teen musicals flop on broadway- Page 2

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 5:01pm

I actually liked both "Saturday Night Fever" and even "Footloose".

Posted: 6/27/06 at 5:02pm

I never saw SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER on Broadway, but down in a casino with my aunt for free due to comps. Good show.

Footloose- I like the CD. But I love ALL SHOOK UP.

Posted: 6/27/06 at 5:16pm

Maybe the producers need to stop "aiming" at age groups. They need to resume "aiming" at good theatre. Even if it isn't great theatre, making shows age-specific really limits the audience who will buy a ticket. We need more full-price ticket buyers, not less. Anyone who really knows me, knows that I am a musical theatre addict and have been so for a long, long time. I started going in my teens. The first half-dozen shows I saw were:

Oklahoma! (the national tour)
Miss Liberty
Pardon Our French
Tree Grows In Brooklyn, A
Make A Wish
Music In The Air

All very different shows and none aimed at teen-agers. Teen-aged people today (and even those a little older) need to take some chances and not just keep repeating Wicked and The Wedding Singer

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 8:06pm

Well said Tom

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 8:09pm

High School Musical is the type of way to ensure a future audience for Musical Theatre. Say what you wish about the plot or the music but it certainly exposed people to a style of music they otherwise wouldn't have been aware of. Now if for the sequel they would cough up the dough to hire Menken, Webber, or Shaiman...

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/28/06 at 3:06pm

Footloose is doing fantastic here in the uk and has just extended its run.The posters etc are clearly aimed at audiences between 14-mid 20s and that is the audience we are getting and they are loving it.
Fame lasted 10 years because people in this country love fun uptempo musicals along with the classic musicals so would be at fame one night and les mis the next(the advertising for fame was also very very clever)as with footloose the uk production of fame stood head and shoulders above the american productions(what the hell did they do to footloose on broadway what a mess)
Dirty Dancing will also be huge here

[Cenoern]

Posted: 6/28/06 at 3:40pm

I still have no clue as to what the purpose of this entire thread is/was.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 5:59am

the fact that broadway has a snobbish attitude towards the young fun shows and looks down its nose at them

that is what the thread was about

[coolphantom919]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 3:42pm

WHAT ABOUT RENT?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 3:52pm

"the fact that broadway has a snobbish attitude towards the young fun shows and looks down its nose at them"

Nah...we have a snobbish attitude towards crap...which is what most of the shows you've mentioned are, westend. The good ones do well here...and are well reviewed and attended. This goes back through history as well.

That said, your attitude stinks and is not appreciated. Go hate somewhere else.

And learn how to type the english language.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 5:38pm

"as with footloose the uk production of fame stood head and shoulders above the american productions(what the hell did they do to footloose on broadway what a mess)"

Other than the lack of the green and purple Broadway set design, the West End production looks quite similar. Perhaps you could elaborate on what makes the West End production infinitely superior?

"Fame lasted 10 years because people in this country love fun uptempo musicals along with the classic musicals"

The same could be said here with Hairspray, Pajama Game, Phantom of the Opera, Rent, The Lion King, and many other successful shows. Fame lasted 10 years in the West End because British audiences for musical theatre are quite different, which accounts for the success of something like We Will Rock You, yet the failure of Tommy. The truth is, Fame is not a good show, but it's not the first time an inadequate show has had a long run in the West End (or on Broadway, for that matter). Fame (the movie) was something familiar to British audiences, and familiarity sells, even when the stage production is way off the mark.
Footloose UK

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 9:38pm

Fame was a great show. Why are people so insulting?

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 9:46pm

the changes in footloose are

dancing is not a crime and i confess have gone
Holding out for a Hero is a genuine show stopper thanks to an amazing set of girls and the hero boys in the middle
The set is slicker and more realistic than the ott color sets in new york
Learning to be silent has become a song for 3 not just a duet and works really well
The camp element has been toned down and the show now plays for drama as well as comedy and camp
the choreography is FAR better than the crap on broadway
the finale is outstanding and gets the audience in to a frenzy instead of the lame ending on broadway
the actors are far better as are the singers
and many more things i cant think off right now

and doodlenyc -grow up it aint an attack its an observation

ps fame cant have run for 10 years just because the british audiences fimiliarity with the film since it made more money and was more popular in the states(and won oscars).Plus people come back to fame time and time again so it must have done something right?

[jaesdare]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 9:49pm

all shook up didn't close because of money issues though, they closed because an idiotic producer(the one with the decision making power) pulled the strings(for some really odd reason, that I can't remember) without asking the rest of the producers

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 6/29/06 at 10:22pm

High School Musical is the type of way to ensure a future audience for Musical Theatre. Say what you wish about the plot or the music but it certainly exposed people to a style of music they otherwise wouldn't have been aware of. Now if for the sequel they would cough up the dough to hire Menken, Webber, or Shaiman...

They don't need High School Musical to introduce children to theater. The first exposure I ever had to it was movie musicals like The Wizard of Oz, Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and *shock* Disney movies like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. It progressed from there with the help of my parents. Disney has the compacity to produce much better quality musicals for the masses than a half-assed TV movie like that. They pump out TV movies at a once-a-month rate on the Disney Channel, and have an obvious "assembly line" feel to them. None of them are of remote quality by most anyone's standards. The only reason High School Musical got more popular is because it WAS a variation from all their other TV movies (despite it's standard Disney Channel forumla).

