Posted: 10/10/16 at 4:16pm
Jersey Boys received the best reviews of its season (pretty much universal raves). And Mamma Mia was well-liked among critics, even though they admitted it was fluff.
Posted: 10/10/16 at 4:27pm
Liza's Headband said: "Yes, there are plenty of shows that have eventually recouped through licensing and/or touring. Those "returns" are rarely, if ever, publicly announced though. We can only make educated guesses about this. We cannot assume an official announcement will be released like it does for Broadway. "
Thanks! I wonder if producers ever go in to a project assuming most/much of their money won't come back until after tours/regional productions (or maybe most wisely assume they'll never see their money again).
Do most of us assume critics radically impact box office, or do most people select shows based on word-of-mouth, star-power, familiar story or some other criteria?
Updated On: 10/10/16 at 04:27 PM
Posted: 10/10/16 at 7:25pm
Did The Addams Family recoup? I remember that got terrible reviews but grossed very well and ran for at least a year.
Posted: 10/10/16 at 7:34pm
I'm relying totally on my not-so-reliable memory, but I believe PIPPIN, if not panned, received mixed reviews at best. Didn't Stuart Ostrow turn it into a hit with the TV commercial? (I love the show FWIW and find it entire worthy of its long run.)
Posted: 10/10/16 at 8:39pm
My memory is foggy but pretty sure I saw Pippin during its previews the first time around in the early 70s. As I recall, Clive Barnes was not particularly kind in his Times review.
Posted: 10/10/16 at 10:17pm
GavestonPS said: "I'm relying totally on my not-so-reliable memory, but I believe PIPPIN, if not panned, received mixed reviews at best. Didn't Stuart Ostrow turn it into a hit with the TV commercial? (I love the show FWIW and find it entire worthy of its long run.)"
I have heard the original production of Pippin cited many times as one of the pioneers in really using a television commercial to greatly broaden its mass appeal.
Posted: 10/10/16 at 11:02pm
For what it's worth, I just noticed that Show-Score has a section called "Critics and Members Don't Agree", which currently highlights Wicked (critics 70 versus members 93), Paramour (critics 48 vs members 71) and The Trial of An American President (critics 48 vs members 74).
I wonder if there have been shows the critics liked more than audiences did.
Updated On: 10/10/16 at 11:02 PM
Posted: 10/10/16 at 11:09pm
On show score the critics liked Matilda better but that's by a slim margin. The critics liked it 97% of the time while members liked it 92% percent of the time.
Posted: 10/10/16 at 11:28pm
Emmaloucbway said: "Did The Addams Family recoup? I remember that got terrible reviews but grossed very well and ran for at least a year."
No, it did not recoup.
Posted: 10/10/16 at 11:33pm
Liza's Headband said: "Sunny11 said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "Neverland flopped. Sorry, Jorge.
"
It ran for 17 months on Broadway ! How can that be called flop? It had an audience "
Any show that is unable to recoup is a flop by definition since it is a 'losing' venture (i.e. not paid back its investors by failing to net its capitalization amount). A flop is a commercial failure. It's a pretty straightforward concept unlike critical or artistic failure, which is completely subjective.
"
The thing is, most shows don't rely on the Broadway/off-Broadway run to recoup. Tour and licensing often make the money back.
Posted: 10/11/16 at 12:44am
The Little Mermaid would have been in this category if not for the Nederlanders invoking the stop clause to allow the Addams Family to take over the Lunt Fontanne.
is AIDA considered a critical failure, commercial success?
Posted: 10/11/16 at 12:53am
kristinj1 said: "Thanks! I wonder if producers ever go in to a project assuming most/much of their money won't come back until after tours/regional productions (or maybe most wisely assume they'll never see their money again)."
Sometimes, yes. Just last January I was sharing a table with a man at the Juniors Bakery on 45th. We started chatting because we had the same plan: matinee of King Charles III, then the closing performance of Gentleman's Guide. It turns out he was friends with the writers and said that they only expected for it to run a short while on Broadway before going out on licensing. That being said, he could only speak for the writers and not each individual investor.
Posted: 10/11/16 at 2:12pm
broadwayguy91 said: "...is AIDA considered a critical failure, commercial success?"
I just did a little digging, and it sounds like the answer is yes.
From NYT 2000 review... "Unfortunately, the Aida on offer struggles, mostly without success, to reach the emotional depth and quality of a cheap, mindless Saturday morning cartoon. To quote the now legendary qualifier, "not since Carrie" has a musical this bland, superficial, unengaging, tuneless and just plain bad managed to actually open on Broadway."
And re. commercial success... "The musical, now titled Elton John and Tim Rice's Aida, premiered on Broadway at the Palace Theatre on March 23, 2000 and closed on September 5, 2004 after 30 previews and 1,852 performances. ... Considered by its producers to be a financial success, Aida on Broadway recovered its investment in 99 weeks, and generated a profit of $12 million." - from Wikipedia
Updated On: 10/11/16 at 02:12 PM
Posted: 10/11/16 at 2:18pm
I'm not sure I understand how Show Score finds a number for the reviewers' evaluations - for instance, they claim that Isherwood's Holiday Inn review rates a 60 out of 100. Other than calling the cast "skilled" (hardly gushing), he didn't seem to have anything positive to say about the show at all. How is that 60 (above average)?
