low/long lease) For example let's say they were paying $250,000 a month to the Neaderlanders, they only pay $75,000 for the New Amsterdam. I made up these numbers, I have no idea the real figures obviously.
Jonwo
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/16/06
#30Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 7:30pm
I think Newsies will have a good run at the Nederlander, it's low tech for Disney so the weekly nut is probably lower compared to their other shows.
I still think Mary Poppins will close when Disney has a new big show ready, It's incredible that its run so long when you consider the London production closed after three years.
JohnyBroadway
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/12
#31Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 7:54pm
The Little Mermaid. While I love the show, It's a shame Disney had to close Beauty to make way for it. but 13 years is a healthy run. I think Poppins will hit the 10 year mark and Lion King will become the 2nd longest running musical.
Updated On: 5/7/12 at 07:54 PM
#32Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:37pmI thought the Hair revival was going to run a lot longer than it did. The vitality I saw in the spring of '09 was one of the most remarkable things I've seen on stage. They eventually lost the spark, though, and by the time it made it back this summer it was a stale old shell of its former self.
I know you.
I know you.
I know you.
Leadingplayer
Broadway Star Joined: 5/12/03
#33Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:41pmTitanic was kind of expected to be a flop.....I think it ran much longer than anyopne thought.
Jay94
Featured Actor Joined: 4/10/11
#34Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:35am
Titanic was expected to be a flop but after the movie came out and the show had a great 1998, i think people expected it to run for longer.
Also, maybe Newsies will move to New Amsterdam although that may be too big.
Jay94
Featured Actor Joined: 4/10/11
#35Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:35am
Titanic was expected to be a flop but after the movie came out and the show had a great 1998, i think people expected it to run for longer.
Also, maybe Newsies will move to New Amsterdam although that may be too big.
dramamama611
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
#36Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 4:43am
Expected is a ridiculous word here. Expected by whom? The producers? Then ANY show that didn't make a profit (or at the very least RECOUP) was expected to run longer.
From a fan's point of view? Any show that particular fan liked "should" have run longer. Detracters of any show never thought it would run "this" long.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Broadway Joe
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/15/10
#37Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 8:33am
"Expected is a ridiculous word here. Expected by whom? The producers? Then ANY show that didn't make a profit (or at the very least RECOUP) was expected to run longer."
I agree, I'm pretty sure most people expected Wonderland(no matter how good/bad people thought it was) to last longer then less then a month as well.
#38Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 9:31am
"WeeThomas, The Odd Couple starring Lane and Broderick was a planned limited engagement from September 2005 - May 2006, and even got extended until June. Tickets sold out the first day, within hours. I think it did pretty well..."
It did sell out the first day (I, unfortunately, got a nice pair), but it wouldn't have played longer (perhaps with another cast?) had it been any good?
Famous show, with a huge TV audience who hadn't seen it on stage, with the first repairing of the Producers leads?
I expected Odd Couple to play for years.
But what do I know!
Fosse76
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/21/05
#39Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 9:51am
"Being given an eviction Notice by the Neaderlanders is the only reason I can think of for it closing..based on how they budgeted the show"
Well if that's the case then the last laugh is on the producers of Shrek, since only the Shubert Organization has any legal authority to evict a show from the Broadway Theatre.
"Also I have a feeling thats also what happened to Mermaid or Cameron Mackintosh was like "No you are not closing Mary Poppin's so that you can move Mermaid into the New Amsterdam...." since their grosses were pretty even and add to that the New Amsterdam has 300 more seats than the Lunt Fontaine and you realize Disney was likely making way more money off of Mermaid than they were Poppins..."
Disney had no intention of putting The Little Mermaid in the New Amsterdam. The show was still relatively new and making money when The Little Mermaid was being developed. And the mentality at the time was that Mermaid and Beauty would be competing with each other. But cost overruns and the accident with a member of the ensemble practically guranteed Mermaid could never recoup, so it closed (and in fact, these cost overruns during development is why they closed Tarzan).
"If I had to bet Newsies is going to have the same fate as Mermaid despite selling out week after week...the only reason Poppins is still open is because Disney is not its sole producer"
I doubt that very much. Macintosh is very saavy. He knew he couldn't produce a stage musical of Mary Poppins without the Disney score, and therefore negotiated with them to be co-producer. However, they have very much been the lead producer in the U.S.
yankeefan7
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/14/12
#40Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 11:16amIt was many years ago but I thought the rock musical "Tommy" would run longer.
