Posted: 5/5/17 at 8:17am
The movie was whimsical and charming, and offered the possibility of a delightful musical. Unfortunately, the creators dropped the ball completely on this, with the result being a dull and charmless show. A wasted opportunity, truly. That said, it was less painful to sit through than Groundhog Day or Come From Away, and these two were nominated for best musical. Shows how bad things really are.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 8:37am
It was merely another "why?" show. Fortunately, it provided temporary income for some artists, while it lasted. Perhaps the poster will go up at Joe Allen, but I suspect not. It wasn't an interesting flop, just a mild bore.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 8:39am
"Could be like when Brian d'Arcy James returned to N2N on Bway after doing it Off...
Also, I'm hoping Adam gets another job soon. He's such a sweet guy and I'm always pulling for him to do well. "
Or like when Brian d'Arcy James returned to Hamilton on Bway after doing it Off... 
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:07am
This is sad to me. I thought it was a fun, quirky show. I enjoyed the staging and the cast, a lot.
The score/book weren't great...but I had fun at the theater. I enjoyed it more than at least 50% of what I saw this year.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:18am
Awwww...I knew the lack of Tony noms would hurt it, but I didn't expect it to close up shop so soon. I had a lot of fun at this show, and I'm one of the few apparently who really liked the score. The cast was so game. They must be devastated.
I hope it finds life in regional productions, where directors can put their own stamp on it. But for now, indeed..."Goodbye Amelie."
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:33am
froote said: "As someone that is only known for theatre and hasn't done any TV or Film (unless we count a non-speaking background role in Smash), Soo is fairly well known. She has over 200,000 followers on Twitter and over 300,000 on Instagram. Compare that to her peers: Laura Osnes has 60k, Cynthia Erivo 40k and former Amélie Samantha Barks has 160k, despite starring in one of the biggest movies of 2012. The difference is just because people know someone doesn't mean they'll pay to see them in a weak show. The poor box office results clearly are to do with the negative reception towards the show itself and not to do with Soo."
I mean, sure. You can certainly tell yourself that. But there's no way to factually prove it.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:40am
Wonder if she was offered Great Comet on Broadway originally. If I were her I'd be kicking myself for not taking it.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:43am
froote said: "As someone that is only known for theatre and hasn't done any TV or Film (unless we count a non-speaking background role in Smash), Soo is fairly well known. She has over 200,000 followers on Twitter and over 300,000 on Instagram. Compare that to her peers: Laura Osnes has 60k, Cynthia Erivo 40k and former Amélie Samantha Barks has 160k, despite starring in one of the biggest movies of 2012. The difference is just because people know someone doesn't mean they'll pay to see them in a weak show. The poor box office results clearly are to do with the negative reception towards the show itself and not to do with Soo.
"
This doesn't really prove how well known she is. I'm not sure what her follower numbers were before Hamilton, but all of the main cast members (and even some of the ensemble) received significant increases in followers due to the hype and popularity of the show. Audra McDonald, Sutton Foster, and Laura Benanti all have less followers too but I'm willing to bet they are far better known regionally and nationally than Soo.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:46am
froote said: "Sorry, factually prove what?"
This statement: The poor box office results clearly are to do with the negative reception towards the show itself and not to do with Soo
That statement seems to suggest it was negative word-of-mouth and reviews exclusively that brought this show down. I'm certainly not looking to "blame" anyone but your statement leaves out any shred of possibility the producers were, in fact, banking and relying on Soo's connection to HAMILTON to bring in ticket sales (which promptly, but rather unsurprisingly, failed). It's not black & white. It's a number of factors.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:52am
Handband is right in that it's not necessarily that black-and-white (after all, few things in this industry are), but to add to froote's point, I've had a number of friends ask me about the show, saying they love Soo but were apprehensive about what they heard about the show itself. It's been a recurring conversation for me since it opened a month ago, both with theatre-literate friends and with other friends who I was surprised knew of Soo. Her name is evidently not enough to sell a show like this, but I think it's bigger than some on here think.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:53am
I mean there may have been other factors such as lack of interest in Amélie as a story, but I think it's common sense that Soo's inclusion was not something that would actively put people off who would otherwise be interested in seeing the show. Whilst they may have thought she could bring in more people, it seems like they were planning to bring it to Broadway with or without her (what with doing another out-of-town production without her) and that she was just the best option they had. And indeed, without casting a TV/film person, who is age-appropriate and more well known?
Posted: 5/5/17 at 9:53am
^ Anecdotes from an anonymous stranger on a message board, who is historically known as a Soo fanatic, carries very little weight (if any). Sorry.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 10:01am
Gotcha! I guess I didn't realize before that my perspectives and opinions on this conversation were totally meaningless and inconsequential. Thanks for informing me!
