Broadway Grosses - OUCH for Shrek and Mary Poppins!
#2
Posted: 9/14/09 at 3:41pm
Damn... does anyone think Shrek will make it until November? That is when I'm seeing it.
#4
Posted: 9/14/09 at 3:44pm
When I saw that and even South Pacific and In the Heights, my jaw dropped... I really don't think Shrek will make it past the new year even though I love the show a lot. Those kind of numbers won't make it through the winter.
#6
Posted: 9/14/09 at 3:52pm
wdw I was just as shocked as you but I would give up on shrek yet.
Octobers going to be a HORRIBLE month for all shows I think but towards thanskgiving and christmas everything should pick up.
If Shrek can last till late november it should be OK. Its not like this has been happening alot. Shreks decline only happend recently but I think producers knew this would happen (kids go back to school, adults work, etc). It would be smart of them to keep it up till the holiday season.
Octobers going to be a HORRIBLE month for all shows I think but towards thanskgiving and christmas everything should pick up.
If Shrek can last till late november it should be OK. Its not like this has been happening alot. Shreks decline only happend recently but I think producers knew this would happen (kids go back to school, adults work, etc). It would be smart of them to keep it up till the holiday season.
"Everything in life, is only for now"
-Avenue Q
#7
Posted: 9/14/09 at 3:56pm
Last year at this time "Mary Poppins" suffered a 47% drop rate, but it had already recouped its investment: https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses.cfm?days=2008-09-07
"Shrek" better recoup its investmant soon or at least come close to recouping. I also hope the producers will keep the show open till the fourth movie comes out:
"Shrek" better recoup its investmant soon or at least come close to recouping. I also hope the producers will keep the show open till the fourth movie comes out:
Updated On: 9/14/09 at 03:56 PM
#8
Posted: 9/14/09 at 3:58pm
Shrek is certainly in a much more precarious position than Mary Poppins, given that it hasn't recouped yet.
Happy to see that the drop at next to normal was minimal, though.
Happy to see that the drop at next to normal was minimal, though.
#9
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:08pm
Jeeez, Shrek's gross wasn't even that much more than Next to Normal's, if I'm reading that right! And it's a MUCH bigger/higher cost show I'd think. That's rough
Nice to see that Next to Normal isn't doing tooo badly though :)
Nice to see that Next to Normal isn't doing tooo badly though :)
I don't need a life that's normal. That's way too far away. But something next to normal would be okay. Something next to normal is what I'd like to try. Close enough to normal to get by.
#10
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:11pm
Do you think the Shrektember savings aren't working?
#11
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:13pm
Well apparently they are since the ticket average was 63.99 so that means people are using it, but it was the first full week for most students last week so I imagined that the weekday shows were much emptier than the weekends.
#12
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:15pm
"If Shrek can last till late november it should be OK. Its not like this has been happening alot. Shreks decline only happend recently but I think producers knew this would happen (kids go back to school, adults work, etc). It would be smart of them to keep it up till the holiday season. "
Shrek has never been a blockbuster. It started off with unimpressive numbers, given the size of the show and the names involved. I would say that this is not the first time its numbers have dipped so low. Luckily it has an ungodly amount of money behind it.
Shrek has never been a blockbuster. It started off with unimpressive numbers, given the size of the show and the names involved. I would say that this is not the first time its numbers have dipped so low. Luckily it has an ungodly amount of money behind it.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#13
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:16pm
"Shrek has never been a blockbuster. It started off with unimpressive numbers, given the size of the show and the names involved."
It opened in a difficult financial time. The economy is not very good.
It opened in a difficult financial time. The economy is not very good.
Updated On: 9/14/09 at 04:16 PM
#14
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:20pm
^ Oh, so that is the card that will be played when it flops? I was hoping they would just admit it sucks.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#15
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:23pm
Well... Billy Elliot opened at roughly the same time and has been rolling in the dough week after week.
Shrek suffered from mixed to negative press, an initially ineffective ad campaign, and I think people were/are just very wary of seeing it on stage. It is, after all, more or less just the movie- which is on DVD for next to nothing. At least The Lion King has the illusion of being avant garde and "cultural".
Shrek suffered from mixed to negative press, an initially ineffective ad campaign, and I think people were/are just very wary of seeing it on stage. It is, after all, more or less just the movie- which is on DVD for next to nothing. At least The Lion King has the illusion of being avant garde and "cultural".
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 9/14/09 at 04:23 PM
#16
Posted: 9/14/09 at 4:55pm
lots of shows opened during the economic downturn... Billy Elliot, Rock Of Ages, Next To Normal... all doing great. Economy is not an excuse.
#17
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:05pm
Billy Eliott opened with high advances because it was a BIG success in London. Rock Of Ages and Next To Normal were Off-Broadway shows first and everyone got to see them at first including critics.
Also, Shrek was a new show that only had an out-of-town tryout, and it barely got any bad reviews. Major news sources Variety, USA Today, and the Associated Press liked it. The New York Times said it wasn't bad.
ETA: Off-Boradway shows are rarely affected by the economy.
Also, Shrek was a new show that only had an out-of-town tryout, and it barely got any bad reviews. Major news sources Variety, USA Today, and the Associated Press liked it. The New York Times said it wasn't bad.
ETA: Off-Boradway shows are rarely affected by the economy.
Updated On: 9/14/09 at 05:05 PM
#18
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:10pm
I'd be more concerned with Shrek than Poppins. Mary Poppins has recouped so anything they make is profit. If their grosses drop, it's not as much of a big deal. Shrek on the other hand has yet to recoup and like others have said, it's never exactly been a box office bonanza.
"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
Updated On: 9/14/09 at 05:10 PM
#19
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:14pm
Shrek got great reviews from almost every major news paper in new york (News,Post,Times including USA today and newsday).
And recived a great ammount of buzz via magazines and radio.
And recived a great ammount of buzz via magazines and radio.
"Everything in life, is only for now"
-Avenue Q
#20
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:25pm
I would say that overall Shrek got mixed reviews, and even the positive ones weren't exactly raves. More like : "It's ok".
And to clarify saveusmike, the Times review certainly was not a great review. At the most generous, it was mixed.
And to clarify saveusmike, the Times review certainly was not a great review. At the most generous, it was mixed.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
#21
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:26pm
WhatyoutalkingaboutWillis.
#22
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:27pm
Yeah I think I remember Brantly saying that show was "not bad". It certainly wasn't a rave review.
"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible
#23
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:32pm
Using the miracle of modern technology...
"Shrek,? for the record, is not bad. [...]But it seems to me that if ?Shrek? had more generally heeded its own advice about substance versus surface, it might have come closer to casting the spell that lets Broadway shows live happily ever after."
It was a tepid reaction at best. Not exactly something you can plaster on a marquee.
"Shrek,? for the record, is not bad. [...]But it seems to me that if ?Shrek? had more generally heeded its own advice about substance versus surface, it might have come closer to casting the spell that lets Broadway shows live happily ever after."
It was a tepid reaction at best. Not exactly something you can plaster on a marquee.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#24
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:43pm
"When I saw that and even South Pacific and In the Heights, my jaw dropped... "
I am not too worried about South Pacific, but In the Heights...ouch. Same with Shrek.
I am not too worried about South Pacific, but In the Heights...ouch. Same with Shrek.
"We like to snark around here. Sometimes we actually talk about theater...but we try not to let that get in our way." - dramamama611
#25
Posted: 9/14/09 at 5:50pm
Did South Pacific recoup yet?
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95