A SUGAR revival?- Page 2

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 5:25pm

People are always talking about how this or that show would work better with new or re-worked book. But I rarely believe it.

Sugar is one of the few exceptions. I think a Paul Rudnick or Douglas Carter Beanne could punch it up and make it the fun show it can and deserves to be.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 5:25pm

With Champion, for every Sugar, there's a Bye Bye Birdie, Carnival, Hello Dolly!, and 42nd Street.

Posted: 4/24/07 at 5:38pm

True I guess my problem is none of those shows have ever really caught my attention

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 6:14pm

I saw the original

The story about its tryout in the Gower Champion bio is fascinating. The score to me was one of the weak points. There were a few pleasant numbers but nothing that really stood out & grabbed you

Morse did indeed carry the show & was ably abetted by Tony Roberts & Cyril Ritchard. Had the music been stronger, it would have been so much better

[Phantom2]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 7:01pm

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

Wonderful idea!

[MrsVampyre]

Posted: 4/24/07 at 11:01pm

Noo, unfortunately La Cage in the original run or the revival failed to turn a profit.

I agree that the story line being based on a gay relationship probably had something to do with the show failing to find an audience.

Personally, I loved this show, and was able to see both runs. The sad thing to me is that about 2-3 months after the revival was nonimated for Tonys (and lost), the show had to close due to poor ticket sales.

Posted: 4/24/07 at 11:58pm

I always thougth the original Cage was seen as a fair success--I knwo at first its audiences were strong and it seemed the right time ofr a gay musical aimed at the mainstream--and then the whole tragedy struck months into the run.

The revival I think (and I'm not trying to diss a show you obviously have affection for) was maybe just a bit too tame for modern audiences. I dunno...

[MrsVampyre]

Posted: 4/25/07 at 1:34am

I was also under that impression that the original run had turned a profit,and was as surpised as you were to find that it came close, but didn't turn a profit.

You're not dissing the show. I agree with you to some extent, the revival may have been too tame. Or perhaps, in today's world of political correctness, and family fare shows ala Disney, that the show didn't appeal to a wide enough audience, or the tourist trade.

[philcrosby]

Posted: 4/25/07 at 8:29am

The revival was, simply, heavy- and ham-handed, with none of the charm and style of the original. Zaks is not a deft director (see also Little SHop of Horrors.)

[dmsnyc]

Posted: 4/25/07 at 8:40am

I saw the original Sugar the week it opened. It got mixed reviews, but everyone loved Robert Morse. It was fun, but not great and I remember it making it into the "second year on Broadway" and ran for 505 performances from 1972 to 1973. I think it is too weak for a successful revival unless they overhaul it a lot.

[alterego]

Posted: 4/25/07 at 8:49am

I agree with philcrosby, the La Cage revival was sadly lacking in the charm and style departments, not to mention seriously ugly set and costume design.