Why Wasn't LB A Hit?

[sayokay]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 3:36pm

There's really huge shows of broadway right now (Wicked, Jersey Boys, etc.) and now that Legally Blonde is closed, it really makes me wonder, why wasn't it a hit and racking in those 1,000,000's a week. After all I would have thought the show title of "Legally Blonde" could have sold plenty of tickets, but obviously it didn't other than at the occasional TKTS booth, plus it did have pretty successful first few months. Was there a lot of television or other advertisements like Gypsy's big campaign? Overall, the show was alright and should have brung in all those Wicked girls.

Why do you think the show wasn't a hit?
Updated On: 10/22/08 at 03:36 PM

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 3:41pm

Warning: you will be getting some very rude responses to this.

I'm upset the show wasn't a hit. I loved it but a lot of people didn't like it because it was kind of like a fantasy... lawyer in pink dress, getting into Harvard like nothing... I wish it would have had a longer run.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 3:52pm

It's amazing that it lasted as long as it did, especially in that theater.

[Marianne2]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 3:53pm

I saw it on MTV, and personally, it just did not hold my interest very well. It was a cute show, but I think that's all there is to it. I have never seen Wicked, so I don't know anything about that show.

And honestly, I did not care for Laura Bell Bundy as Elle. I think she just played her as annoying and obnoxious, which is not how she was in the movie. This is just my opinion, so don't take it personally.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 3:56pm

It did run longer than a lot of people thought it would.

Personally, while I thought it was cute, it was fluffy. It wasn't something I wanted to see over and over. And if I did, I could have DVRed the MTV airing of it. I think that marketing idea may well be part of what sealed their fate...people were able to see it then and I'm sure most of them recorded it. I'm also not sure how broad of an age-range appeal it had. Wicked and Jersey Boys (particularly the latter) have more of an across-the-board generational appeal whereas Legally Blonde, imho, was for the pink-loving tweenage girl crowd predominantly. (Obviously not exclusively.) And lastly, it's frankly not as good as the movie was (again, imho). Why pay Broadway prices when you can rent the movie and see the original?

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 3:58pm

I felt like the songs weren't as memorable as they could be. A lot of shows that don't exactly have brilliant scores have really memorable, head-sticking songs, and one of the biggest flaws of "Legally Blonde" was that the songs tended to all sound the same until you'd heard them all a million times. (I can't imagine thinking they sounded the same now, but I remember my friends and I all thought that when we saw it on MTV). A lot of the songs tend to drag on or serve no purpose.

And also, "Legally Blonde" isn't as popular a film now as it was a couple of years ago, maybe because the sequel wasn't as good. If the musical came out a few years ago, it could've been a much bigger hit. I don't know, I thought it was a really cute show and a really fun show and had some very talented cast members, but it didn't seem that... memorable. It's not a bad show, though.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:07pm

The charmless Laura Bell Bundy and her weird, Jessica-simpson like movements as she sings didn't help, either.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:18pm

I have only seen the MTV broadcast, which I taped. I really enjoy the show and have watched it several times. I have even recorded the music from the tape to CD and onto my ZUNE. The only thing I really didn't care for was the repetitive choreography. I expected better. But I think the show is really fun And I still laugh at the jokes. I find the music to be pretty catchy and find myself humming the songs a lot. Had the show stayed open, I probably would have thought about seeing it while in New York.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:19pm

"I saw it on MTV, and personally, it just did not hold my interest very well."

The MTV broadcast was unable to hold my attention as well. Perhaps it doesn't translate well to television or it was the constant breaks with the annoying "Hills" girls. You don't get commercial breaks on Broadway.

I was so turned off by the MTV broadcast that I didn't buy tickets until someone I knew dropped into the cast. And even though I didn't think I'd like it.

But when I saw the show in the theatre I enjoyed it very much. It's so much better live.

I agree that the show might have been bigger a few years back. Also, the target demographic aren't people with lots of money. Even with student discounts it can be hard and their parents can only take them so many times if at all.

[DavidPatrickS82]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:20pm

The palace is a 1700 seat house, and the economy is crumbling! No one has the money to see shows anymore.... Everything is losing money, but the show cost a bit to run and they weren't making the overhead costs. Plus I think the whole point of Broadway is to have things open and close, if things run too long it gets boring.

[fnyboi88]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:26pm

I think it was the timing. The name could have sold to more of an audience if it came to Broadway sooner and got the attention of the fans of the movie.

[BNN]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:31pm

Did people go to see it and enjoy it and have a good afternoon/night at the theatre? Yes, so it was a hit in that sense.

Was it a hit in terms of financial success or critical ingenuity, maybe not.

However, if people went to see Legally Blonde and enjoyed it, does it really matter if it made money? Theatre is supposed to entertain, not make money, first and foremost.

Although making money can't hurt. I never had the opportunity to see the show live, but I certainly enjoyed the MTV broadcast so to me, the show is certainly a hit.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:41pm

The thing about LB is that it would have been an enormous hit if they hadn't spent so much money on unecesarrily huge sets...if the show wasn't so big and if the theater wasn't enormous it would have been a hit in any other theater...they just seemed to make it such a huge lavish production for no reason...and I also have to agree about Laura Bell. I gave her positive notices in my original review of the show but she just kinda lacks that watchability factor that Bailey has. The Palace is enormous and it hasn't had a bonafide hit since (I believe) AIDA.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 4:52pm

It actually was a pretty big hit compared to a lot of other movie turned musicals. And in my opinion, it seemed to me that the MTV broadcast actually made it more popular..the only reason i became a huge fan and saw it 4 times was because i saw the MTV broadcast. and a lot of people i know saw the MTV one, and said..i really wanna see it live. Also, it proved A LOT of people wrong. Everyone thought it would be a flop and close right after opening, a year a a half on broadway is usually hard to surive. It is also gonna carry on in the tour, and LOndon and other countries..so it actually was a pretty big hit; it just faced some bad money issues.

