Glory Days Closing: Just Ridiculous- Page 2

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 2:36am

I think it failed because it BAD...

part of that is true, Clumsy, but even some of their "target audience" didn't get it or had trouble relating to it.

I know many of my students had trouble relating and many of them are still in College or are fresh out of school.

some people just don't understand that if the material is terrible, that gets around quickly and it's not going to attract people. If you can't make a show attractive, it must close.

This closed sooner than later.. Updated On: 5/10/08 at 02:36 AM

[Chason2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 3:01am

[Word on the street in the DC theatre community is that the producers made some very bad business decisions and that they knew the show was going to have to close even before the reviews came out].

Just what I was thinking! That's what I said. It's like The Producers. Terrible times, though - for everyone associated. There's bound to be SOME people who had tickets to other performances, right? Looks like they had no "say so" in the matter.
It PROVED itself at one time... but then screwed the whole thing up by a Broadway build-up, previews, and then ONE night of an actual showing.
Maybe there is simply no hope for new musicals on broadway. But, wait! Other original shows are doing well....
I don't have any "facts", and I haven't even seen the show. I'm only just shocked - that's all.
What about OTHER shows that closed the same night - or SHORTLY after? Can anyone think of some? Can you tell me what you think the problem was? I'm genuinely interested in learning. Thanks to you all.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 3:06am

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 03:06 AM

[Chason2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 3:20am

LePetite: Thanks. Going to read it now. (BTW - I loved you in The BOYFRIEND).

[bk]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 3:44am

In days of old, long prior to the birth of most posters on this board, producers were a different breed. They took their producing chores seriously and they behaved in a fiscally responsible manner to their money people - hence, if a show came in, got creamed, didn't have an advance, etc., they cut their losses and closed the show IMMEDIATELY. It's a different world now - now producers would rather DIE than admit failure and they've kept money-losing shows open for ego reasons, and their investors be damned. In the old days, shows closed quickly all the time. Look at any Theater World from the 50s, 60s, or 70s - the pages are littered with shows that didn't eke out ten performances.

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 3:52am

Too bad for those who might have wanted to see it.
But, why even open if they knew they would have to close right away? I suppose this might be in respect to the cast, maybe...? After all, these actors rehearsed and prepared themselves long before opening day, so at least one performance might make up for all the time they invested. I would think this would be fair and considerate.

[AlwaysTheAssistantMD]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 5:02am

The closing of Glory Days has been discussed in a few other threads here, so..

-The "raves" in DC were not out and out raves. Even Peter Marks in The Washington Post did not give it a totally glowing review - even though the quote pulled from his review that was used in almost all of the advertising made it seem that way. Even the "local" Variety review said it was a good show, not a great one.

-Yes, the show closed after one performance, but it was one "official" performance. They played 17 preview performances. Now if a show closed after their first preview, well... that would be a totally different story.

-Bringing any show into NYC nowadays involves so much more of the "business" side of "show business" than it ever has before. There's just so much money involved, at risk. Even "small" shows take months to recoup their initial investment - even when the show is selling well at full-price. The advance sales for Glory Days were basically non-existent (which is common for almost all new shows nowadays), and with the dismal reviews, there was no way it was going to '"find" it's audience. The seating capacity of Circle In The Square is 600-650 depending on the configuration of the seats. To keep the show running even just a week after it's official opening, there would have had to been at least 5000 people willing to take a chance on the show - and that's just 50% capacity for the week. And those 5000 people, preferably, would not have used discount vouchers to purchase their tickets. *They even had difficulty papering during the previews - people didn't even want the free tickets.

I saw the show, and, frankly, was not surprised that it closed. I'll spare you my review, but even I could tell that there were more problems with the production than just the ones on stage.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 5:04am

bwaybabe - they closed on Opening for the insurance...

[bwaybabe2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 5:52am

Thanks for the clarification, TooDarnHot--that makes financial sense. There is so much people don't know about the producing aspect, I suppose (including me).

