Flop Houses- Page 2

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 7:05pm

"I wonder how much of the loss was down to creative accounting by Livent?"

It's unlikely we'll ever really know, but it was a huge show in all accounts: huge cast, huge orchestra, huge physical production (thus meaning huge crew). I wouldn't be surprised if even without the creative book keeping it was still a ways off from recoupment. As I recall while the business it did was generally solid it was never the sell-out runaway hit that The Lion King became from the moment it opened.

And yes, as others have stated, 42nd Street closed just shy of paying back the investors (so I assume so they eventually saw a return thanks to the tour which did make money).

[Smaxie]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 7:39pm

Variety in 1999 reported that "much, if not all" of Ragtime's $10 million capitalization was lost, although to what extent might never be known, due to Livent's fraudulent bookkeeping.


Ragtime run comes to an end

Updated On: 1/4/14 at 07:39 PM

[NewSynchopation]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 10:42pm

I still don't understand the whole Livent thing. Like why did he even do it? Was it to avoid taxes or something?

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/4/14 at 11:59pm

Yeah, I'd hardly call the Foxwoods a flop house. In its short history, it's had 42nd street recoup as well as Young Frankenstein. Plus Ragtime, while it ultimately feel short of recouping, still did very well.

It's a fact, not your opinion. It is the only Broadway theater where not a single production has made money back.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 12:59am

Not sure what you're talking about blaxx as Young Frankenstein recouped its investment before it even opened.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 2:26am

"Not sure what you're talking about blaxx as Young Frankenstein recouped its investment before it even opened."

Please tell us where in the world you got that information, because the producers of Young Frankenstein never released their weekly grosses and certainly never made an official announcement that it had recouped. The show cut its orchestra down to reduce running costs even before the Tony Awards that year and before it closed had eliminated all of its premium seating and was the only Broadway show at the time that was selling all tickets at or below face value. Those are hardly the actions of a show that had already recouped its investment before opening night.

[James885]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 8:57am

Young Frankenstein definitely did not recoup and closed as a flop. Nothing at the Foxwoods/ Hilton/ Ford Center has ever turned a profit.

The closest thing that theatre had to a hit was The Grinch, which packed them in and made a boatload of money, but ultimately didn't turn a profit due to its short run - it was a holiday show, after all.

Updated On: 1/5/14 at 08:57 AM

[Smaxie]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 9:07am

A November 24, 2008 story in The New York Times notes that while Young Frankenstein's producer had expected the show to pay off by summer, 2008, that had not happened, as sales fell off rapidly. The Producers had recouped its $11 million capitalization in eight months, when it was the biggest hit Broadway had seen in years. Young Frankenstein cost $16 million, sold poorly after an initially strong advance, and closed after 14 months. As the Times correctly notes, that would seem to put recoupment well beyond the show's January 2009 closing and no recoupment announcement was ever made.
Broadway is Dry-Eyed as Monster Falls Hard

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 10:54am

http://www.eonline.com/news/56704/young-frankenstein-s-monster-opening

According to that article, "Young Frankenstein" with advance sales had recouped that $16 million investment before it opened. It's quite possible the show still ended up losing money with reduced ticket prices and presumably high royalty fees for Brooks, Stroman, etc., but it still technically made back its initial investment. (Certainly not arguing that the show was a hit, but if it truly did make back the investment, it certainly wasn't a flop either)

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 11:02am

That article makes the assumption that since the advance sales was $30 million and the show cost $16 million to produce that it had recouped. That is not at all how it works, since there is no accounting for running costs in there.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 12:33pm

Hmmm? Why did I think this thread was about, The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas?

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 12:57pm

Half of the theatre was empty when I saw Young Frankenstein. It certainly did not recoup.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 4:23pm

Mr. Brooks says he thinks the show will turn a profit with its national tour that starts next month

I would believe Mel Brooks about his show flopping on Broadway.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203706604574376494037408848

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 5:14pm

I wonder if the next show in the Foxwood will at last recoup, it could be that Miss Saigon revival will be the first show to recoup there.

[NewSynchopation]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 1:06am

But it will probably be King Kong, which will certainly flop.

[LittleEdieFan]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 2:55am

Agree regarding King Kong

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 3:00am

That would depend on how soon the producers of King Kong want to get the show up in New York. I have heard estimates of a year or more before the Foxwoods will be ready to house another show as they do all of their post Spider Man renovations/restorations.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 8:35pm

A flop house is a flop house until it has a hit. Then when that show closes, another show will move in because it now seems like a hit house.

The Majestic was a huge flop house until it housed "South Pacific." It's been a hit house since.

The Al Hirshfeld was a flop house until it had "Into the Woods" and "Guys and Dolls"

It's all relative.