Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 4/16/23 — Page 3

Theater3232 said: "Not sure why Bad Cinderella chose the leading lady it did, whose credits seem to be an understudy for Dear Even Hansen? Perhaps they would have sold a lot more tickets with someone whose name I actually heard of, like Sutton Foster, Jessie Mueller, Laura Osnes, Megan Hilty, etc. Poor choice of casting often has consequences at the box office."

I understand your point, but these names you just listed (and therefore your presumed thought process on this role) seem WAYYYY off. All those women are too old (and not right in multiple other ways) for this part. Sutton Foster is 48, Megan Hilty is 42, Jessie Mueller is 40, and Laura Osnes is problematic. (They're also all white) Linedy is 32, but plays much younger than the names you listed too.

While I am mystified by the production's decision to cast Genao, a "Broadway name" like Sutton Foster or Laura Osnes in a panned show like Bad Cinderalla would not fill that theater, and certainly not long enough to save this show (and from what I undrerstand, the lead role isnt even big enough for a star like that to take on...)

Theater3232 said: "Not sure why Bad Cinderella chose the leading lady it did, whose credits seem to be an understudy for Dear Even Hansen? Perhaps they would have sold a lot more tickets with someone whose name I actually heard of, like Sutton Foster, Jessie Mueller, Laura Osnes, Megan Hilty, etc. Poor choice of casting often has consequences at the box office."

Speaking of Funny Girl.

And she's also so wrong for a role that's described as being not "beautiful" (in a typical or traditional sense). She's gorgeous.

If she had matched that by being an incredible talent who blew everyone away so much that it made sense why they might compromise on the physical aspects of the character, it would make sense to me. By most accounts, she's not SOOOO good that it makes sense to compromise on the physical aspects of the character for her.

nativenewyorker2 said: "I just remember sitting at the first preview after an hour like "why is this called bad cinderella and 1. we have only seen cinderella like twice on stage in a hour and 2. what bad thing has she done""

Exactly this! Why does everybody profess that she’s bad other than that she grafitti’s a statue and rejects the social norms in Belleville? I didn’t like Genao’s voice either so I’m really glad she wasn’t on stage if anything. Carmelo & McLean really carry the show on their backs in my opinion. I enjoy it a lot actually, and the ensemble cast outside of Genao is great, just not her.

I’m not really sure how the politics of this would be, but I would love to see a plus-sized Cinderella with a strong voice. Then the town has a “reason” (albeit… not a good one) to refer to cinderella as ugly/mean/bad for rejecting the norms (all of the ensemble is very thin) in Belleville’s society. Currently we have no reason to believe she’s any different from everybody else other than saying it.

dwwst12 said: "DrMonicaDeMoneco said: "Tony nods ain’t gonna save Some Like It Hot Or Shucked. And it’s curtains for Kimberley right after the Tonys. Glad Kim is going out on tour! Make that money, honey!"

Man, I wish there were a betting market for this, because I'd take that action on Shucked, LOL. I think it'll be open in 2024. Take a look back at the BWW graph of the first six months of Rock of Ages' grosses, as just one example of how a show can progress.

Obviously the average ticket price still isn't great. But if I'm not mistaken, it has doubled its grosses in one month, from $300K to $600K. The house is full, and while I could be wrong, it's hard to imagine word of mouth not having a positive effect here. Plus we are really just heading into the "Broadway on TV" season, with late night and morning shows appearances."

I wouldn't bet against Shucked lasting (at least through the summer) but neither would I bet on it long-term. They have not really made much progress despite very aggressive marketing but the producers appears truly devoted to giving it a go. The next few weeks will determine if it can pull a "Beetlejuice" or will just putter on losing money filling the house with cheap tickets.

hache2 said: I wouldn't bet against Shucked lasting (at least through the summer) but neither would I bet on it long-term. They have not really made much progress despite very aggressive marketing but the producers appears truly devoted to giving it a go. The next few weeks will determine if it can pull a "Beetlejuice" or will just putter on losing money filling the house with cheap tickets."



Agreed. It could certainly go either way. But I believe that Shucked's ceiling is far higher than Beetlejuice's. If I were a producer, I'd want to really give it a shot. Though I admittedly don't know anything about the running costs.

dearalanaaaa said: "nativenewyorker2 said: "I just remember sitting at the first preview after an hour like "why is this called bad cinderella and 1. we have only seen cinderella like twice on stage in a hour and 2. what bad thing has she done""

Exactly this! Why does everybody profess that she’s bad other than that she grafitti’s a statue and rejects the social norms in Belleville? I didn’t like Genao’s voice either so I’m really glad she wasn’t on stage if anything. Carmelo & McLean really carry the show on their backs in my opinion. I enjoy it a lot actually, and the ensemble cast outside of Genao is great, just not her.

I’m not really sure how the politics of this would be, but I would love to see a plus-sized Cinderella with a strong voice. Then the town has a “reason” (albeit… not a good one) to refer to cinderella as ugly/mean/bad for rejecting the norms (all of the ensemble is very thin) in Belleville’s society. Currently we have no reason to believe she’s any different from everybody else other than saying it.

"

A good number of problems with the book would fix itself with a plus sized actress. No hate to Linedy--- she's just too pretty for the role she's playing.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "No, there's not. It's press speak. As I've said before, he is enough of a businessman that his finances far outweigh any wish for an unbroken Broadway streak."

If he were enough of a businessman, he would have let this die on the vine in the UK. Instead it has now tainted his reputation, such as it is, both in the UK (including as a human being) and in the US.

If you choose to believe the Post piece, he wants to shut it down but Ms. Schwartzman is what is keeping it open, with her inane tyro marketing plans. She can afford to lose plenty more money of course, and never notice it, but the irony of the Post piece is that it misses the forest for the trees. There was a solid piece of reporting that could and should have been done here, focused on Schwartzman and what the hell is wrong with her, plus what their "deal" is. This reminds of the long history of rich people and their bad judgment. In this case we have two of them, both of whom would be well served by leaving the producing to the people who know how. I also don't want to hear a score composed by David Stone or Jeffrey Seller.

Hogan, if I had to make a charitable guess, Schwartzman and Darren (who pulls the strings at her company) want to be seen as legit producers and think their commitment to trying to turn around a flailing show will be admirable and help them get other shows down the line: being seen as people who fight for authors. But memories are short, investor money is ultimately what talks, and burning bridges with ad agencies doen't help one's reputation. If she pulls the same thing on Fat Ham then we'll know it's a trend.

Or, an alternative view of the situation: heads are too far up certain body parts to see clearly.

Updated On: 4/20/23 at 01:20 PM

CatLady3 said: "How long do you guys think Funny Girl can maintain these numbers? The steam has got to run out eventually right?"

Absolutely it will run out of steam on September 3rd! Until then? Stacks on stacks on stacks

A huge advertising overhaul of Bad Cinderella (or Cinderella as it was known) happened here in the UK as well. I remember it going from the blue logo poster with the pink balls...I mean dress to a much more fairytale like campaign with her Carrie Hope Fletcher in her make over look.



It didn't work here, it won't work there.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "investor money is ultimately what talks"

In general, yes, but I do not understand the dynamics of her producing. She does not need investors. The Schwartzman wealth is unfathomable. To put it in context, if she decides to run the show at a weekly loss of a half million dollars for ten weeks, the dent in their net worth is the same as if someone with a $10 million net worth lost $166.66 a week.