Could SOUTH PACIFIC have run for much longer than it did? — Page 2

frontrowcentre2 is quite right. I'd bet that even with not paying rent and not paying certain other expenses that normally come with doing a show in a regular Broadway house, they still had money-losing weeks. I don't know what the weekly nut was, but I'd bet they had some weeks below it. It would have been pointless to keep running it and lose more money, as would inevitably have happened.

Truth is that they might have been smart, financially, to have closed it a bit earlier than they did.

You know, frontrow, I was thinking that the other day. Oh, how I'd love to see that incredible staging of the "Carousel Waltz", where the whole theatre was turned into the carousel! What magic!

I would, however, like a stronger cast. When I saw the shoe the tow leads were quite weak.

---

Much as I hate to disagree a bit, frontrowcentre2, I do.

The announcement to close was made in February. Look at the grosses since then.

I think if they'd closed earlier, they would have had the same upturn at the end (which wasn't exactly a spectacular upturn) with fewer losing weeks (simply because there would have been fewer weeks).

But if keeping it open allowed us to get O'Hara and Szot back for the telecast, then it's good. I just think that for LCT's finances, they might have been better off closing a bit earlier.

In any case, the show had a good run.

I don't know about that but Loretta Swit is doing a 2 month run of Shirley Valentine in Toronto (well, Mississauga) starting in September.

---