Posted: 5/5/17 at 10:05am
theatreguy12 said: "Not sure why anyone would attack you for that opinion. This show has been slammed since it opened in LA. I would dare say most people on here would agree with your take on the show.".
That's one of those alternative facts, I guess, as you can see from the LA Times review:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-amelie-musical-review-20161217-story.html
What IS true is that many people didn't like it there, or in NY. I was one of those people myself. But the LA reviews, for the most part, were positive (as were the reviews for it at Berkeley Rep), which I assume was encouraging for the producers. This was one of those shows that critics seemed to like more than the general audience.
"
"
Updated On: 5/5/17 at 10:05 AM
Posted: 5/5/17 at 10:19am
FlySkyHigh, I'm not comparing her popularity to McDonald, Benanti or Foster as I don't consider them her peers. They are all at least ten years older than her and would not be considered for the role of Amélie. Also, they have all done screen work and Phillipa has not.
My point is is that for a theatre actor in her 20s, she is well known. I'm not sure that saying she gained that popularity from Hamilton is against my point, all actors gain their popularity from certain projects.
Updated On: 5/5/17 at 10:19 AM
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:06am
froote said: "FlySkyHigh, I'm not comparing her popularity to McDonald, Benanti or Foster as I don't consider them her peers. They are all at least ten years older than her and would not be considered for the role of Amélie. Also, they have all done screen work and Phillipa has not.
My point is is that for a theatre actor in her 20s, she is well known. I'm not sure that saying she gained that popularity from Hamilton is against my point, all actors gain their popularity from certain projects.
"
I understand your point, but you were using her Twitter and Instagram numbers to validate how well known she is. I used those older and more established actors to show the amount of followers someone has on social media does not strengthen your case. Comparing her to her peers...for all we know, Laura Osnes is still more well known (in New York) and Cynthia Erivo could have a larger audience due to her West End credits. Just because they don't have the 'numbers' doesn't mean anything. I'm not stating that Soo isn't well known for her age but using social media stats as proof is misleading.
And by bringing up Hamilton, I was not speaking of her personal popularity (though undoubtedly she gained some). I was stating the popularity of the show itself (and not her specific performance) brought her more attention than she normally would have received otherwise.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:23am
I would argue that the reason the more established actors don't have similar numbers is to do with the fact that social media is much more often used by young people and therefore younger people tend to have more followers. Older actors will have older fanbases on average etc. But again, this is all moot when comparing people of Phillipa's age group. I'm not trying to prove that she's the most well known by far or anything like that and by no means is social media the only thing that defines it but it is one thing that defines it and when there's such a stark difference, I don't think it can be so easily dismissed as not meaning anything. It's not like Phillipa is super active on social media (ala Lin-Manuel) and therefore more likely to gain followers for that reason either.
And I think we're in agreement on the Hamilton thing, I just don't think that defies my point.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:25am
Allegiance had the highest number of social media followers of any show, too. Getting someone to click Like/Follow and getting them to buy tickets are different things.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:27am
haterobics said: "Allegiance had the highest number of social media followers of any show, too. Getting someone to click Like/Follow and getting them to buy tickets are different things."
Absolutely, which I said in my original post. That's kind of my whole point.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:43am
froote said: "As someone that is only known for theatre and hasn't done any TV or Film (unless we count a non-speaking background role in Smash), Soo is fairly well known. She has over 200,000 followers on Twitter and over 300,000 on Instagram. Compare that to her peers: Laura Osnes has 60k, Cynthia Erivo 40k and former Amélie Samantha Barks has 160k, despite starring in one of the biggest movies of 2012. The difference is just because people know someone doesn't mean they'll pay to see them in a weak show. The poor box office results clearly are to do with the negative reception towards the show itself and not to do with Soo.
"
Yes, it's all about those Twitter and Instagram followers. What a joke this whole industry has become. And not a good joke.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:46am
Please quote a specific part of my post where I said it was all about social media followers. Thanks.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 11:47am
Any producer who brings in a show based on reviews in LA is a first-class idiot. With the exception of Mr. McNulty, who is kind of mind-numbingly inane, 90% of the reviewers in LA are not paid, routinely give raves to any and everything, and reward some awfully substandard work with silly awards of no consequence or value.
Posted: 5/5/17 at 12:22pm
froote said: "Please quote a specific part of my post where I said it was all about social media followers. Thanks."
You made it all about social media when you attempted to validate Ms. Soo's popularity with the number of "followers" she has....
Posted: 5/5/17 at 12:23pm
I said it was evidence that for a theatre actor in their 20s she is well known and it is. I did not say that it was the only thing that proves someone is well known or that it's all that matters.
Updated On: 5/5/17 at 12:23 PM
