Flop Musicals -- Why the fascination?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 10:51am

I would like to understand the fascination some folks appear to have with musicals that were either poorly conceived and/or poorly executed thus failing to return their investment and hence considered "flops."

What is the fascination with failure?

Does there also exist in the world people who studiously explore failed experiments in medical reasearch, and their results? Or, with failed technological advances? Or, with bomb films? Or, with sculptures that were never finished? Or, with paintings that languished in ateliers?

A musical flops, and you move on from there.

Who can really give a flying XX about a failed show, except the creators, and most of them have the good sense to move on to the next creative attempt.

These recent threads on flop musicals, and best worst scores, I have found extremely annoying.

Why not select a musical that does work, and that has been successful in the past, and have some meaningful discussion about what makes it work, and why it was successful?

OK, I feel better having expressed my opinion on this topic.

Happy Sunday!

José





Updated On: 7/3/05 at 10:51 AM

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 10:54am

I'll tell you why I'm interested - just because something is a flop, it doesn't mean that it's BAD. Most of Sondheim's shows have been considered flops.....'nuff said.

[Glebb]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 10:55am

Did you see BOUNCE?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 10:55am

Sondheim is an anomoly.

Even so, why not pick one of his shows and discuss it in a positive way?

Rather than lumping his work in with the other flops of history? He deserves more than that surely.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 10:59am

Because most of the children who are posting on this board seem to be bitter an uninformed.

[nmartin]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:01am

I'm annoyed by people who find the discussion of flops annoying.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:03am

They are as much a part of theater history as hits. Why don't they deserve discussion?

[Glebb]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:04am

I'm fascinated by names with accents.

[nmartin]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:05am

Why would a discussion of A Doll's Life be more annoying than the deification of Wicked?
Updated On: 7/3/05 at 11:05 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:06am

Take FOLLIES, for example.

If someone is insterested in flop musicals, then perhaps start a discussion of FOLLIES, or a discussion of Chapin's book.

My point is, to be meaningful center the discussion on why something may not have worked, if you want to discuss flop musicals, or, heaven forbid on this board, straight plays.

But to simply create lists, and demonstrate who can raise the most obscure or most ridiculous example, is pointless and rather sad, in my opinion.

Let me be clear, I'm not targeting anyone in particular. I am, however, being critical and expressing my own bias against this unconstructive fascination that appears to exist among some theatre afficionados.






Updated On: 7/3/05 at 11:06 AM

[nmartin]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:10am

Since when is a message board meant to be constructive? I find this condescending attitude offensive.

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:17am

I don't understand the bitterness either. I'm not harping on Sondheim as bad because the shows flopped. I'm saying why link all flops together as unworthy of (y)our attention? (yes, the semi-Sondheim pun is intentional, so don't ask).

And really, what's WRONG with creating lists? It's a natural tendency for fans to do that in any genre of interest. As musical theater fans, flops are just as interesting as hits, sometimes more, because we wonder at what it is that MADE them flops, especially if it's something great like Follies.

Are we supposed to just sit and say "all hail Wicked," and "Rent is the beginning of all things musical theater related"? We have a thread about this going already -- check out "Message Board trend."

[wildcat]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:17am

I don't want to discuss anything. I'm just co-ordinating my lists with all the other pointless and sad show aficianados out there. I'm such a slow typist, it's easier to have discussions with real life people face to face.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:18am

To: NMartin

Since when is a message board meant to be constructive?

With a perspective such as that, participating in message boards would never be anything other than masturbating the mind.

If you are so easily offended by someone's comment or perspective as expressed on a message board, then you might want to consider spending time someplace else where all opinions and points of view mirror your own. You are liable to be much happier there.

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 11:18 AM

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:20am

Call me ignorant -- what exactly is "maturbating"? :)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:21am

It's a typo.

My assistant is off today, I have to type all my posts myself.

[nmartin]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:22am

In that case I shall take my 'masturbation', as you so vulgarly put it, elsewhere. I don't know what your problem is but I do know that your comments are intolerable. Please continue with your rousing positive comments about the current state of Broadway.

[riv]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:25am

What is "unconstructive" about analyzing a flop and thinking creatively about how it may have been improved? People around here who truly know what they're talking about aren't obsessed with flops. They are simply interested in musical theater as a whole, not satified to just discuss "hits." What a bore that would be.

Why isn't it fascinating to look into how even greats like Sondheim, Rodgers & Hammerstein, etc., managed to produce big flops in their time?

(By the way, I'd kill to have seen Mambo Kings, I don't care what anybody said about it. Unfortunately, it's now gone. I don't believe that makes me obsessed or whatever.)

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 11:57am

NMartin, I am sorry if you were offended be my comment. It was not made to purposely offend you. My point to you is simply that one should not take differing opinions personally. Message boards are all about differing opinions.

You want to make lists of flop shows, go right ahead. I can't stop you. I just happen to find that a waste of time. That's my opinion, and it's perfectly fine if you disagree with it.

[leefowler]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 2:15pm

One of the reasons flop shows are so interesting is that they only live on in people's memory. Hit shows are seen by many people, and done constantly by stock and amateur groups. They have cast albums. A show like "Carrie" only exists as far as people's recollections of the event. This gives flop shows a mystical, ephemeral quality. And, by the way, I'd much rather see a real life disaster like "Dance Of The Vampires" than a mediocrity like "Little Women" any day!

[Kringas]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 2:29pm

I can't speak for any scientists, but I'd imagine studying what went wrong with an experiment could be beneficial to making it work the next time around. That may not be why people enjoy dissecting a flop musical, though.

As for movies, immediately Valley of the Dolls, Showgirls and the entire Ed Wood canon come to mind. All were failures and all have lived in on. The camp value of these films does play a part, though.

[jim coleman]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 2:47pm

I think it is interesting to try to understand why some shows have not been hits. Theatre folk are always trying to reinvent a lot of those shows that failed, for one reason or another, so there must be aspects of those shows that work on some level. Look at MACK AND MABEL, for instance. I, for one, loved the show originally. It has a great score, great characters, but the problem has always been the book and not knowing how the score fits into that very dark story. It was way ahead of its time. The original show was way over produced, and should have focused more on the story rather than the overblown production values. But even with those problems I really liked it. They are still trying to make that show work. Same thing with FOLLIES. I was the musical director of the Paper Mill production, which was a very special time for all of us involved, and it was very successful there. It is just not a show that the mass audience will ever go for. It is dark, which I love, and it asks audiences to think! I think it is fascinating to discuss these things. What bothers me now is that musical theatre doesn't have much substance any more. Too much of it is glitz, special effects, and very little plot developement. Thanks God for Stephen Sondheim, Adam Guittel, William Finn, and shows like RAGTIME, LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, CAROLINE OR CHANGE. These are shows that are about something!! I applaud them.

[Plum]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 3:05pm

Aside from the obvious conterargument that most shows are technically flops, I have one word- schadenfreude.

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 3:14pm

schadenfreude? What is that, some kind of Nazi word?

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 7/3/05 at 3:15pm

Jaded Plum.

edited after seeing jason's post: WHAT??? Are you kidding me?? What the hell would make you say something like that??

Updated On: 7/3/05 at 03:15 PM