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 6:55am

As far as advance sales ticket holders: they will get their money back. This happens a lot: that ticket sales have gone beyond a closing date. Most shows that are HOPING for an open run sell tickets for far in advance...and then when the closing date is chosen, they have to refund. Not a big deal. (Unless of course you were DYING to see the show.)

Certainly, the creative team and actor's are going to be depressed...but it's part of the business...it's a risk. People get hired for movies and end up on the cutting room floor. I'm the sure the investors were saddened as well....they would rather be associated with a success rather than a failure.

Dissappointing for them, sure. A crime against humanity or even B'way: not even close.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 6:56am

They should have included some nudity.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 7:14am

Many shows have opened in previews to low attendance and then not had the best of reviews but haves still found an audience.The marketing for the show was awful (and almost non existent) and the show was rushed in so quick there were no hype like so many other shows.
We all look at a broadway shows out of town try out and start talking about it, getting a buzz going and anticipation starts to build, with Glory Days though the move to Broadway was very last second and whilst it was in DC no one was really talking about it here as no one expected it to arrive on Broadway.

Im not saying it would have had a life but i do think it could have been handled better by the producers so the show had a chance.The producers obviously had Tony Award signs in their eyes which is why it was thrown on to Broadway so quick, this meant that the chance for the show to build an advance could not happen

[musicalman2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 7:25am

The show closed for a bunch of reasons. The blame lies with producers and director Eric Schaeffer. The show was mediocre in Washington, showed some promise, but had lots of problems. Shaeffer did not work on fixing them. This is a standard operating procedure for him. Either he is blind to the problems (which seems difficult to believe because he was told about them), or he does not want to think of and solve them, or he lacks the skills to do it. But understand that this show magnified his deficiencies. For instance, at Signature in the new theater, they did not use microphones for the actors (a throwback to their first space, which was a converted garage), but NOBODY could hear the words sung by actors. Can you imagine attending a production of Into the Woods and knowing it well, and STILL not being able to understand virtually a word of it?? That's the way it was. His actors begged him for mikes and he said no. (they also begged him to correct sight line problems and he would not) Finally, Carolee Carmello arrived for Saving Aimee and she demanded to be miked. and he relented. Since that time, they have increased the use gradually, and finally, in the latest production of Kiss of the Spider Woman, you could pretty much hear everything because everyone was miked well. Eric has to be hit over the head with problems before he reacts some times.

The critics in Washington have pandered to him until recently. Eric actually persuaded Washington Post critic Peter Marks to re-review Mame with Christine Baranski at the Kennedy Center, because the initial review of her performance had been so tough on her, and Eric was desperate to get it to Broadway. He wanted to show potential producers like the Weisslers that Christine could get a good review. Can you imagine a critic re-reviewing the SAME show with the EXACT SAME CAST AND STAR? I had never seen that before.

In any event, with respect to the producers, the show was under capitalized. The first smart business move they made was to close the show on opening. I still feel terrible for the creative team, actors, and staff who are thrown out of work, but I definitely do not feel bad for Eric and the producers.

Unfortunately, I think that Shaeffer's career is badly badly damaged. I have nothing against him personally, just don't like his decisions, but I hope that this fiasco will enable him to learn SOMETHING constructive and move forward. He has a great gift at Signature and he should focus on doing solid work there, or on producing and letting others direct there. They have brought in many guest directors (the amazing Joe Calarco and his unbelievable production of Assassins comes to mind). There are other musical theater directors in the DC area who would do great work there.

The next question, for future discussions, is what will happen to the show "Ace" which is supposed to be doing a pre-broadway development production at Signature, with Shaeffer at the helm. If I were the producers, I would pull that show, or demand that another director direct the show at Signature. I think that if Eric directs it, it is doomed as far as Broadway is concerned.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 7:28am

Blah Blah Blah

It must be frustrating to constantly post on a board trying to express opinions on shows you don't see.

I don't know why you even bother.

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 10:40am

Musicalman2, what is with your vendetta against Eric Schaeffer? It doesn't seem like you post about much else. Eric Schaeffer has been amazing for DC Theatre. While yes I agree sometimes he misses, so does everyone, and when he is on his productions are leagues better than anything on Broadway and certainly anything in DC. I am a long time patron at Signature as well as many theaters in this area. As an artistic director his choices are far more daring than any other theatre in this town. This year they have done 5 musicals in a theatre that seats 300 people MAX! With full orchestras? That's insane. And none of the musicals were guaranteed hits. Merrily- a Sondheim flop, Glory Days- a new musical, Spider Woman- one of the least produced of Kander & Ebb's musicals, Happy Time- which he pulled out of obscurity, and The Visit- another new musical starring two Tony winners. Who else in DC would do this? If you want to go after someone go after Molly Smith who has basically driven Arena Stage into the ground. But that is just my opinion of him as an incredible artistic director. As for micing Carolee and others- every musical with the exception of two have been miced. I believe that his goal to remain with the theatre's mission in producing unamplified musical theatre as they did in the garage was admirable but in the end didn't work. In many of his letters to subscribers he has talked about this.
It sounds like you are very close to him or someone around him too know so much information about the actors and what they "begged" him for. I can tell you I have heard nothing but praise for him from actors in this area.To lay all the blame on Eric Schaeffer for Glory Days is simply ignorant. Should he have asked the producers for more time to develop and rehearse the show before going to Broadway? Probably. But did he give these boys and incredible chance both at his theatre and in NYC? Yes. Has he been an amazing supporter of new writer? YES. Is he one of the few daring to develop new musicals in this country? YES. Just look at all of Signature's initiatives and development programs. So just to be a different voice in the Eric Schaeffer bashing that seems to be flooding this board, I highly respect the man and think that his good productions far exceed anything in New York City and certainly DC. His Spider Woman was the best thing I have seen all year in New York or DC. Meet John Doe, while not a very good show, was expertly directed.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 10:43am

Ask Patti LuPone. She'll tell you the story of a show she did for Joe Papp and it closed after the first act!

[Steve2]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 11:13am

I feel like I am beating a dead horse here but it's not like The Producers at all Chason.

The Producers was about fraud, Glory Days was about about bad decision making. They closed on opening night for insurance reasons and not wanting to incur any further losses.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 11:19am

It happened a lot in the past

Here's Where I Belong
Billy
Home Sweet Homer - With Yul Brynner
Gantry

Than there are those that closed in previews

Breakfast At Tiffany
One Night Stand

[gypsy4]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 11:20am

I'm sorry but this really is not the the first time this has happened.and movies don't have actors preforming live and working there butts off each day.
Updated On: 5/10/08 at 11:20 AM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 11:22am

How could I forget Moose Murders?

Not a musical but still a 1 nighter nonetheless.

[canmark]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 11:32am

From what little I know about this show it sounds much more Off-Broadway than Broadway. Is there a reason this show wasn't produced at a small, Off-Broadway theatre (with OB prices) where the kinks could have been worked out, and it could have developed a following? Why the rush to Broadway for a show with no stars and no obvious marketing "hook"?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 12:32pm

Once again, if they close then, the insurance on their investment kicks in.

[jaystarr]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 12:43pm

note: this photo is not directed to anyone....

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 12:43pm

I saw it in DC twice. Both times the audience was on their feet at the end and the show left many people in the audience in tears, including me.

I saw it in DC once. The applause was tepid at best. People were on their feet only in order to get the hell out of there a.s.a.p. via the nearest exit. I was left in tears . . . because I had paid $160 for two tix to this amateurish show, and taken a friend for his birthday.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 5/10/08 at 1:02pm

musicalman - it is not all Eric Shaeffer's fault. EVERYONE is responsible. Perhaps they didn't handle it well but the material was awful, my friend.

you're trying to make Eric the scapegoat and if the show/material was even decent then that might be okay....

but with decent producing and marketing, the show would still do poorly. just read the reviews. no matter who's fault it is, there is one consistent thought: the material is WEAK.