A SUGAR revival?

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:33pm

Will it ever happen? It's an amazing show and IMO one of the best screen to stage transfers ever.

Starring Brian d'Arcy James and Raul Esparza! lol.

I'm not sure, was the show originally a flop? I know it ran for a year or so.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:34pm

If you mean sugar in the sense of Some Like It Hot its opening in London this year.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:35pm

I'd love to see it. It was a big hit I heard.

[cooperross]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:39pm

There was a tour a couple of years ago under the 'Some Like it Hot' title that was aiming for Broadway, but didn't make it. Can't remember who played the leads but Tony Curtis was in the production as Osgood. There were several book and musical changes, ala the first London production in 1991 that starred Tommy Steele.

Updated On: 4/23/07 at 11:39 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:39pm

A revival of the Jule Styne/Bob Merrill musical “Some Like It Hot” is confirmed to hit the West End in autumn 2007. The show will be produced by Paul Coxwell and directed by Jerry Zaks, whose impressive Broadway track record includes productions as diverse as “La Cage Aux Folles”, “Little Shop of Horrors“, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum”, “Smokey Joe’s Café”, “Guys and Dolls” and “The Front Page”. Based on Billy Wilder’s classic movie starring Jack Lemmon, Tony Curtis and Marylin Monroe, "Some Like It Hot"'s original stage musical incarnation at Broadway’s Majestic Theatre in 1972, directed by Gower Champion, ran for over 500 performances under the title of "Sugar". When it reached the West End in 1992 it regained the original title of the movie and ran for 3 months at the Prince Edward Theatre, starring and directed by Tommy Steele.

The plot concerns two penniless musicians, Joe and Jerry, who witness the 1929 St Valentine’s Day massacre in Chicago and find that their only escape route from the mob is to join an all-girl band bound for Miami, Florida. Joe and Jerry become Josephine and Daphne and a classic series of comic events follows, some of which involve the sexy band member, Sugar Kane.

The show has a fine score by Jule Styne ("Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"; “Gypsy”, “Do Re Mi”, "Hallelujah Baby") and Bob Merrill (“New Girl In Town”, "Take Me Along", “Hannah 1939”), full of melodic, catchy and witty numbers, including “Penniless Bums”, “Sun On My Face”, “Sugar”, “It’s Always Love” and the rousing title song. Although it never reaches the heights of Styne and Merrill’s “Funny Girl”, it is a hugely enjoyable show and one that West End theatregoers should relish towards the end of the year.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:43pm

I'm not a big fan of Sugar. Yes, it was technically a success, in terms that it made back its investment. But A Little Night Music and Pippin overshadowed it that year and it was far from a real "hit". David Merrick even expressed his indifference to the piece-which he produced! It was a real Atlas show: Robert Morse really carried it.

[cooperross]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:45pm

the original production ran for just over a year on Broadway..not exactly a huge hit.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:45pm

Im quite surprised we are getting it again in the UK as it Tanked when it played here last time and i predict it will do the same this time

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:48pm

Robert Morse is brilliant period.

If it made back it's investment, it's considered a hit.

I remember hearing about that tour. I forgot about it. I'd rather they open it as SUGAR again instead of the movie title.

Here's a fun video clip I found:


SUGAR!

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:56pm

Hey, I said "I heard" which means, it's not a official source.
I do know that it was done in some other countries after a moderate success on Broadway.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/23/07 at 11:57pm

(regarding NLS' comment). No, it's considered a success. It was not a critical hit nor a real commercial hit. Audiences weren't really flocking to it. They came, but not in crowds. The show is pretty much the movie with songs inverted. It's a less commercially successful version of Spamalot, in a way.

Updated On: 4/23/07 at 11:57 PM

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:01am

Well, that's what I meant, a success.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:04am

They're two totally different terms, NLS. Learn to use them well. For example, The Producers was a hit. A major hit. It was loved by critics, loved by many audience members (when it opened, anyway), won 12 Tonys and ran for over 2500 performances. That's a hit. The Full Monty gained critical acclaim, and also loved by audiences. But it only played a little over 700 performances and won no Tonys. It was a success, but not a hit.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:06am

I believe that "Sugar" is one of those shows that ran over a year and did not make back it's investment. I'm not sure just how much money the investors lost backing "Sugar" but they didn't even break even.

