Yeah that suprised me as well as Footloose had a very healthy run.
Footloose did great around the rest of the world (after it was revised and the god awful staging and Choreography from Broadway was dumped) it also did well on its US National tours.
Yeah a bunch of my friends actually got cast in a production of it in Norwell.
Butters, go buy World of Warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation before we all murder you.
--Cartman: South Park
ATTENTION FANS: I will be played by James Barbour in the upcoming musical, "BroadwayWorld: The Musical."
So in spite of it running two years, Footloose wasn't able to recoup its investment? May I ask why?
It was freakin' awful? But a few months into the run, Broadway was short on new musicals, maybe that's what did the trick for a bit.
Their marketing campaign didn't help either. It started with the logo that looked like a kindergarten boy had puked crayons all over a poster. Then they started using photographs from the production. It all ended with the five (apparently) hottest guys from the show photographed as if they were in a boy band. Epic fail.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
I'd say that the definition of a flop has evolved over the last 30-40 years. During BW's Golden Age, a show could run for 6-8 months and turn a healthy profit. By the 1970s, many shows ran for a year or more and dropped millions. In 1979, an orchestra seat for the original SWEENEY TODD cost $15. It would now cost $120. That show ran for almost a year and a half and lost 35% of its initial investment, whereas the recent revival that ran for 10 months recouped in less than 6 months. Why? The weekly running cost for the stripped-down revival was minimal compared to the lavish 1979 original.
JECKYLL and HYDE ran for almost 4 years and lost money. The soon to be revived RAGTIME ran for 2 years just a decade ago and lost millions. The economics of BW have changed and, consequently, most musicals don't recoup. Expenses are just too great. If the initial investment is expensive (on-the-road changes, costly production values) and the weekly running costs are high, a show can meet the weekly expenses and stay open for years while never cracking that initial investent egg. That's show biz.
Less than a quarter of all musicals from the last 14 years based on movies have turned a profit on Broadway. Someone should nail that to every producer's door.
Less than a quarter of ALL shows on Broadway (I think it's 1 in 5) make a profit. If you nailed that to every producer's door, nothing would be produced. Way to go. You killed American theater. Congratulations.
The success rate of movie-to-musicals is no better or worse than the industry as a whole.
Fgreene, the biggest factor in recoupment is the production money, not the weekly running costs (although it obviously affects it). Regardless of how small a show is or how cheap it is to run, production costs have gone up astronomically in the last 30 or so years.
Nothing matters but knowing nothing matters. ~ Wicked
Everything in life is only for now. ~ Avenue Q
There is no future, there is no past. I live this moment as my last. ~ Rent
It's an interesting conundrum, because audiences have this expectation of seeing a BIG production, which of course costs a bucketload of money to create. And yet that just raises the possibility if failure. SPIDERMAN, for example, may be running well for the moment, but it's gonna take years to recoup its investment, if ever. And yet had it been done on the cheap, would anyone had gone to see it?
It's an interesting conundrum, because audiences have this expectation of seeing a BIG production, which of course costs a bucketload of money to create. And yet that just raises the possibility if failure.
That's an interesting point. What I'll just never get is why producers keep investing in stage versions of movies that came out years ago. Sure, let's invest 25 million in ET:The Musical, shall we? I think it's obvious that the productions are too expensive to ever recoup, but also that these old franchises are not an audience draw.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Part of it, I think, is because right now, we dont have a big recognizable name writing these things. The South Park guys are about the closest we have at the moment to what Gershwin and Porter were in the 30s or R&H in the 50s and 60s. So it's not like folks are gonna say, "Wow, there's a new musical by _______!"... which means producers have to work in other ways to attract those audiences, and having a Baby Boomer movie with a strong recognition factor is the easiest right now. So my guess is we're gonna keep seeing these musicalized movies until we get another Sondheim or another team like Bock and Harnick.
But he also said that because “Young Frankenstein” cost one and a half times more than “The Producers,” it would take the show that much longer to earn back its investment, which would seem to put the recoupment date beyond its Jan. 4 close.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Any show that barely plays a year in the For/Hilton/Foxwoods/YourNameHere Theatre would have to be a sellout with every seat at premium prices. And the tour closed early as well.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
HITS THE LION KING THE FULL MONTY THE PRODUCERS HAIRSPRAY SPAMALOT MARY POPPINS BILLY ELLIOT
FLOPS HIGH SOCIETY BIG FOOTLOOSE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER URBAN COWBOY DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG THE WEDDING SINGER TARZAN GREY GARDENS HIGH FIDELITY LEGALLY BLONDE XANADU CRY-BABY YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN THE LITTLE MERMAID 9 to 5 SHREK CATCH ME IF YOU CAN LEAP OF FAITH PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT GHOST SISTER ACT
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Wow, looking at the list in black and white makes you wonder why they keep investing in it!
Does anyone have a comparable ORIGINAL hit/flops list?
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
HITS THE LION KING THE FULL MONTY THE PRODUCERS HAIRSPRAY SPAMALOT MARY POPPINS BILLY ELLIOT
FLOPS HIGH SOCIETY BIG FOOTLOOSE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER URBAN COWBOY DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG THE WEDDING SINGER TARZAN GREY GARDENS HIGH FIDELITY LEGALLY BLONDE XANADU CRY-BABY YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN THE LITTLE MERMAID 9 to 5 SHREK CATCH ME IF YOU CAN LEAP OF FAITH PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT GHOST SISTER ACT HANDS ON A HARDBODY
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
HITS THE LION KING THE FULL MONTY THE PRODUCERS HAIRSPRAY SPAMALOT MARY POPPINS BILLY ELLIOT ONCE NEWSIES KINKY BOOTS
FLOPS HIGH SOCIETY BIG FOOTLOOSE SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER URBAN COWBOY DANCE OF THE VAMPIRES THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG THE WEDDING SINGER TARZAN GREY GARDENS HIGH FIDELITY LEGALLY BLONDE XANADU CRY-BABY YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN THE LITTLE MERMAID 9 to 5 SHREK CATCH ME IF YOU CAN LEAP OF FAITH PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT GHOST SISTER ACT HANDS ON A HARDBODY
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE