BIG FISH to Close on Broadway December 29, 2013 — Page 4

Your. opinion Nothing more and nothing less.

Doubt a smart businessman like Jimmy Buffett (also has some sense of music) would invest his. money in a show that "sucked". I doubt Butz would have gotten involved if he thought it sucked. Ditto to Strohman. They all saw potential. This was not a Dude ot Via Galactica. Now they sucked

---

Mr Roxy, how long did Buffett work on that "Don't Stop the Carnival" project? Seems like at least 3-5 years.

Capn Hook, do you know if they've got Allegiance capitalized? Last I heard they were still in need of investors (there was talk of a Seattle run hoping someone in the japanese-American community there might fall in love with the show)?

A lot of the fault is in Lippa and his lackluster score. There are a few gems, but I cannot remember most of the songs.

---

Shame. It'd be nice to see Steggert and Baldwin in something that truly showcases their amazing talents. Giving a great performance in a flop musical is something they are, sadly, both familiar with.

---

Aside from people not putting Norbert Leo Butz's bankability into perspective, they're also not putting "Big Fish" into perspective.

This was not a hit film. It cost $70 million and made $66 million. It's what you would call a "successful art film," but it's not as recognizable as you think it is. Also, not everybody likes the film, or the story.

So you've got a subject matter that already doesn't appeal to some people right off the bat, then you add a very capable Broadway actor with two Tonys, but most people outside of the theatre world have no idea who he is.

Then you add to it that it got mediocre reviews ... and that's three strikes, you're out.

---

Updated On: 11/11/13 at 07:08 AM

boo but get the cast cd out today because if they do not they will not have a cd.

Kinky Boots has Cyndi's name on it, which most people know, and it was well received, with positive word of mouth, and won a bunch of awards. That's good enough for a decent run.

Plus nobody is saying, "Wasn't that the movie I tried to watch on HBO, but I couldn't get through it?" ... the way some people are with Big Fish.

---

Updated On: 11/11/13 at 07:36 AM

I appreciate the attempt, and for once I'm glad it wasn't some dumb, popular tween movie being adapted.

But the film and the story were flawed. This wasn't like adapting "Smiles of a Summer Night" by a master like Ingmar Bergman. That was "lesser known" to most people, too, but carried with it a slew of rave reviews and recognition.

And if Big Fish (the musical) had gotten rave reviews, I think it could have run at least through awards season and then hopefully gotten a boost at that point.

But with a questionable property and a capable star with limited recognizability outside of the theatre community, they needed those rave reviews to survive. And they didn't get them.

---

Updated On: 11/11/13 at 07:48 AM

I agree with you about Norbert. There really is a very small group of people who would run to see him in this musical. The music killed this show. There is one redeeming factor....this is a musical for high schools...a new show for community theatre...good size...good themes...nice and clean. I think that some shows are written with this in mind. It can keep money coming in for some time. What do you think?

Big Fish had an uphill battle from the start, a film basis which didnt wow everyone for a start, a title and subject matter which couldnt resonate in an elevator pitch. I dont think the general ticket buyer knew what it was about. For me it went terribly wrong using Stroman as director and the screenwriter as book writer, Big Fish needed an etherial touch, its darker aspects should have been explored and a modern theatrical equivalent to Tim Burton should have been found. Instead we got a "BROADWAY MUSICAL" from material that couldnt support it.

SPOILERS **** The one thing it had going for it was the twist at the end where the son understands the father and gives in to story telling in an attempt to save his father and their relationship. The movie had that also, an ending which made up for all that came before. That's ok at home on HBO but not on Broadway at those prices.

---

Updated On: 11/11/13 at 09:51 AM

In recent years it has become exceedingly difficult for a large scale musical production or any new musical for that matter to open in the Fall and stay open through award season or even the new year. The only recent example being Spiderman, which opened in the summer and nearly as much publicity as a presidential election. The last time a new musical opened in the fall and made it through award season was 2009 with Memphis and Fella!. The latter loosing its entire investment and then some and the former only recouped within its final weeks of its nearly 3 year run. It was not as if Memphis had as high a weekly nut as Spiderman which caused it to take so long to recoup, but rather they ran for nearly 6-7months not hitting or barely covering their costs, creating a huge deficit in their budget. The last time a new musical opened in the fall and actually made money during most weeks through award season were Billy Elliot, which opened to raves and had Elton John's name on it, and Shrek, which barely covered costs week to week and its based on a household name. The odds were not in Big Fishes favor to begin with being based on an "art house" film, having a no marquee names attached, and having a massive production, which were only worsened by the lukewarm reviews Big Fish received.

That Western Showdown number was one of the most conceptually confused things I have ever seen on a Broadway stage, in a show with so many other storytelling concepts at work. It MUST have been kept exclusively because a bunch of money was spent on those costumes.