The State of Broadway- Smash Hit or Lost Cause

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:40pm

Here is a topic of conversation... Just something I was thinking about when trying to find a time to see CURTAINS before it ends its run.

I am not sure how well educated in music theatre history posters on this board are but I find it distressing that shows now are either smash hits that make millions or lose money with very little in between. This is not a healthy environment for the music theatre.

CURTAINS is an ideal example. That started me on this train of thought. Here is a show that recieved encouraging fairly kind reviews although not raves. It was an entertaining evening in the theatre. Fun, amusing, and everything most people who see musicals want out of their evening. It had big produciton numbers, fun costumes, solid sets AND most importantly of all some solid good old fashion music theatre performances. Built around personalities. And a wonderful star turn by a celebrity with a passion and zest for musical theatre. Everything about this show was filled with good old fashion showmanship, skill, and effort. It ran over a year and to houses of around 80% give or take for most of the first year.

Here is the heartbreak. I believe that when this show closes it will have most likely have recouped little more than half of its initial investment!!! WHAT! that is terrible. It is sad that this business can no longer support shows like this. Something than get run for a year. make a little money. Entertian and make way for something new. This is the way it used be!

50 years ago a show like this would have made some money. Been considered a success even though it was not a classic and the music theatre cannon would have been richer for it. The Broadway of today either has something that loses money or hits and runs for 10 years. I miss the inbetween..

(PS- I am 28 years old so it is not like am some old guy talking about the good old days. I am just sorry I missed them)

[BkCollector]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:43pm

"It had big produciton numbers, fun costumes, solid sets AND most importantly of all some solid good old fashion music theatre performances. Built around personalities. And a wonderful star turn by a celebrity with a passion and zest for musical theatre. Everything about this show was filled with good old fashion showmanship, skill, and effort."

Sorry, Noel, but what you describe in that paragraph is a total snoozefest for me, unless they are using that format to say something I haven't heard before. Otherwise, I've seen it too many times for this to be better than some of the excellent examples of that kind of show. Unless it can rival the great shows that you're talking about, then why should it? Curtains was everything you describe, but not good enough to be remembered beside those great "entertainment" shows of the Golden Age.

Maybe it didn't recoup it's investment because while on the outside it's everything a musical should be (whatever), but in reality, nobody wants that anymore.


Just my opinion.

[blaxx]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:44pm

It's a Business.

I put on The Iceman Cometh, and nobody cameth, remember?

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:46pm

:Listens to Popular by Annaleigh Ashford and smiles completely in his own little world:


Yeah. Whatever.

Updated On: 3/26/08 at 04:46 PM

[Kalimba]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:51pm

I'm not quite sure that no one wants this kind of show around, but the clip from the Tony's certainly gave me no incentive to want to see Curtains.

Clumsydude, your avatar scares me.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:54pm

"Clumsydude, your avatar scares me. "

Awww. No Annaleigh Ashford love. :[

I wanted to see Curtains at one point, but it kind of got lost in the shuffle of Xanadu and Spring Awakening in my mind.

[Kalimba]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:55pm

Sorry, no. LOL!

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 4:59pm

Note to Self: Send a lovely large framed picture of Annaleigh to Kalimba. :]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:00pm

Clumsy you are so right! It is SO UNFAIR that people are allowed to use popular music that people want to listen to and put on shows that people want to see. That is why people should be forced to go to unpopular shows and not allowed to go to shows that are popular.

I'm sorry, clumsy, but your post is the single stupidest post in the history of this board. You are rip people for not going to see a "classic" show like Curtains when you didn't even see it yourself! You do realize how ridiculous that is, right?

And Noel, thus always the way of the boards. People used to complain that with shows costing $100K to stage they would NEVER be able to recoup.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:12pm

JoeKv99---> Agreed.

I fixed my post.
Its still stupid, but much more happy and fun! :]

[tazber]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:21pm

Theater is cyclical. Curtains would have probably been a smash 3 years ago. After The Producers opened, self referential and old fashioned musicals were in.
Now with Spring Awakening being such a popular show everyone wants youth driven and "edgy".

