GLORY DAYS (2008)

[ABB2357]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 8:34pm

Did anyone see this show during previews or its opening (and closing) night?

I've always been fascinated by it, being the last 1-performance flop we've seen - and possibly one of the last ever, since recent shows like IN TRANSIT prefer to burn through money-losing weeks in the slight hope of turning a profit. 

Was it really as bad as it sounds or just not suited for Broadway? I've heard the score and it's almost embarrassingly amateurish, albeit a well-intentioned effort.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 8:44pm

It was embarrassing. My friend and I still make fun of it and the constant whining those guys did for 90 minutes. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 8:44pm

Updated On: 8/10/17 at 08:44 PM

[Hairspray0901]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 8:54pm

I saw it. 9 years later, all I remember from the show was: "Man I miss those good old glory type days"...hah.. and bleachers with a wall of lights behind them.

ETA: Looking back at my ticket, I apparently went to their 2nd preview.

Updated On: 8/10/17 at 08:54 PM

[ABB2357]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 8:56pm

I remember some people placed the blame on Eric Schaeffer, who got the young/inexperienced cast and creators' hopes up by bringing the show in from Signature when it was clearly not Broadway material.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 9:37pm

It's one of my friend's favorite musicals. Whenever I listen to it, I listen to the first 3 songs, then the last one. The rest is kind of meh.

 

This show should does not deserve to be Nick Blaemire's first show on Broadway. He should have learned a little more about writing musicals and worked his way up to Broadway. Glory Days deserves to be that charming little show you learn about when you look about Nick Blaemire's earlier work. 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/10/17 at 10:33pm

And to think Paula Vogel and Lynn Nottage just made their Broadway debuts as writers... SMH

[two ladies tickets]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 12:29am

 I was dating someone involved with the production at the time and had to sit through a couple of previews as well as the awkward opening/closing night. The party that followed that performance was also awkward because half the people there knew that the show had closed prematurely and half of them didn't. 

 The show absolutely had no reason to be on Broadway. The two main producers had been associate producers on other projects and wanted to make a name for themselves, I think these are the guys that are still trying to bring the musical version of metropolis to Broadway.  They had heard that there was buzz surrounding the show when it played at the Signature in DC and they jumped on the chance to move it to Broadway. 

The plot loosely focused on the fact that these boys, just out of their first year of college wanted to get revenge on their high school bullies who happened to be playing in a alumni football game on the high school football field. They decide to meet on the field and set the automatic sprinklers to go off during the football game. The set reflected this with very loud metal bleachers that they ran up and down the entire show as well as an awkward light wall and some weird photo print show deck that was supposed to look like grass. At the end of the show in a moment of irony after the boys had a fight and a couple have run off possibly because one or two of them turned out to be gay, the sprinklers pop up and squirt the guy in the face who hatched this weird plan in the first place. Unfortunately the sprinklers never worked correctly so they were cut at some point during previews, I think there was two weeks of previews, so the whole entire ending and the whole entire set made absolutely no sense by the time they got to opening night. 

 Apparently the show is a giant hit somewhere in Asia. 

 

[LarryD2]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 8:24am

ABB2357 said: "I remember some people placed the blame on Eric Schaeffer, who got the young/inexperienced cast and creators' hopes up by bringing the show in from Signature when it was clearly not Broadway material.

 

"

The person who deserves the lion's share of blame is Peter Marks, who wrote an outrageous rave review of the Virginia production in The Washington Post that set the transfer in motion. There would have been no Broadway production were it not for that review. Schaeffer has said as much since, and Marks has copped to a fair amount of boosterism in his review for the show.

Updated On: 8/11/17 at 08:24 AM

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 9:11am

I don't think it's necessarily Mark's fault. If he liked the show, his job is to write an article saying he liked it. He wrote another piece after the show closed saying that while he liked it, he did say it needed some work before the big leagues.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 9:19am

Probably the biggest reason I don't particularly care for Eric Schaeffer.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 9:34am

Alex Kulak2 said: "I don't think it's necessarily Mark's fault. If he liked the show, his job is to write an article saying he liked it. He wrote another piece after the show closed saying that while he liked it, he did say it needed some work before the big leagues.

 

"

There's a difference between liking something and writing a positive review, and writing a review that leans too heavily on praise to obscure the problems of a show. If you read Marks' initial review and the review he wrote after the show moved to Broadway, it's night and day. In his appraisal of the Signature production, he spends about one paragraph of a 1,000-word review on what he considers to be the show's flaw: that it doesn't justify its denouement. But he spends the rest of his review praising just about every element of the show, and basically ends by saying that even the show's flaws are endearing. Any artistic director who read that review could not be blamed for thinking it was an absolute money review that signaled potential for a commercial move, which is why I'm not inclined to place the blame squarely on Schaeffer's shoulders. 

Marks' review of the New York production is the review he should have written about the Signature production. Rather than lavishing praise upon the show, he does what a critic is actually supposed to do: He identifies the flaws and suggests what can be done to make the show better. It's an even-handed and fair review. Considering that fewer than 4 months passed between Marks' initial over-the-top rave and his more reserved judgment of the New York production, it's hard to imagine that the show changed so dramatically that Marks felt the need to completely change his opinion and essentially go from cheerleader to critic. 

