Broadway Revival Disease

[roquat]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:26pm

Broadway is often referred to as "a fascinating invalid", but I wonder if the illness is heading into a new and disturbing stage. I refer to the number of revivals--don't they smack of desperation? Two perennials, "A Chorus Line" and "The Fantasticks", have been dug out of the closet for no other apparent reason than that they had long runs, and "Les Miserables", which closed about, what, ten minutes ago, is already being "revived"? And "Grease" is coming up? What next, "Cats"? Are they going to close "Phantom" and open a "revival" of it the next day?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 3:30pm

Broadway is about money.

The classics get the tourist dollars (most of them at premium levels), not the shows that nobody has ever heard of.

What was the most common thing I heard when I saw Les Miz a few weekends ago? "Oh, it closed? This is the revival?"

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 4:13pm

les miz just closed like 2 years ago, this is stupid. i didn't even like the new chorus line

[jjoey076]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 4:31pm

bite your tongue.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 4:40pm

roquat- I believe you mean the "Fabulous invalid"

And yea, I agree, there was NO reason for "Les Miz" to return, if you haven't seen it in it's 20+ years on Broadway or on tour, fly to England and see it there.

[popculture37]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 4:48pm

Who cares how long its been closed? The important thing is to have high quality theater, not to mathematically analyze the rate at which shows should reappear. If you must criticize shows for returning after a short while, Les Miz isn't the only one. The Fantasticks played for like half of the twentieth century almost and here it is back again. And I think the worst offender is Company, not because the show has been in NY recently but because one of the main points of the show is the approach, which is the same as the approach to Sweeney which just closed a couple months ago. But, I think that Les Miz, Fantasticks, and COmpany are all great theater, so if people want to see them, they absolutely have a place on/off broadway.

[actor]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 7:30pm

double post Updated On: 11/9/06 at 07:30 PM

[actor]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 7:30pm

It's not a "revival disease" it's a "money disease".

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 7:35pm

Lets revive those old chestnuts Man of La Mancha & My Fair Lady
(not)

Revivals in & of themselves are not bad. They give new theatergoers a chance to see a show not seen before but is it necessary to revive the same ones over & over while other shows have never been revived ?Revivals should also be revivals of less famous shows. I can think of a number of shows with great scores, successes & less than successful ones, that should be revived before Grease, ACL or Les Miz

[TTL]

Posted: 11/9/06 at 7:42pm

I think it's a timing thing... whether the Revival good/bad. Personally, I wish/think "La Cage Aux Folles" would work well Now, not a year or 2 ago. That's just me though! Les Miz... dear god, too soon!! Is it still correct for me, and other theater-goers to say, I saw the FINAL Broadway Company of "Les Miserables"? "A Chorus Line", being a College Student... I find it nice to see a musical/movie that I grew up watching, on the Broadway stage. If I saw the original I'd be like 4-5 and be lost in what's going on. I also feel it's refreshing to say "I saw A CHORUS LINE on Broadway, as well as A CHORUS LINE is one of my favorite movie musicals. Ok, I'm done... no clue if I made any sense.

Ohhh and the 1999-2000 Revival of KISS ME KATE - great!! I just checked IBDB and KISS ME KATE = original 1948 to 1951. FIRST Revival = January 8-12, 1952 (SHORT SHORT yet so SOON) The SECOND Revival of KISS ME KATE well you see... BIG 47 YEARS later!!
Updated On: 11/9/06 at 07:42 PM