As soon as the next BIG thing hits, it will replace that type of show and so on.

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:44pm

The next big thing: Musicals about angry deer. Starring Angry Deer.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:45pm

But only Angry Deer that live in NY.

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:46pm

I agree with you that the last hit dictates the kind of programming that starts pop up after that BUT here is something interesting....SPRING AWAKENING is a curious type hit. Here is a show with rave reviews across the boards. The tony award for Best Musical. All kinds of press and words of mouth YET this show has never been a sell out smash. It has never been the hot ticket. Never reached that max capacity point that you couldnt get into the show. I find it scary that something with that much praise, awards, and positive "new wave" press and word of mouth still cannot sell out a 1100 seat house.

People say that this darker style musical or musicals with a modern sounds are what the public wants YET.....Look at this.....there were more people, paying more money to see Legally Blonde & Curtians last season than Spring Awakeninig or Grey Gardens. This maybe what critics and awards are favoring and so it seems like the new genre of choice but the legally blonde and curtians still have taken in more audiences and more money. The only difference is that these productions are more expensive to mount and run so the economics dont work out well. BUT as far as what the people want to see its still these more traditional shows. I am not arguing for a certian type of show or against a certian type of show but its an interesting thing to look at.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 6:29pm

Curtains wasn't about profit.

I mean, sure, investors put it out there so it could make some profit.
HOWEVER, the primary motivation behind its mounting was to honor Fred Ebb's memory with one last great Kander & Ebb show.

In that respect, this show is a hit.

Sure, it may not have recouped, but it might make that money on tour. With THE DROWSY CHAPERONE right before it, it was imply something that people had seen before. I agree with taz, it's simply a matter of timing. But this show will live on, and groups will perform it in the future, and twenty years from now we'll be talking about that Kander & Ebb show with the tv star and how fun it was.

(Note: I know that sounds really sentimental and mushy, but it's what I feel. This show was a tribute to Fred Ebb, period.)

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 6:33pm

It is too expensive for most to attend.Some shows do not make the cut as people simply cannot see every show they want to.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 6:48pm

The Drowsy Chaperone was an original, old-fashioned musical comedy with no big stars that had a respectable run and made a solid profit. A show does not have to run for ten years to make a profit. The traditional musical is not dead.

Avenue Q, Spelling Bee, and Urinetown are three other examples of solid, though hardly blockbuster, hits.

[me2]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 7:12pm

This is something I've been pondering recently as well. In the 50s, you could have a midling show with a big star and still run and recoup (ex: Gwen Verdon in CAN-CAN). The fact that CURTAINS ran so long is great, but to be totally healthy, we need to get to the point that shows can run AND make at least return investment. We're getting there.

Any word on how much CURTAINS made back?
From the Mouth of Harvey Fierstein

[BkCollector]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 7:18pm

And remember, even taking into inflation, etc, all that. During the Golden Age, working class people could still afford to go see Broadway Shows. Not so any more.

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 7:36pm

Hal Prince has said many times that there is a big difference between a hit and a success (at the time, he was talking about his feeling that Follies was a success, despite losing its entire investment).

And I have to agree with scaryclowns: as a tribute to the Kander & Ebb team, and as an attempt to get their last collaboration on Broadway, the show was definitely a success. And hey, David Hyde Pierce ain't so bad, either.

For anyone who knows, what WAS the break-even on Curtains?

[legally_brunette]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 9:37pm

TheActr97J:
"The Drowsy Chaperone was an original, old-fashioned musical comedy with no big stars that had a respectable run and made a solid profit."

Does the name SUTTON FOSTER ring any bells??

She won a Tony for Thoroughly Modern Millie. I think-- i Think-- she was known.

--sorry, just a huge Foster Fan. had to defend.--

[BkCollector]

Posted: 3/26/08 at 9:40pm

EH, No one outside of the theater world knows Sutton Foster by name. I believe Scott Waara won a Tony for City of Angels of Most Happy Fella, I forget which. He was not known. Winning a Tony doesn't automatically make you a household name.