Carrie Sept 20th?- Page 4

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:09pm

Again, Monkey. I understand that. But we are talking about a major revival. Unless Gore and Pitchford signed an initial contract granting them rights to King's novel 'in perpetuity" - the terms for any type of Broadway revival would have to be renegotiated with King- particularly as I doubt ancilary rights to CARRIE THE MUSICAL were ever drawn up as the show closed quickly and there wouldn't have been any reason for the terms of the contract to be renewed.

Its not enough for just the composing team to want a revival -- for example: The reason we have never had a revival of PIPE DREAM (not even at Encores) is because the estate of John Steinbeck (the author of the original novel on which its based) refuses to grant permission - no matter how much Rodgers and Hammerstein may have wanted to see it brought back.

And you are simply wrong about the show being a "financial hit" -- it had a very low advance and was an $8 million dollar musical. You may say that the show was selling well in previews (probably due to the word of mouth among flop musical conoisseurs in NYC) but again its absurd to think the show would have overcome the horrendous reviews it received to be a hit.

There is no musical in the history of Broadway that has done that. The reviews for WICKED and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST were no where near those that greeted CARRIE. And contrary to what you are saying - CARRIE had no financial reserve to run on. Zero. None. That is why Kurz closed the show.

The most fascinating thing about this thread is the devout following for a musical from people who were barely alive when the show opened but who have completely romanticized its history and its merits! Thats Broadway folklore for you!




Updated On: 9/10/08 at 11:09 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:46pm

Ok, Monkey you are a bit mistaken about it's financial hit.

Yes, the show was a hot ticket. However, it had already used up the ENTIRE Advance before it made it to opening night. In fact, there was so little money that the weekend before opening (according to legend), they almost couldn't pay the company...so they made up buttons that said "No Cash. No Carrie." Had the producer's let the show run another week or two, business *might* have picked up to help them run a little bit longer, but the fact is that there just wasn't the money left to do it.

And while "Beauty" and "Wicked" opened to not the greatest reviews they had somethings going for them.
1) Good score (for the most part)
2) Bankable story/name
3) Built in family audience
4) Built in merchandising

Carrie has a somewhat bankable story/name, but for the most part when you say "Carrie the Musical" everyone says "WHAT? How?" And when you detail it, they either want to stay away, or want to see it...usually the former.

And, FWIW, Michael Bennett is pretty in touch with things, so when he says something, it's worth listening to.

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:47pm

Oh dear...once again, the rights to the songs STILL belong to their original owners. Stphenen King does own character rights, so if there were a revival he would obvioulsy have to give his permission once again, but his "rights" to Carrie are actually very slim and he had about zero say when it came to the musical.

Carrie was selling out on a nightly basis. Some people hated it, others loved it, some had mixed reviews. Professional reviewers hated it. Everyone was divided, but most believed it's main problems were the costumes, lack of set, and the entire choreography/dance numbers/teen songs package. It didn't close because it was a "horrible" show. It closed because the bankers didn't want to pay for it anymore because they got scared at the reviews.

They knew the show needed a little work. But they failed to fix the problems that were identified when it had it's run overseas. I still believe if it were relaunched it would work. The majority of the songs are very good, in my opinion, and the story is still very relevant.


Updated On: 9/10/08 at 11:47 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:56pm

Monkey-
No, King has EVERY right to say no. And if he does, it doesn't happen.

Also, last I heard, Pitchford was also saying No. Which also means it doesn't happen.

The show wasn't even fully sold out, it was selling well, but not wholly, and that only happened after the reviews showed up. People decided they had to see what was so bad.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:01am

I have to agree with the nay-sayers. Much as I am fascinated by the show, a full-scale revival would only last a little bit longer than the original run. There really are far too many problems for there to be an easy fix and the reputation will indeed scare away investors.

And you can NOT count on a cult following to keep a show open and running. If cult audiences could do that, then the revival of Follies would have lasted more than a few months, and Rocky Horror would have also lasted longer.

In terms of the future life of the show, a workshop to fix some of the problems, a staged concert, and then release it to colleges and summer stock/regional companies. That is probably the best that fans of Carrie could hope for. I highly doubt it will ever be seen in a full-scale, open ended run on Broadway again.

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:02am

Husk--

King technically has a right to say no, but it's doubtful he would. He has been supportive of people doing their own version of the musical in the past, so I'm sure he would be willing to do it again.

Pitchford has actually been in talks for a revival for many, many years. Things always fall through though. They do workshops and nothing much becomes of it. I do believe he is lightening up with his whole "no Carrie" stance.

The show was selling pretty well. Advanced sales were low because their biggest name was the guy from FAME. Then they added Betty to the show and sales went up. Then reviews came out and the bankers got scared. This would NEVER happen today, a show closing after only 5 official American performances.

The show would best work as a tour, I think. I would love to see Sacramento's Music Circus do the show.
Updated On: 9/11/08 at 12:02 AM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:04am

Buckley didn't really spike sales, and even with the advance (which was pretty decent), it was all gone before opening night. There was no money, and after the reviews no reason to expect money was coming in.

This would NEVER happen today, a show closing after only 5 official American performances.

Did you forget about Glory Days?

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:05am

A show would never close after five performances today?

Need we bring up Glory Days, the Blonde in the Thunderbird, The Oldest Living Confederate Widow?

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:07am

A "big" show would never close after only 5 performances. And to be honest, their best ticket sales for CARRIE were AFTER reviews came out. And Buckley did spike pre-sales a bit.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:10am

It was too little, too late.