Posted: 10/11/16 at 3:23pm
newintown said: "I'm not sure I understand how Show Score finds a number for the reviewers' evaluations..."
I wondered the same thing (just learned of Show-Score's existence a couple days ago while searching for something else), but it does say this in their FAQ section...
"How is the critic score calculated?
The critic scores are assigned by the Show-Score team after reading the full review. Three different people are involved, and they have to agree. That said, we hope that individual critics will claim their accounts on Show-Score, so they can excerpt and score their own reviews."
Posted: 10/11/16 at 5:13pm
Dancingthrulife2 said: "Liza's Headband said: "Sunny11 said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "Neverland flopped. Sorry, Jorge.
"
It ran for 17 months on Broadway ! How can that be called flop? It had an audience "
Any show that is unable to recoup is a flop by definition since it is a 'losing' venture (i.e. not paid back its investors by failing to net its capitalization amount). A flop is a commercial failure. It's a pretty straightforward concept unlike critical or artistic failure, which is completely subjective.
"
The thing is, most shows don't rely on the Broadway/off-Broadway run to recoup. Tour and licensing often make the money back.
"
You're talking about a property or entity, not a specific production. It was very clear based on the OP's question that he/she was asking about specific Broadway productions... not post-Broadway tours or licensing agreements. Also, if you actually read all of the posts in this thread I addressed this very issue later on. Keep up.
Posted: 10/11/16 at 5:22pm
Emmaloucbway said: "Did The Addams Family recoup? I remember that got terrible reviews but grossed very well and ran for at least a year.
"
I believe it did. Any show with Nathan Lane is destined to recoup, honestly.
Posted: 10/11/16 at 5:55pm
"You're talking about a property or entity, not a specific production. It was very clear based on the OP's question that he/she was asking about specific Broadway productions... not post-Broadway tours or licensing agreements."
As the OP, to be honest I'm interested in both and am really appreciating everyone sharing your thoughts and knowledge of various aspects of the industry.
As a consumer, this discussion of shows where critics were out of sync with audiences illustrates the truism that any review is just one person's opinion of a specific performance of a single production of a show in one particular incarnation (scripts evolve even after Broadway in many cases).
As a former actor it reminds me that you should never ask a question unless you want to hear the answer, and reading a review is essentially asking the reviewer for their opinion of your show. If an actor doesn't want to hear an opinion, don't read the review.
Updated On: 10/13/16 at 05:55 PM
Posted: 10/13/16 at 1:18pm
How do shows that are badly reviewed sometimes go on to build an audience? Is it all word-of-mouth or, as in the Pippin example above, does smart advertising do most of the heavy lifting?
Posted: 10/13/16 at 1:29pm
I think it's just how week know the piece or the actors are. They attract audience members.
Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:51pm
A short run play with bad to mixed reviews can survive because of the lower operating costs, but it would seem a full production musical that needs to initially run 20+ months to recoup would have a tough row to hoe. AIDA had the whole Disney franchise/marketing behind it but I doubt most shows have that advantage to withstand withering critical reception.
Posted: 10/24/16 at 5:08pm
skies said: "A short run play with bad to mixed reviews can survive because of the lower operating costs, but it would seem a full production musical that needs to initially run 20+ months to recoup would have a tough row to hoe. AIDA had the whole Disney franchise/marketing behind it but I doubt most shows have that advantage to withstand withering critical reception."
I just looked through the poorly-reviewed-but-commercially-successful shows mentioned in the thread above.
It does seem like the vast majority were more family-oriented shows and I suspect, as you mentioned, that most were unusually well funded. Does that seem true?
Updated On: 10/24/16 at 05:08 PM
Posted: 10/24/16 at 7:12pm
CAMELOT, rather famously, was a critical flop and commercial cripple until the leads (Richard Burton, Julie Andrews, Robert Goulet, Roddy McDowell) performed scenes and songs on THE ED SULLIVAN SHOW. The viewer response turned the show into a modest hit.
My point, Kristin, is that there are a lot of things (including word of mouth, TV commercials, etc.) that can turn a critical flop into a commercial hit. Far more common, unfortunately, are the opposite: critical darlings that nonetheless fail at the box office.
Posted: 10/24/16 at 8:16pm
GavestonPS said: "My point, Kristin, is that there are a lot of things (including word of mouth, TV commercials, etc.) that can turn a critical flop into a commercial hit. Far more common, unfortunately, are the opposite: critical darlings that nonetheless fail at the box office."
Interesting. I haven't researched the numbers of critical darlings that were box office busts, but can imagine there are many since recouping is relatively uncommon, right?
I wonder to what extent this is a variation on "nice is different than good". Looking at the list above, I distinctly remember seeing Mamma Mia! when it opened on the West End and knowing it wasn't particularly "good" but that I still had a blast. Sometimes that's all we ask from a night at the theatre -- guilty pleasures are still pleasures -- while many Critics may feel compelled to favor more sophisticated fare.
Updated On: 10/24/16 at 08:16 PM
