AMERICAN PSYCHO CLOSING- Page 6

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:28am

It took a chance and paid the price. It did not want to go the safe route. It dared to be different and that was its downfall. I gave up on critics a long time ago. To bad many people did not think for themselves. Truth be told, we preferred the show to the movie.

Oh well. It is not the first Broadway show that took a gamble with its audience ( and lost) and , sad to say, it will not be the last.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:31am

Hedwig. Fun Home. Hamilton. Suffle Along. All "different." All commercial successes after being better produced, marketed, and received by audiences as well as critics.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:32am

That's your opinion, I don't think it was incompetently written at all.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:41am

Scarywarhol said: "Hedwig. Fun Home. Hamilton. Suffle Along. All "different." All commercial successes after being better produced, marketed, and received by audiences as well as critics."

Agreed. Yes, it is easier for a show that already has mainstream appeal on paper to succeed. However, there are plenty of examples of shows in history that didn't have this and went on to succeed anyway. The fact is, most people who saw AP (even those that liked it) recognized its issues. When something isn't commercially appealing AND doesn't have faultless word of mouth, critical success or awards recognition, that is something that is difficult to get past.

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 09:41 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:46am

songanddanceman2 said: " This show made close to 600k this week, to close on that this soon is nuts. Bad producing on this show."

 

Unless you've seen all the numbers, you can't really proclaim that as bad producing. Maybe their nut is higher than 600k. 600k isn't exactly a windfall.  

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 09:46 AM

[jenn328]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:54am

As a middle aged woman from New Jersey let me say I saw the show, so please don't generalize.

[newintown]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:55am

I confess that I had absolutely no interest in seeing this, as I loathed both the novel and film. But I found it interesting that a few friends who gush over 99.9% of the shows that they see simply despised this one, calling it the most amateurish thing they'd ever seen on Broadway.

That said, good luck to everyone involved on their next projects.

[Mike66]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 9:57am

aaaaaa15 said: "Scarywarhol said: "Hedwig. Fun Home. Hamilton. Suffle Along. All "different." All commercial successes after being better produced, marketed, and received by audiences as well as critics."

Agreed. Yes, it is easier for a show that already has mainstream appeal on paper to succeed. However, there are plenty of examples of shows in history that didn't have this and went on to succeed anyway. The fact is, most people who saw AP (even those that liked it) recognized its issues. When something isn't commercially appealing AND doesn't have faultless word of mouth, critical success or awards recognition, that is something that is difficult to get past.

 

"

This is very much the point.  The producers generally are not into this for aesthetic reasons.  They are in it to make money, or at least break even.  Their target audience is people who are willing to pay full price (or premium!!) to come see a show.  There are many "entertainment products" on the market -- more every year.  They need to provide a product which their target audience sees as worth the price (Hamilton, anyone?).  The audience, in return, doesn't want to "experiment."  It costs too much, in money and time. 

They have only one or two nights in NY in an expensive hotel, and they are shelling out a couple hundred dollars for tickets. 

The folks on these Boards aren't the target. 

[Mike66]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:01am

jenn328 said: "As a middle aged woman from New Jersey let me say I saw the show, so please don't generalize.

 

"

Every analysis of any issue requires (by definition) "generalization".  That's not the same as dis-respect.

No issue known to mankind ever gets a 100% response in one direction (or the other).  In the "biz" there are always "outliers."  That doesn't (a) make the findings less valid or (b) disrespect the outlier.

 

 

[GreenGables]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:07am

As perhaps you can tell from my avatar, I work in finance.  This season, my coworkers have all heard of HAMILTON and WAITRESS (and most of the revivals), but didn't even know that American Psycho was a show.  And if douchey finance bros don't know that there's a show about them on Broadway, I think that really speaks volumes to the efficacy of AP's marketing.

Shame to see another show closing so soon - I hate seeing actors out of a job.