.jpg)
#41Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 11:29amIt's a cynical choice, but Glory Days. I don't think anyone was expecting that to shutter on opening night. It wouldn't have lasted much longer, but previews and one performance? That's rare.
felix5
Swing Joined: 1/29/12
Outoftowner2
Stand-by Joined: 1/8/12
#43Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:00pmI couldn't agree more about Ragtime. It is one of my top 5 ever. It's astoundingly good and I can't understand why it isn't still running from the first time, let alone the revival. If you've never seen it, see it somewhere. I agree about Billy Elliot too. It should still be running. It is a spectacular evening of entertainment. Have to go to London now!
#44Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:20pmI could've just done my research, but I'm feeling a bit lazy today- didn't Ragtime's closing early also have something to do with Livent going bust?
WOSQ
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/18/03
#45Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 1:49pm
Many of the titles being bandied about had extremely high running costs. Billy Elliott, Titanic, Ragtime, Sunset Blvd., Shrek, etc. all cost a small fortune to run week-to-week. They were technically complex and had huge on and off stage payrolls. Replacement casting decisions also played a factor.
The Producers even with a 6 year run, is one of the few shows that ran shorter than expected. The first year or so it was sold as "The Nathan and Matthew Show" and then they were replaced with less than name people. Except for that comparatively short period when Lane & Broderick went back into the show, The Producers never really regained momentum. Oh, it was a hit and made money, but not the kind of gusher that it was.
The same thing happened in the mid 80s to The Real Thing when Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close were replaced with good actors who were not names. The grosses went to the basement, and the show never recovered even when Irons went back into the show.
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true. And that would be unacceptable."
--Carrie Fisher
yankeefan7
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/14/12
#46Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 2:17pm
WOSQ - I bet contstanly having three "Billy" all the time may it quite difficult for "Billy Elliot". I can imagine it was not easy finding that amount of young talented kids to play that role and manage their work schedules.
Updated On: 5/8/12 at 02:17 PM
ChildrenwillListen
Featured Actor Joined: 3/12/12
#47Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 2:54pmObviously Leap of Faith was probably expected to run much longer.
Featured Actor Joined: 12/31/69
#48Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:09pmCrazy for You! it closed so that S*it Show BIg could go into the Shubert... BIG mistake!
TheatreKid3
Broadway Star Joined: 3/25/12
#49Shows that were expected to run much longer?
Posted: 5/8/12 at 3:11pm
"Billy Elliot" is the best example. That show had 4 or 5 years left in it at least. It was so sad to see it close this early, especially considering the show that replaced it! It just seemed like Billy's marketing didn't do well after the Tony hype started to ware off. The show was still selling well and its closing notice came completely out of left field for me.
"Mermaid" was another tragedy. It was the best selling new show the year it opened, and continued to do great business. I know it had high running costs, but still. I have always had the suspicions that the show was forced out for "The Addams Family," which ended up fizzling. In all honesty, if Disney could have, I wouldn't have been surprised if they wanted to move "Mermaid" to the New Amsterdam (it was making more money than "Poppins" for a long time). The fact was they simply couldn't, not realistically anyway. The New Amsterdam and Lunt-Fontanne are two completely different proportioned theaters. The Lunt stage is much, much, much smaller, so an entirely new set would have to have been made (which could have been better... lol). It's like when "Beauty" moved from the Palace to the Lunt. The Lunt stage was so much smaller that they had to downgrade to some of the national touring set. It is easier to downsize and move from larger to smaller, than from smaller to larger.
"Tarzan" should have done much better as well, but (aside from the horrible inflatable and shoestring design), they put it in the wrong theatre. Because the Rodgers is one of two theaters that has stadium seating design in the Orchestra (Majestic is the other), seating is much steeper and the sight lines under the Mezz overhang were much worse, thus completely blocking any aerial action from view if you were sitting in the last 10 rows of the orchestra. They had video screens and everything! Just poor planning all around for that one.
Updated On: 5/8/12 at 03:11 PM
Videos