Broadway Grosses: Week Ending 6/28/15- Page 3

[MegInManhattan]

Posted: 6/30/15 at 11:15am

SR uses a character who was a real person (Shakespeare) and uses the fact that he wrote plays. That's it. Nothing else is factual or borrows characters or plot from existing works, therefore it is an Original Musical.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/30/15 at 11:22am

Aside from the fact it borrows liberally from- I mean, lovingly references- the musical theatre canon to get there, of course.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 6/30/15 at 1:51pm

"I'm thinking that it's nearly time for Chicago to pack it up. It's a great show, but it's been here for just about forever and I'd love to venture back into the Ambassador for something fresh."

While I appreciated getting to see Jennifer Nettles on Broadway and hopefully I'll be able to see Brandy as well I have to agree. The actual production feels tired and forget something fresh in the Ambassador, I'd be happy to have them just freshen that theatre up. It is literally falling apart. 

[TexanAddams18]

Posted: 6/30/15 at 2:45pm

If SR isn't original, than BOM certainly isn't.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 6/30/15 at 3:12pm

BOM may have references to other shows, but it uses them (and the form of a traditional Broadway musical) to tell a very untraditional and rather insightful story about the impulse for faith and the need for a religious community to inspire hope. 

 

SR!, the critics who would argue tongue-in-cheek about it being "original" since it plainly is by any rational definition, would argue that SR!'s references overwhelm any semblance of any original idea to the point that there's no there there and it amounts to a dizzying number of referencing papered over a wager-thin (if that) concept that is wholly based on the ideas and works of others. 

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 6/30/15 at 10:43pm

Jnb, I literally have NO idea what you just said. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 1:24am

I enjoyed my time at Something Rotten, certainly. But I am surprised it's such a hit. I mean it has no stars, no source material. What is selling it to these crowds? I know it's a hit with industry folk, but we're not the ones paying $100 for it. I paid $37 and I don't need to see it again. It's a fine show, and I'm not mad about it. I enjoyed it, and I'm happy to see original (or original-ish musicals) surviving on Broadway like this and Fun Home. So hats off to them. I just wish I knew WHY people were flocking to this? I guess word of mouth?

[A1st]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 7:40am

In the broadway community, I'm pretty sure that Brian d arcy James and Christian Borle are both considered to be stars.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 8:31am

A musical can't succeed selling to the Broadway community.

[somechrysanthemumtea]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 8:35am

The Weisslers wouldn't close Chicago now, not when it's still turning a profit a majority of the time. 

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 9:00am

Yes, I agree.  I cannot imagine Broadway without "Chicago".  

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 10:08am

Broadway just didn't exist before 1996

[jnb9872]

Posted: 7/1/15 at 10:14am

There was that blip in the '70s where it existed, though. Sort of like a prelude.