BONNIE AND CLYDE only selling tickets until Dec. 30... — Page 18

Okay hold on bobbybaby.

What you are writing is, IMO, extremely offensive. You really need to learn there is a difference between what YOU think, and what is fact. And to be honest, you are coming off as a complete jerk. Are you a jerk? Nah, I'm sure in real life you are a nice person with a lot of knowledge. But what you posted is pretty offensive.
I'm not gonna sit here and argue everything you just posted because I'm in a hurry but I would like to point out that when I saw the show, the house was very much a full one. And friends I had that seen it after I did also said it was about 80% full every time they saw it. What made the grosses so bad was the fact that they papered it so much.

---

I saw the show twice in previews and the house was full on both of those occasions, and of that I am certain. Obviously that means nothing, with regard to the run of the show, but I was there twice when the theater was full.

I can only imagine what the haters will do on Friday if anyone is inclined to post their thoughts on the final performance. I wonder what the next show will be that gets people all riled up like this.

---

I hope not. I really hate it when people have preconceived notions of a show before they see it. With Carrie I can see why they could be a bit cautious cuz it's a revival of a HUGE bomb but it's being reworked so lets pray it's not ripped apart for it's previous incarnation.

---

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 10:58 PM

It seems to me like Wildhorn has good source material for a lot of his shows, and the shows do have potential to be great. The story of Bonnie and Clyde is has the potential to be a thrilling, exciting, and intriguing musical. I cannot comment on the production on Broadway now as I have not seen it, but I will say that I love the music. If the show lacks excitement and intrigue, that really is a shame since it is a show about two criminals on the run from the law.
I think a lot of Wildhorn's earlier shows had source material that could have made excellent shows... The idea of a grown up Alice returning to Wonderland is a very interesting one, but the show itself was just dreadful. I liked a lot of the score, but the book was an abysmal mess that made absolutely no sense. I also think Dracula could have made a great musical, but the book made it impossible to follow the story. I have no problem sharing that I am a fan of Wildhorn's music, but I will admit that most have his shows have just not worked which is a shame because the original ideas and concepts have great potential IMO.

---

I have a question, I don't want to start anything, I just want to hear your guys thoughts. But how can you say Bonnie & Clyde did have a fair try to find its audience when the producers stopped selling tickets after Dec 30th and started to refund money a week after the show opened? That's the part that gets me - if the producers really believed in this show, they should have backed it, not pulled out so soon. Maybe the advanced sale wasn't great at first, but whose to say it wouldn't have picked up after the word of mouth spread more?

No, I'm not delusional, I'm curious.

Gotcha fingerslake...

The Producers would pull the plug if they had failed to drum up future sales and did not have enough funds to maintain a show losing money each week. I'm not a producer but some things they do make no sense.
If you have no Stars, a midly known title and a composer/name who has never returned a profit (on Bway)you better have the bucks to give the show time to build on word of mouth.

Curiosity got me to see B&C last night. Went in thinking and hoping it would be as good as many people here claim it is. Here's my question ... what on earth were you smoking? The show is DREADFUL. A musical about two of the most infamous criminals in history, and it is just dull, dull, dull. No excitement, no emotion, no tension. It dragged on forever. I couldn't wait for it to be over. I am certainly not a Wildhorn hater, but this score is boring. No soaring ballads, no "wow" numbers. The book is lame. No chemistry between Jordon and Osnes, although they were fine individually with what little they had to work with. The reviews were certainly warranted in this case. With all the adoration being flung at this completely mediocre show, Broadway has sunk to new lows, and I fear for what's in store and accepted as quality work 10 years from now. 30 years ago, this show would have closed opening night.

Very well said, NewInTown ... and I couldn't agree more!

I've very clearly stated that those accusing critics of conspiracy and that Bonnie and Clyde wasn't given a fair shot are delusional.

I think the most delusional of all is when you keep claiming that others are accusing critics of conspiracy or trying to do Wildhorn in when that's not what they are saying. You keep harping on that like a Tea Partier and Obama's birth certificate.

And if your definition of any financial flop is "trash" then I guess you really hate of lot of very well-respected musicals. I'm not saying Wildhorn is well-respected, but your blanket statements seem to leave a lot of room for double-standards. If you think all of Wildhorn's works are trash, then that's just based on your own subjective qualifiers, but don't pretend they are universal.

Ideally, the art-lover progresses from a love of the cheap and vulgar to an appreciation of the better-crafted stuff. Sadly, not everyone takes the time or effort to make that journey.

That is one of the FUNNIEST posts I've ever read. You're not at all familiar with Broadway, are you? It's no wonder you're so easily dissatisfied. Condescension is not an admirable trait.

---

I would like to see Wildhorn and his collaborators take on the entire Bible next.

Ruth and Mary Magdalene could have a terrific power ballad together.

The reason this show is closing has nothing to do with the producers pulling the plug (they fought to keep it open), little to do with ticket sales or advance ticket sales (which were decent for a show with no stars in previews) and less to do with reviews than everyone thinks (yes they were bad, but lots of shows get bad reviews and run). The truth is this show, despite what you think about it artistically, was dead in the water from the first rehearsal because it was under capitalized. The budget basically got the show to opening, assuming the show didn't lose money in previews (which it did) and stayed on budget (which it did), But as we all know, opening a show (even a good one) in december is difficult and you have to have a reserve to get you through Jan/Feb (which they didn't) and money to capitalize on good reviews or battle bad ones (which they didn't). The show was at least 1.5 million under capitalized when they started (2 million by opening) and the main producers hoped they'd get the rest while in previews, which they didn't. From a commercial stand point it was a failure of producing, not because the show is terrible or couldn't sell tickets, but because even if it got great reviews and broke even in previews it would have still needed money to keep running past opening. It was a risk and it failed. The show actually almost closed on the 11th and had to get an infusion of cash to keep it open to the 30th, I think to get all the Tony voters there. Then with almost no advertising it actually made it's operating costs the week after opening and had it done it two weeks in a row, the producers might have been able to pull together the capital, but they couldn't dig themselves out of the hole they'd put themselves in and that ladies and gentlemen is show business!