Owen22 said: "JBroadway said: "And I think we’d see an extension of that if he came to Broadway, where being a widely beloved actor usually means more for ticket sales than being a widely known actor."
...which Broadway are you talking about?"
Maybe it was extreme of me to suggest that Corden's widespread fame wouldn't be enough to attract producers/investors, and recoup a production. At the end of the day, that's the most important thing, so I'm willing to walk back on that part of my post.
But as for that last part of my comment: I think there's an observable economic difference between big stars who are merely well-known vs. well-known AND widley-beloved, inspiring passion in their fan bases. We've seen many examples in recent years of major film/TV stars coming to Broadway, and either not recouping the show, not selling out, not commanding high tickets prices, or some combination thereof. Some examples include: Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman, Kiera Knightly, Michael Cera, Saoirse Ronan, and many more. Arguably just as famous as (or at least comparable in fame to) Bryan Cranston or Bette Middler, but the latter two did WAY better at the box office than the others.
Now, granted, there are/were other variables at play, and we can definitely quibble about why one star sold better than other in xyz project. And again, I'm not saying that these shows all sold BADLY, and I'm willing to concede that Corden probably wouldn't sell badly either.
But I'm just trying to illustrate the point: sheer fame isn't everything when it comes to selling like gangbusters. It matters a lot, but it's not everything. The best-selling names are the ones that not only have widespread recognition, but also inspire passion in their fan-bases.
Updated On: 5/3/22 at 06:08 PM
