Define "flop"

[WaffleOnWheels]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 6:47pm

At what point does a show become not a flop to you? A certain number of performances? A certain grossing? Where do you draw the line?

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 6:50pm

A show is a flop when it doesn't recoup its investment. 

 

I understand that people use the term more broadly, but that is the industry definition and the only quantifiable way to define success. When an article on a theatre site declares a show is a "flop," that is what they mean. 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 6:55pm

WaffleOnWheels said: "At what point does a show become not a flop to you? "

"To me" doesn't matter. There's a real definition.

[darquegk]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:00pm

The only place it gets complicated to me is that shows now frequently recoup on the road or (more commonly now) in licensing, when shows that didn't make a splash on Broadway become perennials in regionals and community theatre. 

Given that there's often more money to be made off the Great White Way than on, with the rise of the major licensing houses, many producers keep an option in for tours and licensing, and the definition of at what point the show goes from a flop to recouped can be fuzzier.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:06pm

Not really. At the point a show recoups, whether that is during the Broadway run, on tour, or years later through amateur licensing, the show becomes a hit. 

 

It may not be as widely announced if it recoups after it closes on Broadway, but that doesn't mean the definition is fuzzy.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:16pm

Yero, you are wrong.  Making money on the road or elsewhere can not turn the Broadway Production into a "hit"  When a show tours or is performed elsewhere the initial Broadway investors do not make any more moolah unless they invest in the tour. Most tours these days are run by third parties and have nothing to do with the investors. The "hands-on" producers may make more because they own or are contracted to a "piece" of the show.  If you invest in a Broadway Production and it does not make back its initial investment you get zip, nada, nothing. As Gertrude Stein said: A Flop is A Flop is A Flop.

Updated On: 8/15/17 at 07:16 PM

[Sunny11]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:24pm

But didn't the Addams Family company say that they recouped on tour as in including the Broadway expenses.  

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:30pm

I didn't say that all shows recoup their investment on the road, or that a successful tour necessarily means anything for the Broadway investment.  I was responding to the previous poster to say that IF a show recoups its initial Broadway investment on tour, it is a hit, regardless of when the recoupment happened.

Updated On: 8/15/17 at 07:30 PM

[ladypresent]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:44pm

millie won the tony award and didn't recoup its investment..is it a flop?

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 7:47pm

ladypresent said: "millie won the tony award and didn't recoup its investment..is it a flop?"

By the official definition of the word, yes, it's a flop. I think we need some new terms to help describe that sort of situation. 

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/15/17 at 8:04pm

millie won the tony award and didn't recoup its investment..is it a flop?

Yes.  A Tony doesn't define a hit.

Other shows that failed to recoup in their original Broadway runs:

Porgy and Bess
Paint Your Wagon
Candide
Wildcat
Do Re Mi
Little Me
She Loves Me
Hallelujah, Baby! (Tony: Best Musical)
Zorba
Purlie
Follies
Raisin (Tony: Best Musical)
Gigi
On the Twentieth Century
Woman of the Year
Sunday in the Park With George
The Mystery of Edwin Drood (Tony: Best Musical)
Starlight Express
Into the Woods
Chess
Jerome Robbins' Broadway (Tony: Best Musical)
Grand Hotel
The Secret Garden
Blood Brothers
Kiss of the Spider Woman (Tony: Best Musical)
Passion (Tony: Best Musical)
Sunset Boulevard (Tony: Best Musical)
Victor/Victoria
Titanic (Tony: Best Musical)
Jekyll & Hyde
Ragtime
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Tarzan
Legally Blonde
Xanadu
The Little Mermaid

...the list goes on and on...

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 1:59am

I really never got why it's hard to get this is the only objective way to measure a hit or flop. It either made its investment back during its Broadway run or not.

I know Wildhorn would love to think the 5 year run of Jekyll and Hyde made it a hit, sorry Frankie! 

[Margo319]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:17am

The conventional answer is a show that did not make its money back or got bad reviews.  But, to me, if you see a show and love it, it's a success.  And if you listen to the cast recording and it makes you happy, I consider that a win.  

*This is an opinion in case you did not understand the boxes surrounding this post*

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:31am

blaxx said: "I really never got why it's hard to get this is the only objective way to measure a hit or flop. It either made its investment back during its Broadway run or not."

 

I think the reason the recoupement definition is difficult for people to latch onto is that the word "flop" also carries certain connotations with it - just as any word has connotations that go along with its literal definition. The connotations that go with the word "flop" are that the show bombed, couldn't find an audience, didn't get recognition, etc. Even the regular word "flop" in a non-theatre context implies a kind of weak collapse in a pathetic and undignified way. The image that it evokes feels like an extreme. 