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:13am

Not really. Just bad banking on Broadway.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:51am

Most of the tickets that were sold during the preview period were also heavily discounted. Selling out a theatre from TKTS isn't the same as reaching your weekly nut. The show was obviously running at a loss during previews or they would have been able to have kept it open at least a couple of weeks after the hideous reviews.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 11:03am

I remember Ken Mandelbaum telling me a few years ago that Gore was so embittered about the experience that he tied up the rights to Carrie so that it would never be produced again.

Sad thing is, the worst things about Carrie were not in the book or the score. Had it been recostumed, restaged, and rechoreographed, it might have stood a better chance on surviving.

It remains a show that has about 4 great songs in it and a alot of unspeakably horrible material surrounding it.

I disagree. I think it has several good numbers including:

In
Carrie
Open Your Heart
And Even Was Weak
Evening Prayers
Unsuspecting Hearts
I Remember How Those Boys Could Dance
When There's No One
Heaven

Don't Waste the Moon, Do Me a Favor and I'm Not Alone are decent melodies that could use some new lyrics. Dream On, Out For Blood, It Hurts to Be Strong and Wotta Night are the songs that should be completely replaced.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 12:14pm

I dunno Matt, those lyrics to "In" are pretty horrendous!

I also think the title song to CARRIE is a bit much - "I Can Speak My Heart" which was an earlier version in the workshops I think was more appropriate.

That's actually the problem. Several of the songs you mention liking are decent pop songs, they just don't belong in the same show as "Evening Prayers" and "Eve Was Weak."

At this point, I really would rather see what a completely new composing team could do with the source material. I do think (as did Gore and Pitchford) that CARRIE could be the basis for an interesting modern (legit)opera.

P.S. Responding to an earlier post - "In" definitely seems musically derived from "It's Raining Men" -- and the song that preceeded it in the workshop: "Ain't it a Bitch" is basically the same chord progression as "Enough is Enough."
Updated On: 9/11/08 at 12:14 PM

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 1:53pm

Carrie is kinda the flip side of FOLLIES. People wish they were there and talk about what could be done to make it a success the next time around. It's a show that those that love think can be fixed and those that hate think is un-fixable. Me I'm in the fixable camp so hey what do I know.

[LadyRosecoe]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 2:01pm

Fixing Follies would require all future productions to revert back to using the original script. With every subsequent book revision, it just gets watered down and loses it's bite.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 2:21pm

"The most fascinating thing about this thread is the devout following for a musical from people who were barely alive when the show opened but who have completely romanticized its history and its merits!"

LOL! So true, MB! How exactly does one know whether the show was making money or not? Are you Terry Hands' son?


"I dunno Matt, those lyrics to "In" are pretty horrendous!"

Today's audiences don't really seem to care about lyrics anyway.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 3:00pm

IMO, the "legendary" status of Carrie is an unexpected offshoot of Mandelbaum's book. Like Moose Murders in the non-musical field, it's badge of honor to say that you saw it; it is not like Follies, which which is a masterpiece that can withstand any amount of tinkering and still be on the radar screen. If some enterprising company braved making a recording of it, it would have limited interest but the curious would be satified and that would be the end of it. IMO only.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 3:34pm

When I mentioned Follies it was not meant to compare the quality of the shows, just to emphasize the point that a cult audience can't keep a revival running.

The problems with the original Follies that kept it from running longer were pretty much purely the operating costs. There is no question whatsoever as to the quality of the production.

[tourboi]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 4:38pm

Ed, that's an interesting theory of why it's so legendary but while I don't think Ken's book hurt, the show was already a legend because of all the bootlegs circling around. The first time I heard of CARRIE was on a road trip to see Phantom and our driver said "You HAVE to hear this..."

As for:
"The most fascinating thing about this thread is the devout following for a musical from people who were barely alive when the show opened but who have completely romanticized its history and its merits!"

What's your point?

So many of the people championing the show may not have seen it. Certainly it's been heard and/or read. Sometimes having NOT seen the original debacle in person helps one see it through more open eyes. That comment reaks of ageism.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 4:43pm

I need to listen to the workshop and demos again as I don't remember much about the unused material. But I do enjoy the mixed use of song stylings for the characters in the show. Personally, I felt giving the more classic material to Carrie and Mrs. White while having the rest of the outside world sing pop was a logical artistic choice, especially if you were setting the action in the current day as they did. I would be very interested in seeing the show revert back to the original period of the 70s and reorchestrating the score.

As for a completely new interpretation written by a new team, I'd be interested. Not as an opera, though (isn't there a Misery opera out there?). I'd love to hear what LaChiusa could do with the story.

[tourboi]

Posted: 9/11/08 at 4:50pm

Matt, just sent you a PM. :)

[divarobbie2]

Posted: 9/22/08 at 11:26am

Well... the 20th came and went with nothing... sadness.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/22/08 at 11:50am

To the person going on about "how people could know about Carries Box Office" etc (prob BorstalBoy as usual).Linzi and Terry both said that the sales for Carrie were fine, not great but they had not really started marketing the show at the time of its final performance (a tie in with MTV was expected as well as new posters and a new trailer to replace the one which aired briefly which Hands hated)

Its swift closure had more to do with producers reacting hastily to the negative reviews.Carries flaws on stage and behind the scenes comes down to peoples lack of experience.

[phantom39]

Posted: 4/24/09 at 12:55pm

looks like the site is up now...