LITTLE WOMEN & Its Audience. What Went Wrong?

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:32pm

There are many existing threads lamenting the fact that LW has posted a closing notice for Sunday, 5/22. Let's probe a bit deeper than the sentiments on the other threads.

It appears that LW didn't find its audience on Broadway, why do you believe that happened--what went wrong?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:35pm

They abandoned a lovely score and instead chose to go with a completely forgettable and boring one. They also wrote a book that made the absolute worst out of the story and ended up confusing it's audience in certain parts, which is never a good idea when you're trying to entertain kids.

And than of course there is Amy McAlexander, the single most annoying person to ever step foot on a broadway stage. This show never had any hope with her in it.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:36pm

The book was weak. The music wasn't spectacular. It relied too much upon its strong cast. I was really looking forward to the show, and it disappointed me. Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that it didn't last too long.

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:38pm

Run for your lives!

[Matt_G]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:38pm

Tiny, that was just mean.

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:39pm

Follow up question is, what would you have done to market the show to build its audience?

[HeyJayNYC]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:40pm

Take a look at the latest photo of Lindsey Lohan, stick thin and all dolled up. Young girls don't stay young girls anymore. The young girls who should have flocked to "Little Women" don't read books anymore. They grow up way too fast. They want to see "Wicked" with it's "Mean Girls" spin. I remember a review of "Mean Girls" pointed out that Lindsey Lohan had gone from a cute kid, and though "MG" did well, the review pointed out that she was already straining to be all grown up and that it was apparent her awkward teen scenes where straining. Just as girls her age used to love to read, they now want to be rock stars and bad girls.
This is just my opinion. I liked "Little Women", but I had never read the book, never seen the movies, and went the first night of previews.
Oh well....can it be that it was all so simple then, or has time rewritten every line...

[Matt_G]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:40pm

I don't think marketing was it's problem. It was word of mouth that I think killed the show.

[Justice]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:41pm

Let's see...
It geared itself...or shall I say "advertised" itself as a Mother/Daughter musical, inviting all mother's and daughters, but leaving out sons and fathers. And in my opinion, fathers from middle America would rather see Phantom or DRS than sit through LW.
Also...there was no buzz. It was not the talk of the town, like Q, or Putnam, or Wicked.

I work at a restaurant around the corner, and many theatregoers come in with their playbills. I think I can count on one finger how many times I'd seen a LW Playbill.

It's really not surprising to me that it is closing...I mean, have you ever tried reading Alcott's book???

[i*heart*fame]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:42pm

I honestly think that it was just a hard show to do, no matter who wrote the book. it is extremely difficult to synthesize a book of that length into a 2h show, while still satisfying those who liked the book and its story intact. Most people I have spoken havent liked any of the movie versions, for that reason.

[#1Elphie]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:43pm

I loved Alcott's novel. I love the story. I just think it was a bad production, and no amount of marketing can make up for that.
Updated On: 5/19/05 at 10:43 PM

[ElphieDefiesGravity]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:43pm

Hey! I think Amy does quite a good job. Sure, she is annoying, but she isn't that bad. She has improved SO MUCH in the role since Duke.

Anyway, back to the original topic: I personally think the advertising for this show was rotten. I think if it had had better advertising, it would have done better.

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:43pm

lol


No, but seriously, I saw the show.. it was just boring. Sutton was the only good thing about it... she was amazing. The music was forgettable and the book was all about Jo!

I also agree with Justice.. why only Mothers and Daughters?!?

Updated On: 5/19/05 at 10:43 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:49pm

Mixed reviews, no helicopters or falling chandeliers or Python's

[Thenardier]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:54pm

OR green b!tches flyin' high...

McAlexander - that's a funny last name...
And I should know - people always assume my last name is Mc....but it isn't.

Updated On: 5/23/05 at 10:54 PM

[ShuQ]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:57pm

I think the moral of the story is great but I think the problem with it's Broadway release was the timing I think. Just a bad time to try to put a show that moves slowly with nothing spectacular, just good heart, on Broadway.

I still think that the show wouldn't be half of what it is without Sutton.

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:08pm

On the surface, Little Women had an extremely weak score. I was expecting this to be the next Secret Garden, a novel that translated to stage well and enjoyed moderate sucess. However, when I heard the samples of the music I knew I wouldn't enjoy it and neither would many audiences. Ultimately, the source material does not translate well to stage. What happens when you see a movie based on a book? Generally you say, well the book was better than the movie. The reason for this is that 2.5 hours is simply not enough time to develop characters and the complex plots held in books. This of course led to the just ok book of the show. I think a general trend on Broadway and in cinema is that productions derived from original source material, or productions that have been so removed from their source material, they only vaguely resemble it, are the ones that suceed. I'm of the school of thought that there are limitations on what can and cannot be translated to stage and screen from novels. You can however break those limitations if a writer is particularly brilliant, those however are far and few between. Sorry for the terrible grammer.

[AnotherDay46]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:13pm

Though it was a weak show, the performers were amazing, it is true though, fathers and son's most likly would not enjoy Little Women. They would rather see something more vulgar...

Though it didn't last long, I'm happy that it was here. It was a great production (I personally loved it), and hopefully it will find better audiences on the tour.

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:22pm

Amy McAlexander could close any show...haha

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:24pm

This is what someone told me when I told them about LW being a musical......"as if the book weren't boring enough"

Perhaps other feel this way too......

[mallardo]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:29pm

Well, I disagree that it was a poor adaptation. I thought Allan Knee did a pretty amazing job of cutting that big book down to its necessary elements while retaining the strong emotional bonds between Jo and her family and making it all play theatrically. If the score didn't overwhelm it was at least servicable and was well performed by a very talented cast. People just didn't want to see Little Women, no matter what. We have, apparently, moved on.

[TGIF]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:32pm

Last October/November I was talking to a friend about the the upcoming musical season and we touched on Little Women. She said that she had no desire to see the show. I think there has been so many reincarnations of the story. So if people aren't "tired" of it or dont like it, they don't know the story and probably aren't interested in seeing it in the first place.

Besides that who is left in seeing it? Seasoned theatre goers that see everything that comes out?

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:34pm

While I was not disappointed with the show, I thought it was good, I will admit the only reason I went was to see Sutton...

[Lindy2]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:09am

A couple things to say....

Matt_G - It made me laugh when you told Tiny that was mean.. But Amy McAlexander got on my nerves too...

Also, I saw LW, and I liked it. It wasn't the best thing ever, but was decent. The thing that worries me, and I don't know if this has been brought up, is the growing trend of "spectacle" shows. LW had weak points, but it scares me that the trend of surviving shows on Broadway are huge spectacles. I hope that shows like LW that are quieter per se but important don't disappear completely.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:27am

I don't think that they were clever enough by half on the marketing end. Where was the big Mother's Day promotion for the show (moms go free, daughters for half price all weekend)?

Two-thirds of Broadway ticket buyers are women (according to the League of American Theatres). There's NO reason this show couldn't have done a better job of tapping into that audience, which is the majority of ticket buyers. There should have been constant ads out there "When's the last time you took mom to a show?" "Call mom and get together with her for the most family-friendly show on Broadway" etc......

They seemed to just roll over and die MONTHS ago and stopped trying to find an audience. While it's not a great show by any means, there's absolutely no reason it didn't run AT LEAST a year and the producers and marketing team are to blame for that.

Updated On: 5/20/05 at 12:27 AM