I didn't see the Tony Curtis tour, but it wasn't a hit either. So, I don't think a revival of "Sugar" is on the horizon any time soon.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:13am

It would be a fun show for Encores or one of the various charity concerts.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 12:44am

According to Steve Suskin in "More Opening Nights on Broadway" Sugar DID recoup. In fact, it turned a small profit. David Merrick, though, labeled the show as a "flop" in his eyes.

[cooperross]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 4:27am

the biggest problem with using Sugar as the title instead of the more familiar is you're titling a show after a supporting character, which she really is in both the movie and the show. The only reason they had to use it in the first place instead of the more well known title, IIRC, is because they could not get the rights to use the movie title.

Posted: 4/24/07 at 8:02am

It was another David Merrick movie assembly though (In fact I think after the success of Promises Promise she even admitted to looking VERY quickly and closely at any other Billy Wilder comedies he could make into hit musicals). And Merrick seemed to love to adapt movies and then (unlike current movie adaptations) try to trick people from reealizing they were based on hit movies--ie Promises Promises from The Apartment, Sugar from SLIH, Holly Golightly was the original stage title for Breakfast at Tiffany's (changed when he realized it was flopping)

[jbdc]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 8:14am

SUGAR, or Some Like It Hot, whichever title you prefer, can be done well. It needs new dance arrangements, and a few book tweaks but I think it could have a successful New York run with the right people involved.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 8:29am

Nathan Lane in the Robert Morse role and Raul Esparza in the Tony Roberts role. Jane Krakowski as Sugar.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 8:49am

I am a great fan of Jule Styne's music, but I think that the score to SUGAR is third rate, very disappointing. I never saw the show and wouldn't be interested in seeing a revival.

[MrsVampyre]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:41pm

Sugar did alright for itself during it's run. Which I think was about 54 performances. Wat happens is that a show can be critically aclaimed (La Cage Aux Folles), and yet cannot find an audience to carry the show. In both the origianal run and the revival La Cage failed to earn back it's investment.

However..here are the awards stats for Sugar...

Sugar
Awards

1973 Tony Award® Best Musical
Produced by David Merrick [nominee]

1973 Tony Award® Best Actor in a Musical
Robert Morse [nominee]

1973 Tony Award® Best Choreography
Gower Champion [nominee]

1973 Tony Award® Best Direction of a Musical
Gower Champion [nominee]

1972 Theatre World Award
Elaine Joyce [winner]

1972 Drama Desk Award Outstanding Performance
Starring: Robert Morse [winner]

[MrsVampyre]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 2:47pm

Oppps that should have been 504 performances.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 3:03pm

Sugar made money but not very much, but that does qualify it as a hit. Artisically it was a desert. The script was strictly chop and drop (chop some dialogue out and drop a song in) and follows the film almost scene for scene. I saw it and there was nothing new to laugh at. Gower's idea of having the gangsters 'speak' in tap dances was the only original thing in the show.

There was a huge advance sale that lasted about 6 months, but then the grosses dropped off to a little above breakeven where they stayed for another 9 months until the show limped to a close.

Merrick took the script first to book writer Michael Stewart who had the idea of turning the plot on its ear and moving it to the 40s and have the two guys and Sugar become a girl singing trio a la The Andrews Sisters. Billy Wilder nixed that idea, Stewart said what was the point and Merrick called Peter Stone.

The out of town tryout was fraught shall we say. I think this was the show that the set designer got fired from. They opened in DC without a real ending. Roberts and Morse essentially threw their purses at the audience. There were lots and lots of rewrites on the road and in extended previews.

By the way, Elaine Joyce was four years older than I was then according to Theatre World. When she married Neil Simon a few years ago she was a year younger than me. You gotta love show business.

Posted: 4/24/07 at 5:18pm

I know Champion is always spoken in the same breath as GREAT director/choreographer that Fosse and Bennett are but I've never gotten that... I mean they've all had their less interesting shows but it doesn't seem to me to the same extent as Gower. Oh well--totally unfair comment on my part that I'll be proven wrong about I'm sure :P (his only production I've seen more than clips of was the revival of Dolly with Channing)

Someone mentioned Cage though--it didn't make even a small profit during its original productioN??? I know the AIDS scare got in the way of its success but