Best Musical Tony Winners That Were Financial Flops- Page 2

[ALWrules]

Posted: 4/1/06 at 11:38am

"ALW has gotten away with mediocre shows before but this time the public was not fooled."
The show opened with the largest advance in history, and it got some of the best critical reviews of any ALW show. In addition, a lot of the public enjoyed the show, but similar to Follies, it found that it was incredibly expensive to run. You basically neded a sold out house to try and recoup money, and the cast, orchstra, and set were huge. The public was fooled, because the show was well attended for 4 years, before it started losing money quickly only because itcouldn't sell out every night.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/1/06 at 1:06pm

Well an advance sale only indicates pre-opening interest. Many shows open with huge advances that dwindle very quickly when the negative reviews come out.

For the record, Variety published a tally of the critics’ reviews:
5 favourable, 14 mixed and 9 negatives. (In Toronto the show was universally panned.) So, yes - that is the best set of reviews any ALW show has gotten in New York... but they were still mixed to unfavourable.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/1/06 at 1:33pm

Eliminate the best musical revival award? That's a terrible idea.

While some revivals - especially those of really old, "dated" shows - tweak the book, there aren't many (FLOWER DRUM SONG?) that throw out the entire book and re-write it. The score always remains virtually the same. Some are carbon copies. While THE PAJAMA GAME boasts a re-worked script, it's only here and there - much of the original book is there. To then qualify a show that opened 50+ years ago as a BEST MUSICAL just doesn't make sense. It already won that award, or it was already nominated for that award. It's score has already been recognized. It just doesn't make any sense.

[keatonbynumbers]

Posted: 4/1/06 at 3:04pm

Yeah, I think the best musical revival award is pretty essential. I mean, I'm still cranky about Assassins being in that category when it had never actually been on Broadway before and so never HAD the chance to be nominated in those awards, but whatever, I'm sure I'll get over it in twenty years or something. Otherwise, though, the revival category is perfect because it gives a show a chance to be recognized a second time without making it unfair competition for the new shows.

You know, "Passion", "Titanic", "Kiss of the Spider Woman", "Sweeney Todd", and "Sunset Boulevard" are some of my favorite shows. And despite the fact that they were financial flops by the end of their runs, I actually think most of those are some of the MOST worthy winners, flops or otherwise. I'm always surprised when I find out what shows (especially ones that are before my time) were flops because it rarely ever makes a difference in how they're regarded historically and it rarely makes SENSE in hindsight.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 12:02pm

You know, "Passion", "Titanic", "Kiss of the Spider Woman", "Sweeney Todd", and "Sunset Boulevard" are some of my favorite shows. And despite the fact that they were financial flops by the end of their runs


A show's financial status should be no barrier to liking a show (and it should not be used as weapon against you by those who didn't like a show.)

The balance sheet should ONLY matter to you if you were an investor.

Believe it or not there are investors who happily put up the $ for a show they believe in even knowing it may not pay back 100%, let alone show a profit. But Broadway investors often take part in several shows and the huge returns on a smash hit often offset relatively small losses on shows that run 6-months to a year but close without recouping.

Anyone who invested in the original SWEENEY TODD knew that they were part of a ground-breaking musical, and even if it only returned 59% of its investment upon closing, they probably knew the show would have a life after Broadway. And their faith was rewarded some 10 years later when through regional stagings and multiple revivals it finally moved into the black.

I don't know why we as fans are so concerned with a show's financial status, when what really matters is whether the show achieved all of its goals (making it a success) or not.

Updated On: 4/3/06 at 12:02 PM

[keatonbynumbers]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 12:23pm

Um, because money is a big deal? I mean, I don't mean to be glib or sarcastic, but why wouldn't the financial success or failure of a show matter to its fans? It matters when shows close before their time--more than that, it matters when fantastic shows aren't being seen, which is what a financial failure suggests. And yes, that matters to people. If no one sees it, then no, they haven't achieved anything, because no one saw it. It's the old "if a tree falls and no one's around to hear it..." adage. If not one person buys a ticket to a show, what have they achieved?

I'm being hyperbolic, of course; obviously people DID see these shows and it isn't as if they're not getting their due years later (in cast recording sales and what-have-you). No, the financial success of a show is not important in the grand scheme of things, when you really come down to it; just because KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN flopped doesn't make it any less likely for a revival years down the line; just because SWEENEY TODD flopped doesn't mean it didn't eventually recoup its investment and lead to a successful revival years later. But to suggest that financial status doesn't matter at all is weird.

There's also the fact that it was only an observation: it's interesting to me that some of my favorite shows were failures financially. I don't think I ever said that it was a barrier in my enjoyment of any particular show, or that it should be a barrier for anyone else, for that matter.
Updated On: 4/3/06 at 12:23 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/3/06 at 1:09pm

It used to be test of a show's popularity if it ran more than 500 performance. That level alse seemed to generally ensure financial success as well. (Many hits in the 40s and 50s ran less than 500.. REDHEAD, SILK STOCKINGS, PLAIN AND FANCY, THE BOY FRIEND) but in the 60s a handful of popular hits closed in the red: MILK AND HONEY was the first. Then WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN, GOLDEN BOY and later FOLLIES and the rvival of CANDIDE all achieved long runs but failed to pay back. A show not paying back after a two or three run is no longer proof that it wasn't popular...just that the costs were above what it could bring in.

At 804 performances, RAGTIME should have been a hit, but with an inflated breakeven of $600K per week (though that figure is normal now for big musicals, at tehb time it was $150K above average.) it would have needed to run 4 years at capacity to pay off.


Now Toronto's LORD OF THE RINGS comes with a weekly nut of $1 million. If it sells out for one year it can pay back its $27 million productuion costs.

The stupid thing is that producers believe audiences want to see a show based on who much it costs and trumpet those costs in all the press materials. Hollywood too has spun madly out of control with a "bet we can spend more" mentality. And yet in terms of return on its investment, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was probably far more successful that any of the expensive (overblown) blockbusters we were bombarded with last summer.

[stanton]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 11:01am

Sunset was a hit when it had Glenn Close. However I'm glad ALW has not had a hit since. What he did to Patti Lupone and Faye Dunaway was a crime. This also maybe the reason why Barbra will not play Norma in a movie verion "He would blame Barbra" not his show