[toddlisatyriem]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 5:09pm

Personally, I think that they marketed the show to the wrong crowd! This show shouldn't have targeted the MTV viewers and instead should have targeted the 30-40 somethings.

We have more money, we were the age group that first fell in love with the moivie and characters, we will travel to see shows multiple times in NYC, and if given the chance will gravitate to bond with others that love the same things.... i.e. Clay Aiken.

I know... Don't throw stones, but hear me out. I completely see why he has such a following. His Claymates have created a family of websites and message boards where these housewives bond and chat about everything... with Clay now being a very minor part of what drives them now. If Clay does a concert.... sold out! Not because of him, but because it is a reason to gather together with other 30 somethings and act silly and young again.

Legally Blonde could have done that too! But they kept targeting this younger audience with MTV and missed out on creating the next 30 somethings obsession. They obsessed over beanie babies and Clay Aiken for goodness sake! Legally Blonde very well could have grabbed that and worked it into their marketing plan, but alas, I wasn't in charge. Instead they went the MTV route a second time and it only lasted 3 months after that attempt.

I only just found out about Legally Blonde within the last 2 months and was grabbed by it, but it was comepletly by chance that a friend's daughter that watches MTV told me to watch it because she knew that I liked reality tv. I flew to NYC from KC just to see closing night! Yes, the economy is bad, but alot of us 30 something stay at home moms are looking for our next favorite thing.... to bad LB didn't see that the men should have been their draw! (Christian, the single, shy, funny as hell and talented) (Richard the married, sexy as hell, funny and talented) and (Andy Karl ~ OMG awesomely sexy, married to Broadway's rockstar, talented and funny)!

By the way.... campy is obviously fine for this target audience and money is not as much of an issue during these times.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 5:20pm

Despite great direction and a wonderful cast, the show was not a hit because the book was uninspired and the score was unemmorable.

[Weez]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 5:26pm

I don't know about the entirety of the score, but not catchy? Unmemorable? Then please explain to me how I've had 'Ohmigod You Guys' stuck in my head since the very first time audio of that song leaked to the general public. :P

It's the ear-worm that just keeps giving...

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 5:26pm

Did people go to see it and enjoy it and have a good afternoon/night at the theatre? Yes, so it was a hit in that sense.

Was it a hit in terms of financial success or critical ingenuity, maybe not.

Well, every show is going to have people who enjoy it. I liked it fine enough on tv - LBB and u no hoo notwithstanding - but I think it's really stretching the definition of a "hit" if you include something that was neither a financial nor critical success. That would make just about everything a hit.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 5:30pm

>>"I don't know about the entirety of the score, but not catchy? Unmemorable? Then please explain to me how I've had 'Ohmigod You Guys' stuck in my head since the very first time audio of that song leaked to the general public. :P" <<

Haha, well, I guess what made all of the other songs sound LESS catchy to me is that I expected them all to be as catchy as "Omigod." My chorus watched "Legally Blonde," and everyone agreed that all of the songs sounded the same, but we were all singing 'Omigod' for weeks on end. There are a lot of musicals that never quite get past the opening number (for example, a lot of people would argue that Aspects of Love goes downhill after the opening song) or the most famous song, sort of one-hit wonder musicals.

I actually like the title song a lot, though (the Ballad version, not the up-tempo one). And there are a couple of songs that I really like from the show now. It's just, when I first saw it, I didn't think the songs were that memorable. Then again, I also had that impression of "Sweeney Todd" when I first heard it six years ago and now that's in my top five favourite musicals.

Updated On: 10/22/08 at 05:30 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 6:01pm

The score is very catchy and was stuck in my head for days.

Critically the show was a hit as it got some very positive reviews, financially they made one mistake..The Palace.

If that show would have gone to house a bit smaller it would have probably run a lot longer.

[bwayfan9]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 6:19pm

LB had far too much money thrown into it. They got a costy theater, costy sets, ots of actors. If the production had been alittle more scaled down, it could've been a financial
success.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 6:39pm

Because of Paul Canaan trying to coin that ridiculous gay phrase.

[Fordy22]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 6:49pm

I also think broadcasting on mtv was a mistake. Alot of my friends who saw it on mtv told me, if they had seen it on tv why pay to go see it. That isnt the main cause, just a mistake.

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 7:06pm

I have to disagree with the score not being catchy. While it's far, far from my favorite, I always had songs from it stuck in my head for hours after I listened to it. It was definitely memorable.

But I do agree with the issue of the MTV airing. While I liked the movie and enjoy certain parts of the score, after seeing it on MTV, I decided I'd pass on actually spending money on it.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 10/22/08 at 7:11pm

Wow, I can see that a lot of people disagree with me about the songs not being catchy! (Including my little siblings. Hmph.) I guess it's just the fact that I tend to get songs like "What You Want" and "Keep It Positive" confused, and songs like "Blood In The Water" and "There! Right There!" just bore me. But there are some songs I really like, like "So Much Better" and "Legally Blonde," and if you ever hear anyone humming "Chip On My Shoulder" in public, it's probably me.