"It is as simple as looking at the amount of money lost, and if it exceeds the amount any other single show has lost then it is the biggest flop in history."
I'm curious qolbinau, what is the biggest flop to date? I didn't know those numbers were made public.
As for Spider-Man, yes it's going to lose money. The producers knew that in previews. They could have closed it before it even opened. But they rolled the dice, opened it, employed many people, entertained huge audiences, and did get a return back. The show has had a decent, respectable run.
Seeing as it hasn't officially recouped, this is impossible. There is no return until they recoup. Based on the most recent numbers, the investors will be lucky to get anywhere near a "return" (more like breaking even...)
The original production of Aspects had a huge physical production, designed by Maria Bjornssen. It's only in more recent years that the designs of the show have reflected the smaller scale of the writing.
I also remember Carrie being listed for quite some time in the Guinness Book of World Records for biggest flop, though I'm sure it has been surpassed as the cost of productions has grown so wildly.
Aspects of Love opened in 1990 and lost the entire 8 million dollar investment. At the time The Times wrote a piece declaring that it was perhaps the greatest flop in Broadway history.
Here's a link to the article. What's most interesting is the discussion of weekly running costs. Miss Saigon was set to open with a scandalously high weekly running cost of $450,000!! My have times changed!
Cameron Mackintosh was the early pioneer of premium seats as front row mezzanine for Miss Saigon cost I believe $100 but it enabled them to recoup within a year. Saigon cost $12m, not sure how much Phantom or Les Mis cost, Cats I believe was $5-6m which the Shuberts gave to Lloyd Webber and Cameron Mackintosh rather than them having to raise the money.
Yeah, now $700,000-$800,000 seems to be the expectation for a musical today rather than the exception. If you heard about a musical running for $450,000 in 2013 dollars you'd think, "Damn! That's cheap! What wizardry are those producers working/how cheap must that show look, haha."
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
Apologies, I'm using the wrong terminology. I'm not trying to defend Spider-Man, and the arrogant foolishness that went on with it. Just saying, the musical could have closed before 2.0 at a complete loss. Instead it opened. Has had a decent run. Raking in, what, more than $1 million a week? Until recently.
But if it doesn't recoup, it's a financial flop - no ifs ands or buts. So then it's just left up to the subjective "artistic hit or flop" which varies from person to person and is only an opinion. Though it was, more or less, a critical flop as well. Right? That consensus should be considered.
you cant say a show is a failure if its been running for 3 years. Sorry you just cant. Maybe it hasnt made money, but 3 years of audiences have enjoyed it in one of the largest if not largest theater on Broadway.
Money isnt the only barometer for success
Look at all the shows that have come and gone sinces
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
I suppose it all depends on how one views money, with respect to my previous comment (which seems to not be understood). A 50% return is a 50% return. Again, I'm not saying Spider-Man actually has returned 50%, that's just the basis for the comment. Money has to "be" somewhere. If it sits in a mattress, it either gains or loses value based on inflation. If it's in a bank, one hopes the bank won't fail. If it's in bonds, one hopes the bond issuer won't default. It's not as simple as you put in $70m, and only got $35m back when it comes to saying Spider-Man is the biggest flop ever. So many shows return nothing at all. 50% is actually pretty good given the average. A person who has 50k invested in Spider-Man (under this theoretical model) gets 25k back. That same investor could have invested 50k in Godspell, and lost every penny of it. As such, Godspell is a bigger flop, and Spider-Man is nowhere close to the biggest flop ever.
Yes, it it's going to be a flop, perhaps the biggest financial flop in Broadway history. That's why I was asking what the current largest flop was, knowing Spider-Man will likely exceed it financially.
When it closes will they release the numbers of how much money it ultimately lost? I'm curious.
The show had a substantial run. It won't go down as one of my all-time favorites, I thought the music was terrible except for Rise Above. But I'm glad I saw it. It was visually dazzling.
Then you're really discussing the length/duration/"life" of the Broadway production, not the financial failure or success. All of these lines are becoming blurred; some are equating a show that runs for, say, five years with 'success' when, in technical terms, it's not actually a success unless it has recouped.
I'm more familiar with the TV business where a TV show is considered a hit if its ratings are decent enough to get renewed and it lasts long enough. For the people who make the shows (e.g. WB, Sony), they often don't recoup until a show goes into syndication. But, the general public isn't aware of that. It doesn't impact what's considered a hit or flop.
I guess the difference with Broadway is people are more aware of the dollars behind the shows. With TV, few people outside the production company's accounting offices know if "Lost", for instance, made a profit and how much. Few people care. They just know that lots of people watched it.
If the show goes on tour or vegas or London that should add to the bottom line as well. I've heard rumours of all for Spider Man.
FTR. I saw both Spider-Man s before and after the retool. I liked the first version better believe it or not. I found the show dazzling as well and liked the music. Best though were the actors. You can say what you want but I don't think anyone can deny they were very talented.
FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ......................................................................................................................................
The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW.....................................................................................................................
...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................
"So many shows return nothing at all. 50% is actually pretty good given the average. A person who has 50k invested in Spider-Man (under this theoretical model) gets 25k back. That same investor could have invested 50k in Godspell, and lost every penny of it. As such, Godspell is a bigger flop, and Spider-Man is nowhere close to the biggest flop ever."
I see your point but I think they are two different things. When people talk about flops of anything (even movies) they generally refer to the total investment, not pieces..
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Spiderman: When considering payback, officially they only count ticket sales. But, from an investors point of view, they also receive a percentage of the OBCR and other merchandise. And with a more than 2 1/2 year run, they actually got back a much bigger percentage of their original investment because of those sales.
Unfortunately, I don't this is going be licensed by many community theaters or high schools, so the bucks stop here...