[jenn328]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:12am

I adore Wicked and have seen it multiple times.  Saw AP and it took me several days to figure out my reaction to it.  Ultimately fell on the negative side: it was a perfect replica of the 80's and visually appealing and well acted, but the show itself just left me cold.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:14am

I am really bummed that this show is closing. I absolutely loved it. I haven't seen Hamilton yet, but American Psycho is my favorite new musical from the 15-16 season. I will definitely be making a return visit next week.

[jenn328]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:15am

Scarywarhol said: "Yes, its technical elements and some design elements were extremely impressive and effective, but in service to an incompetently written piece.

 

"This is EXACTLY what I was trying to say.

 

[denali.fire]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:17am

 

It took me several days to decide if I liked it also.  I enjoyed it.  But I also love Bonnie and Clyde.

I guess there is a little sociopath/ psychopath in me!!!

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:24am

GreenGables said: "As perhaps you can tell from my avatar, I work in finance.  This season, my coworkers have all heard of HAMILTON and WAITRESS (and most of the revivals), but didn't even know that American Psycho was a show.  And if douchey finance bros don't know that there's a show about them on Broadway, I think that really speaks volumes to the efficacy of AP's marketing."

 

There were a lot of finance bros there when I saw the show, so your sample doesn't necessarily mean none of them knew about it.

 

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:25am

I just want to clarify because as mailhandler pointed out about our mutual friends and such, I was not meaning anyone specific that I know, I was speaking in the sense of how dramamama meant it. It doesn't fit the MO of the usual Wicked fan, and if Broadway came with one of those Barnes and Noble recommendation slips - it wouldn't recommend American Psycho to the person who loves Wicked. Also, I just would like to point out that having not seen American Psycho is not relevant to the topic at hand. 

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 10:25 AM

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:47am

Do you think this show would have fared better had they stunt casted Patrick. I feel like with a show this edgy, it may have helped to have some A-list star power to get people in the seats. Gyllenhaal? Efron? Hemsworth?

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:51am

Or just stuck with Matt Smith? I don't know if he was available though.

[haterobics]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:52am

aaaaaa15 said: "Or just stuck with Matt Smith? I don't know if he was available though."

Not sure he's a name, let alone a big enough name, in the US. Even if all the Whos from Whoville attended, that would be just as much of a long shot as Walker.

[StageStruckLad]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:54am

I bet Second Stage is gloating, thanks to the producers yanking American Psycho away after Second Stage had advertised it and offered it to their subscribers.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:55am

Ah okay. I live in the UK, I wouldn't call Matt a name here either but I know Doctor Who has an incredibly passionate international fanbase. Obviously not an A-lister though.

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 10:55 AM

[AnnieBlack]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 10:58am

It's not a massive cast or massive production. If their breakeven is higher than 600k, I can't really see how- i think we will see with the grosses next week that the advance has probably dropped off the cliff- 

They also were doing a bunch of TV advertising at the end of april / beginning of May (every am on NY1 I saw 2 or 3 commercials)- I noticed that has stopped- 

Again, sad at this failure 

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 11:00am

Mr. Roxy said " The comparison is that it seems to be that when in doubt transfer a full-length cartoon movie to the stage. The fact that people continue to buy it instead of trying something different escapes me. Cannot fault Disney . As long as people keep eating it up, they will keep churning it out. Does not reflect well on the theater going public. Moral of the story is just appeal to the lowest common denominator and you will be fine. " 

 

 

 

I mean ultimately the musical is another musical based on a pre-existing movie. Sure it has some technical elements that were very impressive but lets not act like Disney's musicals are so much inferior because they are based on an animated films. And Like another person said. Disney's animated musicals are a huge reason for mainstream acceptance of musicals in today's age.  

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 11:00 AM

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 11:06am

I don't think it has anything to do with it being based on a movie (or a book). Look at Waitress' success.

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 11:06 AM

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 5/27/16 at 11:09am

neonlightsxo said: "I don't think it has anything to do with it being based on a movie (or a book). Look at Waitress' success.

"

Mmm I was responding to a poster on the previous page comparing Frozen to American Psycho. Probably should have quoted them. 

Updated On: 5/27/16 at 11:09 AM