It is a strange one since this does not say 'Broadway; in the title.
Legally Blonde (which did recoup in the UK) Footloose, 9 to 5 etc have also done great business here. Saturday Night Fever also did well here as did Sister Act. Ghost had a healthy run here but i dont think it recouped (though i know the UK tour did very well)
Never saw Kinky Boots but my stepdaughter told me the movie was the better of the two.
BROADWAY ONLY from 1995 to 2015 UPDATE
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
BIG FISH
THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY
ROCKY
BULLETS OVER BROADWAY
HONEYMOON IN VEGAS
A few of these, like Lolita, My Love, were based on earlier source material as well as their film adaptations. Also, while none were financial successes, some and in at least one case (Passion) many will consider them far from failures.
Roza
Carmelina (of course, there's a successful musical based at least unofficially on the same material; Mamma Mia!)
Dance a Little Closer
Smile
The Spitfire Grill
The Goodbye Girl
Anya
Henry, Sweet Henry
Oh, Captain!
Passion
King of Hearts
Look to the Lilies
Legs Diamond
Illya, Darling
Here's Love
Golden Rainbow
Exodus became Ari flopped
Shogun the musical flopped
Gone with the Wind flopped
Featured Actor Joined: 5/5/14
What about Beauty and the Beast? I think that was definitely a hit
I was just about to ask the same thing. ^
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/25/14
How would a "failure" or "flop" be defined? Financial, critical, both? Or general popularity?
I ask because, though Shrek and Thoroughly Modern Millie weren't gigantic successes on Broadway, they are still two of the most licensed shows to date. Just curious.
I'm guessing they are talking financially. Not sure about Shrek, but I'm pretty sure Millie didn't recoup. Which is why it's a flop.
BRIDGES is only based on the Waller novel. But, course, it does have several similarities to the movie.
Featured Actor Joined: 3/5/13
"if we're talking about money, then sure, MILLIE flopped, but in the area is fans, or people wanting to see the show... I think it did fine..."
A previous poster got their facts wrong. Thoroughly Modern Millie won five Tony Awards, including Best Musical. It introduced Sutton Foster (Tony winner for Best Leading Actress) to Broadway as a leading lady and was directed by Michael Mayer (Tony nomination) and choreographed by Rob Ashford (Tony wonder for Best Choreography).
It ALSO recouped. Shows recoup from tours, which typically provide revenue to the mother company, as well as the Broadway run; Millie was no exception.
It clearly was a hit. Saying otherwise is a factual error. But don't worry -- I hear there may be a job vacancy soon at Rolling Stone. :)
The Broadway production (you can read, right?) of Thoroughly Modern Millie was a flop. There is no way around the fact that it closed on BROADWAY without recouping its investment.
If it eventually made money back by performing in their mom's garage, that is another story. That is not Broadway.
"What about Beauty and the Beast? I think that was definitely a hit"
My list is from 1995. Beauty and the Beast opened in 1994.
Featured Actor Joined: 3/5/13
"You can read, right?"
Yes I can! Can you? Then read this:
"It ALSO recouped. Shows recoup from tours, which typically provide revenue to the mother company, as well as the Broadway run; Millie was no exception."
Now read this:
https://forum.broadwayworld.com/guide.cfm
My understanding is that, in general, Broadway shows do not recoup from tours. My understanding is that, today at least, tours are separately financed with separate contracts. There may be an overlap of investors - so an investor in Millie, for example, may eventually make money if the tour is a financial success. But, if you were only an investor in Millie on Broadway, for example, you did not get all of your money back. There generally is no "mother company".
That said, the producers for the Broadway and Tour of Millie may have been the same - but not all investors are identified as "producers": (Also, the tour started in July 2003 - while Millie did not close on Broadway until June 2004)
IBDB lists the Broadway producers as Michael Leavitt, Fox Theatricals, Hal Luftig, Stewart F. Lane, James L. Nederlander, Independent Presenters Network,Libby Adler Mages, Mari Glick, Dori Berinstein, Jennifer Manocherian, Dramatic Forces (Dori Berinstein, Jennifer Manocherian, Peg McFeely Golden, Douglas Teitelbaum), John York Noble and Whoopi Goldberg; Associate Producer: Mike Isaacson, Kristin Caskeyand Clear Channel Entertainment
Ovrtur lists the producers for the tour as: Michael Leavitt.Fox Theatricals,Hal Luftig,Stewart F. Lane, James L. Nederlander, Independent Presenters Network,Libby Adler Mages, Mari Glick, Dori Berinstein,Jennifer Manocherian,Dramatic Forces, John York Noble,Whoopi Goldberg
Of course, each show's investment contract is separately negotiated and some may provide anciallary (souveniers, cast recordings) and tour income to the investors. Some may not. I have no idea what Millie's contract said. I tried to see if there was any information on Ken Davenport's website as to Broadway investors getting money from a tour, but didn't find a definitive answer.
If the Broadway production closes at a loss, it flopped on Broadway.
It does not turn the Broadway production a hit if they recoup in Indiana.
I hope that is clear.
Videos