The talk of Parade transferring raises this question for me: what commercial musical flops on Broadway have been a commercial hit in a revival (or revisal) on Broadway? This is not about quality - just dollars.
I thought about Chicago but do not know if the original run of Chicago recouped.
It is almost unheard of in the modern era, as far as musicals are concerned.
Sunday In the Park? (original flopped, Gyllenhaal broke even)
But there’s also an accounting asterisk on the original PARADE, because it was produced by LCT in association with LIVENT. So while it ran only a short time and didn’t connect with audiences, there wasn’t a traditional capitalization to recoup for LCT. That said, it was still a money-loser for LCT.
Sunday in the Park with George's original 1984 Broadway run closed at a loss making it a commercial flop, and I won't count the 2008 Broadway revival as a commercial success despite it being a Roundabout production that extended its run twice, but the 2017 Broadway revival with Jake Gyllenhaal and Annaleigh Ashford recouped its investment in 56 performances making it one of the fasted musicals productions to turn a profit in Broadway history.
It will likely be something we see with a both Sondhiem and Jason Robert Brown shows that while critically lauded their original productions were commercial flops, and then they get a name to sign on to a revival because its such a great piece and it becomes a hit.
Yes, it seems almost unheard of, of commerical flop to hit revival. Although, I feel like their are shows where the revival may have still flopped (if you considering not making its oney back a flop), but did better than the original production. The most recent revival of Follies comes to mind. It was on track to be the first (at the time) Sondheim Broadway production to recoup. It didn't, (IIRC), but it came close! Also, I would assume that the 1998 production of Cabaret, did better than the original, despite it being at Roundabout.
You can then also consider shows that were commerical Broadway failures, that have become hits in regional/communty theatres: Addams Family, Shrek, etc.
"Ok ok ok ok ok ok ok. Have you guys heard about fidget spinners!?" ~Patti LuPone
I wouldn’t count your eggs yet. I saw the original and hated it. I saw the Maria FriedmN production in Boston about 5 years, and I loved it. I remember thinking that it would still have issues ina commercial run, because it requires a certain level of concentration to really get it. I am not sure that equates with a large Broadway musical audience. Witness the recent Company production. Even with those reviews are enthusiastic audiences, I remember reading that it probably did not return its full investment. Merrily would have a tougher time unless Daniel Radcliffe committed to a long run, and we know he is a box office attraction, but does not guarantee full houses, etc.
Well not Broadway but.... Heathers did not do well when it was off-Broadway, did it? But ever since it has been in the West End it has been doing VERY well, right?
fashionguru_23 said: "The most recent revival of Follies comes to mind. It was on track to be the first (at the time) Sondheim Broadway production to recoup."
The John Doyle production of Sweeney Toddrecouped. I don't think the original Broadway production did, so this would be another answer to the OP's question.
As the OP, recouping on tour does not meet the criteria. Also, I thought tours are under separate contracts and capitalizations, such that money earned on tour does not go towards paying back the Broadway investors (of course this depends entirely on the contract).
Also, it seems to me that, if producers are relying on a "name" to sell a revival of a prior commercial flop, then the producers can't count on the tour succeeding without that "name".
ggersten said: "As the OP, recouping on tour does not meet the criteria."
Then I think Sweeney Todd is another answer to your question: I think we all agree that the original did not recoup on Broadway, but the Doyle revival did.
"She Loves Me" wasn't a financial success in its initial Broadway run, but both Broadway revivals fared better. The Roundabout's production was also the first Broadway show to be live broadcast.
"Flop" and "hit" are subjective descriptions, but I believe theater lovers were enamored with the show from its initial Broadway run, which helped with the more financially successful revivals.
She Loves Me is one of my favorite shows ever. That said, I remember that the commercial run of the first revival did not return its investment, and the second was limited run non-profit. We’re they well reviewed? Yes, I think they suffered from the same fate of the original. Many people loved it, but a lot of people had little interest in seeing it. The original had a respectable run, but that’s it…sorta similar with the revivals.
I guess it is just too ‘special’ for mass audiences.
John Adams said: ""Flop" and "hit" are subjective descriptions'"
This is really true, once we hit the 1970's and going forward. Can one really say Follies and Sweeney Todd were flops, just because they didn't make back their production costs? That's an accountant's version of Broadway history. Both shows had successful runs and were regularly revived, they instantly joined the ranks of classic shows, and not in a cult show fashion like Candide or Flahooley.
Yes flop is an accounting term, but it's also a matter of "how many people actually paid to see this in its original incarnation and what kind of interest did it generate."
More often than not, as data has shown us, once a flop always a flop. Shows like SIDE SHOW and FOLLIES and RAGTIME and CAROLINE OR CHANGE failed multiple times on Broadway, financially, and you cannot divorce that from their ability to attract mass audiences. It's kind of a rare thing for something to flop really hard originally and then do a complete 360 in terms of public perception.