Broadway Grosses April 4 - 10- Page 2

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 4:18pm

I think LA CAGE is suffering because it's just terrible - word of mouth is getting around now that this revival is beyond bad. I think the same is starting to happen with GV and BKLYN - word of mouth is starting to get around that they blow - I don't think even a washed up start like Goulet can save the sinking ship that is LA CAGE AUX CRAP.

[whatyouown223]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 4:24pm

"What I think is a shame is how shows like Brooklyn, and Good Vibrations are currently running and shows like Sweeney Todd and Les Miz, and Aida are gone. It's also when people think of Broadway and they think of Mamma Mia and Hairspray (shakes head)"

Um Les Miz ran for a really long time, and Hairspray isn't a jukebox musical, it's an amazing REAL Broadway show.

[DickonDefysGravity]

Posted: 4/12/05 at 5:05pm

I hope Little Women can pull itself out of this slump. If anyone can do it, it'd be Ms. Foster.

[Sant]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 7:42am

WOW. Only 8 shows with attendance % over 90! Not even DRS or CHICAGO had over 90%.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 8:23am

The BROOKLYN tv commercial is a new low for the genre, and only dogs can hear the final notes.

As other posters are pointing out: the presence of 'stars' in warmed over fare (ON GOLDEN POND and MAGNOLIAS front and cente) does not guarantee ticket sales, clearly. And maybe, just maybe, we will see the end of revival-itis. Shoving stars in an old play doesn't always translate into box office. Producers, be bold, take some risks again. Perhaps you have nothing to lose.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 10:03am

You're absolutely right, Auggie! Broadway should never revisit plays. Plenty of people got to see them the first time around and those that missed it or weren't even born yet just missed the boat and should not be allowed an opportunity to see a Broadway production of anything previously produced. It's a waste of time and money. Revivals are only for regional or community theatres and not for Broadway no matter what the material may be. Classics are not good enough for Broadway and never will be because Broadway simply THRIVES on new plays like Bobbie Boland, Confederate Widow and Prymate.

[Plum]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 10:16am

I think Auggie was saying that things like On Golden Pond and Steel Magnolias aren't exactly classics in the first place. And you know better than to dismiss all new plays as the equivalent of Prymate.

[LouW95]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 10:28am

We should do revivals as they were and not try to reinvent them. Fiddler had no distracting orchestra onstage and LaCage had Cagelles of both genders. Part of the fun was trying to figure out the real females in the original cast. If you want to bring a show back and not do it the way it became a hit, simply do it in concert form.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 12:01pm

Thanks for succinctly clarifying my POV, Plum. Mister Matt, come down off the procenium; you seem a bit overcaffeinated this morning. I didn't say NO MORE REVIVALS, EVER! But call me quirky, I love seeing at least a balance of new work. In a season with DOUBT the only substantial new American play on the b'way boards (the other two major plays are British), there's reason to resent the surfeit of revivals.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 12:06pm

I was just trying to make a point about the pooh-pooh-ing of revivals. Steel Magnolias and On Golden Pond may not be "classics" of the stage, but they are well-known due to the success of the films. Steel Magnolias has never played Broadway, so the new production is not really a "Broadway revival". On Golden Pond is taking a risk as it is a new approach in the casting. I see nothing wrong with the appearance of either of these on Broadway.

I wasn't comparing ALL new plays to Prymate, but merely pointing out that producers DO take risks on new plays and many of them don't work out (most of them don't work out financially, in fact). Thus, the appearance of "safer" material appears in hopes to provide not only more financial stability (which is the hope of all revivals and new works), but also to offer a selection to theatregoers who are afraid to drop $50-100 on something "risky" rather than something they are more sure would appeal to them because they are familiar with the material.

As for only producing revivals in their original staging or only in concert format, that really seems silly. Sometimes concepts work and sometimes they don't, but why stifle creativity. Trends and technology evolve over time. That's a basic fact. And in some cases, like 42nd Street, taking advantage of these advancements can actually result in an improvement over the original version. I have not seen the revivals of La Cage or Fiddler, but I have heard pros and cons for both shows. If they were simply carbon copies of the original productions, we would have nothing to discuss other than the cast. A new approach to an old work can be intellectually stimulating for both the creative staff and the audience. Should all Shakespeare works only be performed using the original staging and costuming? Purists probably think so, but it is an extremely narrow-minded view.

[QueenMuppet]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 12:25pm

'The BROOKLYN tv commercial is a new low for the genre, and only dogs can hear the final notes.'

I know we have moved on but I just need to point out how much that comment cracked me, Auggie.

QM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 12:27pm

Auggie - I will admit I'm having a bad day. I honestly don't believe you were saying there should never be any more revivals. I just don't think these particular two shows really justify "revival-itis". Let's look at the Broadway play season thus far:

New Plays

Reckless
Twelve Angry Men (though could be considered a "classic")
Democracy
Gem of the Ocean
Brooklyn Boy
Doubt
Steel Magnolias (new to Broadway)
The Pillowman
After the Night and the Music

Revivals

After the Fall
'night Mother
The Rivals
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
The Glass Menagerie
Julius Caesar
On Golden Pond
A Streetcar Named Desire
Glengarry Glen Ross

Solos/Specials

Laugh Whore
The Good Body
Whoopi
Dame Edna: Back With a Vengeance
700 Sundays
Jackie Mason: Freshley Squeezed


Not a bad balance at all of revivals/original plays opening this season. The audiences will ultimately decide what stays and what doesn't, but it's not as if producers are shying away from new works.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 12:51pm

actually, neither Reckless (198 nor 12 Angry Men (1964) are new, just new to Broadway... Updated On: 4/13/05 at 12:51 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 1:03pm

Ah yes, I had forgetton Reckless was originally Off-Broadway. I was under the impression Twelve Angry Men had only been a film until now, which would make it new to the stage. Regardless, it has been a decent season for plays.

[Plum]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 2:10pm

Auggie, why isn't Gem of the Ocean a major new American play, as well

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 2:39pm

Apologies to the ocean of keen eyes here. Yes, GEM was a gem of the season, and brand new. And alas, poorly attended, not helping anyone's cause.

And Matt: I'm not having such a swell day myself, but can we agree that the climate for new works (off b'way as well) isn't *quite* what it used to be? Pick up a THEATER WORLD from the 70s or 80s, and thumb through. There's a different. But thank you for the enlightening seasoal tally.

And as a Williams and Albee devotee, I'm certainly not unhappy that the masterworks of those national treasures are with us in a new (and even controversial) form.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/13/05 at 2:56pm

Well, the climate for new works certainly isn't the same as the 70s or 80s, just like the climate for new works then was not as good as the 60s or 40s. I would love to see more new works on Broadway, but the success of a Broadway show is determined mostly by tourists, which is a significant change from the Golden Age. Luckily, Off-Broadway is still strong in experimenting with new works, and there certainly isn't anything wrong with that. Sometimes I prefer the atmosphere of a more intimate venue.