Why hasn't The Wizard of Oz appeared more on Broadway?

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 4:26pm

The Wizard of Oz is such an American cultural institution as a novel and a film - why hasn't it had a presence on Broadway in the way that it has in London? There was the famous Royal Shakespeare Company adaptation/production in the 1980s that is now licensed to amateur companies and continues to be performed in this version, but there was also the Andrew Lloyd Webber version that appeared in London in the 2010s featuring a leading lady cast on TV. There is now also a new touring version that started regionally in England, then made its way to London, and finally on tour... Why hasn't the show appeared more on Broadway in the last 50 years? 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 4:29pm

The movie is perfect and we can watch it whenever we want. What a relief that we don’t have attempts to match its magic on Broadway, like countless other properties these days. Flop after flop.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 4:46pm

Musicaldudepeter said: "The Wizard of Oz is such an American cultural institution as a noveland a film - why hasn't it had a presence on Broadway in the way that it has in London? There was the famous Royal Shakespeare Company adaptation/production in the 1980s that is now licensed to amateur companies and continues to be performed in this version, but there was also the Andrew Lloyd Webber version that appeared in London in the 2010s featuring a leading lady cast on TV. There is now also a new touring version that started regionally in England, then made its way to London, and finally on tour... Why hasn't the show appeared more on Broadway in the last 50 years?"

 

Is there some reason you do not count THE WIZ ?

[lostboys&goldengirls]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 5:16pm

JSquared2 said: "Is there some reason you do not count THE WIZ ?"

Because The Wiz and The Wizard of Oz are two completely separate shows. 

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 5:18pm

Wait 10ish years when the film will be public domain.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 5:20pm

Plus, the modern Wizard of Oz stage productions lean heavily into Panto, which does not translate particularly well in the US

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 5:34pm

The original RSC production was absolutely stunning. It had its own aesthetic, relying on NOTHING from the film visually, though its used its script in expanded form and the film orchestration (adapted). The visuals were based on the original novel illustrations, and were really gorgeous. But the current version is definitely relying on panto techniques and is so unbelievably cheap. I'm just wondering why such an American artistic property has not been exploited on Broadway in the way it has on stage in the UK - I'm glad it hasn't! The film, as one poster said, is perfect, and it should remain so. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 6:28pm

I have always found the stage version a slog.   Love the film.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 7/2/24 at 9:00pm

Reading the Wikipedia page for 1902 musical adaptation is like a fever dream. I wish someone would revive that.

[markypoo]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 9:42am

The 1902 was revived in Canton, Ohio on July 10, 2010.

I was there.

Clips from it were on YouTube sometime ago.

[bigbelterbaby]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 10:05am

I think the reason Wicked and The Wiz are big money makers is because it takes a story we already know and shows us something different. We all know the movie by heart in America and don’t want to pay money to watch someone do their best Judy Garland impression. 
that being said, at least in my neck of the country, the wizard of oz is done a lot in high schools and community theatres, I’m not sure which version gets produced the most, but I think it also hurts how many licensed versions there are out there. It’s become a very muddled title. 
 

..

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 11:36am

Actually surprised ALW’s adaptation of The Wizard of Oz never actually made it to Broadway. 

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 12:00pm

jacobsnchz14 said: "Actually surprised ALW’s adaptation of The Wizard of Oz never actually made it to Broadway."

Having seen it...I am not surprised.

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 1:28pm

ChairinMain said: "jacobsnchz14 said: "Actually surprised ALW’s adaptation of The Wizard of Oz never actually made it to Broadway."

Having seen it...I am not surprised."

I did not see the RSC production, the Wizard of Oz is perhaps my favorite movie. That said the way the movie is written works better on film then onstage, especially for a modern audience. The songs are all great but aside from Over the Rainbow could sorta be established by a single line “I want a brain” “oz is a merry place to be” etc. Additionally depending on where you put the act break (in the theatrical versions I’m aware of I think it works best after Optimistic voices before entering emerald city with “we’re off to see the wizard” reprise. There’s really only 2 actual song in act 2 (and king of the forest is often cut), the jitterbug can be added but doesn’t do much for plot, some reprises are all that’s left. It needs some score expansion and I don’t think anyone has done that effectively yet. 

[noradesmond]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 2:57pm

Because Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Margaret Hamilton, Billie Burke, and Frank Morgan, that’s why. 

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 7/3/24 at 6:36pm

jacobsnchz14 said: "Actually surprised ALW’s adaptation of The Wizard of Oz never actually made it to Broadway."

It didn’t need to, though. It did well enough touring the US, and then internationally. I think it could be a fun seasonal show in the way it was for Madison Square Garden in the 90s, but I think it’s so embedded in popular culture that it doesn’t need to attempt a long term run on Broadway. People watch it on TV around holidays, they see it at their community theater, they grew up watching it. They’re not necessarily willing to pay Broadway prices unless you have some crazy special casting….like Eartha Kitt and Mickey Rooney. Or Roseanne hot off the ending of her sitcom.