yankeefan7 said: "Very true. Personally, I hope it makes it. It was not the best thing I have seen this year but it was enjoyable and it was good to see Mr. Morrison in something other than "Glee". Quick question. It has always been said that a show is not a flop if it recoups its investment. Would people still say "Finding Neverland" was a flop even if it recouped because it received no Tony nominations. Just curious."
Usually I connect a flop with $$$, that is to say a show that box office wise closes fairly quickly. Critical acclaim/award nominations is a separate issue. Take "the Visit" it got some critical acclaim/nods but it was an absolute disaster per the gross take so I would call that a flop.
Just me , but would be hard pressed to call any show that runs over a year a " flop" ; it's more that it didn't perform per the investors expectations or was the victim of runaway costs (the obvious example is "Spider-Man" which ran 3 plus years and the investors still took a bath, or say "Shrek the Musical"
. Supposedly FN has invested sunk costs of 15 million, that's a tough road to hoe if the operating costs are between 650-700K per week, if not more, because you would realistically need at least 16-18 months to recoup. That's for a show that really hasn't struggled at the box office ( its first 35 weeks grossed 925 K plus)
Compare with "Beautiful" which had a 13 million dollar investment and recouped in 10 months.
FN has a good chance as of now of doing it, but investors are really rolling the dice with those kinds of rate of returns requiring long runs. Then again it's nothing new, the original Sondheim "Follies" ran 14 months and from all accounts the investors lost everything.
"when I’m on stage I see the abyss and have to overcome it by telling myself it’s only a play." - Helen Mirren
Updated On: 12/29/15 at 01:02 PM