Kids ARE aware of musicals and Disney DOES have the ability to produce good movie musicals to entice future audiences, but to claim that this movie is good for the future of musical theatre is an insult to the genre. This movie just got lucky because of the Britney Spears equation- right time, right place, no talent.

Camp did a better job of presenting musical theatre to younger audiences, but since it didn't have Disney's name attached from and center, it didn't get the attention it definitely deserved over this.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/30/06 at 8:39am

"Holding out for a Hero is a genuine show stopper thanks to an amazing set of girls and the hero boys in the middle"

"the actors are far better as are the singers"

Well, both of those aren't actual changes to the show, just your opinions on the performers. Some of the changes you mentioned do sound stronger while others sound like they are just your personal preferences. What "camp elements" were toned down? How did they change? What is different about the finale?

Personally, I didn't like the Broadway production of Footloose. I thought it was a great idea that went horribly wrong in its staging and direction. Looking at the photo from the UK production of Holding Out For a Hero, it looks like the same mistakes are being made, which is too bad.

Sure Fame did something right in the West End to play for so long. Like I said, it is a matter of the audience's tastes, which is VERY different in England than it is in the US. Obviously, Fame's strengths were in its presentation and performance. The book and the score are very very very weak when compared to most shows, but as with many weak shows, if you can deliver some dazzling performances, you can sell a show and make a profit. People will overlook the show's other faults. Cats and Starlight Express also had very weak books and not the greatest scores, but broke records in the West End. It desn't mean they were GREAT shows (though I would argue the merits of Cats), but they worked. I would not rank Fame as highly as either of them, but it works with European audiences. So did Notre Dame de Paris. Go figure.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/30/06 at 11:43am

erm holding out for a hero issnt like the broadway production in anyway its played as a huge fantasy scene with stadium lighting amped up sound and brand new music in the middle of the song.The hero boys are lit up in several platforms on the stage before coming forward for a sexy dance then partnering up with the girls.I cant explain how amazing that moment is but you ask anyone on here who has come to see the show in the uk and they will tell you the same(they all contact me to say they had a great time coz im in it).

The finale is 15 mins longer than broadway with some outstanding dancing

The camp elements that have been toned down are the way we were told to act by the director for 1.He said dont play this ott we are not on broadway now.Also the scenes between the adults are fanntastic played all out for drama(a few uk reviews said that you gen care about this kids and the adults in the town due to the fact we werent just playing for camp).
The shows lighting is also smart using soft colors for the outdoors to capture the small town feel and the lights only explode in to ott colour with the big dance numbers(unlike broadway where the lights were ott and unrealistic all the way through.
The orchestra for ours also seem a lot better and quite a few of the orchestrations were changed.
The scene for act 1 finale is a lot better than broadways the dancing in the gym is clever and energetic(broadways again was very weak and the stupid trick of having the 2 dancers spinning around on the gym climbing ropes were just pure broadway in a bad way)
The show also has a smooth feel to it,the show hardly has any blackouts as the set created for london allows it to change in the blink of an eye making the shows transitions simple and effective.

ive seen footloose broadway and am in footloose uk so can judge the 2 shows easily and you shouldnt just go of a couple of pics you have seen.If you are ever in the uk book a ticket and see for yourself you will be shocked at how different they are.

As for the cast been better yes it is my opinion but also the opinion of many critics.Not 1 critic has given the cast a bad review NOT ONE.The 4 main girls have blown audiences away and our willard has recieved rave reviews as has ren and the adults and all the ensemble

The sheer fact is broadway had a good show they just wrapped it in a god awfull production with an average cast and as has happened so many times before the uk took the show and made it work and saw its potential and footloose is the perfect example of that.

And if footloose ever goes back to New York they need to takr the uk production and leave the original broadway production in the dumper.

Belive it or not i am a big big fan of broadway musicals i just think they get it wrong a lot to especially with the teen musicals and the british musicals or british films they take to new york(what the hell did they do to taboo and full monty and im betting the changes to poppins and billy will be no exception)

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/30/06 at 11:52am

Do you think anyone is going to attempt to read that novel? It's unintelligible. Fix your punctuation and run it through a spell check.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/30/06 at 12:16pm

Im dyslexic and bad with grammer WHATS YOUR EXCUSE FOR BEEN A NASTY ARROGANT GIT?

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/30/06 at 1:20pm

Dyslexia is not an excuse when there is spell check. People are not going to take the time to read and consider your arguments if they're completely unreadable.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 6/30/06 at 1:28pm

The nasty arrogance is coming from you, westend.

[tourboi]

Posted: 7/1/06 at 5:05am

I love that they use the Broadway Cast Recording on the West End website. Funny.

That said...a lot of the sets do look similar, with a bit of tweaking to make them more realistic.

I also noted that theyre using the logo used for the Non Eq US Tour of FOOTLOOSE, which in my opinion, was TEN TIMES better than the Broadway production and first national tour. The sets for that were completely different, as well.

I'm curious as to how the new song at the begining of Act Two sounds...it can't be as bad as that God Awful country song that began Act Two on Broadway (tak about a snooze fest!).

Id be curious to see to compare.

What did strike me is the website claiming that FOOTLOOSE is "based on a true story"...news to me.