When a show actually does gain traction - when it runs for a year or more, gets awards or lots of nominations, gets good reviews, amasses a fan base, etc. - it feels wrong to use such an ugly word like "flop" to describe it, even if it technically didn't make back its investment. I understand it's not OFFICIALLY wrong, but it feels like a poor descriptor. I'm reminded of this incident with Spider-Man:

http://variety.com/2013/legit/news/broadways-spider-man-is-not-a-flop-at-least-not-to-one-theater-district-restaurant-1201012263/

Like I said earlier in the thread: I think we need a new set of terms. 

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 02:31 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:41am

You don't need to take the term flop beyond what it means: as a business, the production flopped. As a business.  That's all. It's math really,  not that hard.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 2:49am

blaxx said: "You don't need to take the term flop beyond what it means: as a business, the production flopped. As a business.  That's all. It's math really,  not that hard."

 

Yeah, I get that's what it means. My point is that it has connotations attached to it, which cloud the definition in the eyes of many people. The average ticket-buying tourist probably has no idea whether shows recoupe investments, and many probably don't understand how that process works. Yet those people will still probably use the word "flop," and they probably wouldn't use it for shows that run for 5 years, but didn't make their money back. You and I would both agree that those people are technically wrong, but they make that mistake because the word DOES have connotations that go beyond the literal definition. I'm not trying to complicate the issue - I'm just trying to account for why the issue has already been complicated and confused. 

 

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 02:49 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:24am

It's an industry term, is all. We can say that if a show ran more than 5 years is a hit, if we wanted. But to those who put their monies into making the shows happen, the truth is that they got some or nothing back.

A producer can call their show a hit at any time if they wanted, nothing is really stopping them. 

And I don't buy the connotation thing; most of us love Broadway flops; even more than some of those shows who have made the most money.

If you want to be objective, this is the only definition that can be quantified objectively.

To me, the length of a show's run would mean little if they couldn't pay their money back after all those years. 

 

 

[binau]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 3:46am

The only complication I would suggest is that not all flops are equal, and not all hits are equal either. Obviously a show like Spider Man that loses almost its entire investment at a massive scale is a bit different than a show that gives back 50% of its modest investment - even though they are both flops. Similarly, there is a difference between a hit like Wicked and a hit that recoups the day before it closes. I know these are obvious, but the simple binary definition of "hit" and "flop" does seem a little bit simple for my liking.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 7:16am

Those of you disliking the term "flop" are thinking artisticly. Flop isn't an artistic word, it's a business term, pure and simple.

It doesn't mean hated or awful or ugly...iy just means financially unsuccessful. Which, from a technical standpoint is the only unbiased way to measure success.

 

It doesn't change my personal opinion of a show any more than what another person's opinion would.  Scottsboro Boys will remain a masterpiece in my mind, but it still flopped. 

Updated On: 8/16/17 at 07:16 AM

[IHeartNY2]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 11:23am

I think the real grey area is for shows that got good reviews with solid word of mouth, and ran for a good 2 years but still couldn't recoup everything...the word "Flop" seems a bit much in these cases. 

[rodrigo_ca]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 11:27am

A show that didn't recoup its investment, as many posters told already.

 

However, I'm in the "it doesn't matter" bandwagon unless you invested on it. If you were the only person in the audience but you loved it anyway, it is a great show for you and the amount of money it makes or not doesn't matter. That's why a flop can be a critic success and a successful show can be a critic failure.

[carnzee]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 11:29am

I've seen the word "flop-hit" used for Sunset BLVD and other shows that lost money but ran a while and developed a following.

[IronMan]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 11:30am

I tend to go with Ken Mendalbaum's definition: a flop is a show that ran less than 250 performances (about 6 months- not counting limited runs).  Because no matter how much money a show like, say, WONDERLAND may make in the future, it will never be considered a "hit."  
But all in all, a flop is like pornography... You know it when you see it. 

[coreman009]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 11:43am

People are defining it in business terms, but I think the point of this thread is to define a flop in theater terms. A show may be a smash hit if it recoups, but not every show that doesn't is a flop. For instance, Amelie is a flop but Bandstand isn't. I'd say about under 4 months (more or less) on Broadway is a flop. Exceptions can be made for shows based on expectations, ie. Spiderman. 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/16/17 at 12:55pm

I think some argue that the term "flop" has been used in everyday language to mean beyond the objective, hard line business meaning. When a show fails to recoup, then it is definitely considered a flop in business terms. However, since people use it in every day language, some think the way many use flop seems to indicate it also has had no major influence in theatre culture/canon. I think it's hard for a lot of people to see some big name musicals be considered a "flop" when it is seen as incredibly influential and its name has survived the test of time.