Here's a link to the Smithsonian.com's list of the 10 biggest Bway flops.
It's chronologically organized.
Pipe Dream
Kelly
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Via Galactica
Rocky Horror Show
Bring Back Birdie
Into the Light
Carrie
The Civil War
Taboo
Link
It's already been stated here, but when I first saw the title of this thread the first thing that came to mind was "Spiderman."
This conversation is always interesting. Industry perception versus public perception. You ask the average tourist/non-industry theatergoer, and they'll tell you that something with a long run is a "hit". Or, even more sujectively something people seem to "like". Or how many awards it has won.
They don't care about investments, LLCs or how much the weekly nut may be. To them, "Spider-Man" is a hit. It's been on Broadway for over a year.
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/13/09
Until it closes or recoups you can't classify Spider Man one way or the other. The rate it's going it may end up surprising us all. There are certainly a lot of people who never would have predicted it would still be running after two years, let alone still pulling in the numbers it continues to pull in. Assuming the rumored 1.2 million per week operating costs are correct it has met that goal pretty much every week, even if only by a little.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/5/09
Don't forget the huge flops that never even made it to Broadway:
Prettybelle
Hellzapoppin'
Miss Moffat
We Take the Town
Zenda
The Pink Jungle
The Baker's Wife....
Many others.
anmiller07: Don't count Spiderman out yet. So far it has taken in roughly $140M in 96 weeks. I have seen estimates from $1M to $1.2M per week. So, profit somewhere between $25-$44 M. The initial investment has been rumored between $65-80M. So, depending on where the truth lies they could be as close as 1 yr from recouping.
As far as the investers pockets are concerned, this show has had better than average CD, downloads and merchandise sales. So, from an investors perspective they may be close to recouping even if based on ticket sales it ends up a flop.
"You ask the average tourist/non-industry theatergoer, and they'll tell you that something with a long run is a "hit". Or, even more sujectively something people seem to "like". Or how many awards it has won. "
Good point Billy.
And play wise (ie non musicals), since plays are almost always less expensive to stage, they'll never be up there with some of the massive musical flops.
But I think your point deserves some thought even though I get why most people on here classify a flopas anything that loses money. If something had a long run on Broadway--it does give the average goer the idea that it was a hit, and I think that does matter for... something.
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/13/09
Ken Mandelbaum set out several different qualifiers for what he was determining a flop for Not Since Carrie. I don't have the book handy, but I do remember that while money lost was of course the number one criteria he did avoid shows that had a long run and were seen as popular hits, if not financial hits.
It does only make sense though that the true definition of flop vs. hit is determined by the financial success or failure since that is the only non-subjective qualifier that all commercial productions have in common.
Clownaround
Lolita, My Love
Rachael Lily Rosenbloom...etc
Little Prince and the Aviator
Senator Joe
Notorious and expensive bombs all.
Truckload and Alice come to mind.
Stand-by Joined: 4/9/07
thank God that somebody posted that list.............I was feeling so depressed that I was getting real old, when nobody mentioned the megaflop of the mid sixties..... the fabulously awful KELLY
With Spiderman, because of extremely high initial costs it is possible it could run for 20 yrs making a profit every week and yet never recoup its costs. And still be the biggest flop in history.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/20/05
"Ken Mandelbaum set out several different qualifiers for what he was determining a flop for Not Since Carrie. I don't have the book handy, but I do remember that while money lost was of course the number one criteria he did avoid shows that had a long run and were seen as popular hits, if not financial hits. "
I don't have the book to hand either, but I want to say the qualifier was below 250 performances, though many of the shows listed were below 150.
Wasn't The Red Shoes horrifically expensive?
Broadway Star Joined: 8/26/03
Wouldn't the actual biggest Broadway flops be the ones that we're so bad they closed out of town? The Mambo Kings comes to mind.
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/13/09
"I think it was 500 performances in fact"
That number seems pretty high for Mandelbaum's book/criteria. Assuming 8 performances a week 500 puts the show at running over a year. While many shows can still run for over a year and still lose money, they are usually not viewed as the spectacular flops that were being chronicled in Not Since Carrie.
Can't be a Broadway flop without performing on Broadway.
Mandelbaum's measurement was under 250 performances, but the majority ran far less.
www.ibdb.com lists 379 Broadway plays and musicals since January 1, 1950 that played less than 10 performances. It's a great site for research, if not always entirely accurate.
A notorious never opened musical....
The first half goes over the story and the story behind the story...sort of.
Rachael WIll Never Be Forgot!
Videos