To me, this confirms something I've always felt was true of Marks' writing since he moved from the second-string position at the Times to being the Post's chief critic: That he frequently writes softball reviews of shows debuting in the DC-metro area that he feels have New York potential. It looks good to have DC-to-NYC transfers, and it makes him seem like a kingmaker. But it hurts as many shows as it helps. 

We can discuss Schaeffer till the cows come home (I don't think he's a perfect AD by any stretch), but I don't think he's singularly responsible for this failure.

Updated On: 8/11/17 at 09:34 AM

[Esther]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 10:17am

ABB2357 said: "Did anyone see this show during previews or its opening (and closing) night?

I've always been fascinated by it, being the last 1-performance flop we've seen - and possibly one of the last ever, since recent shows like IN TRANSIT prefer to burn through money-losing weeks in the slight hope of turning a profit. 

Was it really as bad as it sounds or just not suited for Broadway? I've heard the score and it's almost embarrassingly amateurish, albeit a well-intentioned effort.

 

"

 

I thought it was pretty awful. 

My three biggest takeaways from the performance I saw (the night before opening night)

 

1) John McDaniel (music director) was sitting near me and has lovely eyes.

2) Tony Yazbeck was (and still is in 2017)  a very attractive man.  That was the day the LuPone-led Gypsy recorded the cast album & some of the cast came to see Glory Days afterwards. 

3) There were a lot of light bulbs on the wall (i.e. the 400s section as they did not stage it full in the round)  .  I counted them several times, but alas, all these years later , I don't recall the exact number.

 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 10:49am

My friend and to this day still sing our version of what every song sounded like--

"Well I'm here! We are here! But at least I'm heeeeere while I'm here."

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 10:59am

Hilarious. My friend and I do the same thing, nasty. In a very whiney voice adding "Guys! I can't believe we're here GUYS! It's just us guys! We're here, guys!" 

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 11:05am

''Glory Days'' would've been more at home Off-Broadway. Being on Broadway brought too many expectations, and audiences expect so much more at those prices. It was an original musical with no stars. 

I saw it, and remember this one beautiful song by Nick Blaemire.

Here's Curt Hansen singing "Open Road," and it's a gem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Hty8j06gE

Updated On: 8/11/17 at 11:05 AM

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 11:28am

Sounds like the story of GLORY DAYS coming to Broadway and closing on opening night would be the basis of a great musical.

[two ladies tickets]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 11:58am

This is bringing back so many random memories from almost 10 years ago! 

I'm remembering that:

Alex Brightman, now of School of Rock fame, was an understudy for Glory Days. As he tells it, they (not sure who "they" are) were considering firing Jesse JP Johnson and replacing him with Brightman. This has never been corroborated by anyone else ever. But interestingly Brightman and Johnson both went on to play Boq in Wicked at various points. 

Also, there was a set of posters, maybe lobby cards or subway paste ups that had a typo and said "Glory Day" on them, who new that is would be so prophetic! 

The previous show, Spelling Bee, had painted the theatre that orange rust color and for some reason never restored it back to black and the producers of Glory Days didn't have enough money to restore so the auditorium remained orange for the 2 weeks of Glory Days run.

I'm also remembering that there was a set of twins that worked on the show, maybe one was the AD? iIt was very confusing for the backstage crew.  No time to google it right now. 

Maybe next year they'll do a 10 year reunion?

Maybe I'll remember more as the day goes on....

I will say that Eric Schaeffer is a horrible director. Everyone in anything he directs just ends up standing in a line across the stage. Isn't that the first rule in directing class in college? Never have people in a line unless you're doing a musical about people standing on a line?

[perfectliar]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 1:19pm

ABB2357 said: "Did anyone see this show during previews or its opening (and closing) night?

I've always been fascinated by it, being the last 1-performance flop we've seen - and possibly one of the last ever, since recent shows like IN TRANSIT prefer to burn through money-losing weeks in the slight hope of turning a profit. 

Was it really as bad as it sounds or just not suited for Broadway? I've heard the score and it's almost embarrassingly amateurish, albeit a well-intentioned effort."

Like most posting, I don't remember much of anything about the actual production except for the bleachers. I remember loving one song (Open Road), liking another (Generation Apathy), and barely registering the rest. I went because Nick is a friend of a friend and because the ticket was like $20, but it just wasn't memorable. I did buy the recording when it came out though, and as stupid as a lot of the lyrics are, it's one of my favorite albums to sing along to when I'm alone in my car.

[ABB2357]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 1:36pm

This sounds like the perfect choice for a 54 Below reunion next year, where the original cast can reunite, sing a few songs, and hopefully dish on what happened behind the scenes. 

And Larry, I often have the same thought about Charles McNulty at the LA Times - he softballs most major tryouts, including the recent AMELIE (there's barely a paragraph of minor quibbles in his review) that meet their doom on Broadway.

[ABB2357]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 1:40pm

Also, re: its success in Asia - it seems a year after the Broadway closing, the show was mounted in Tokyo and professionally filmed for Japanese TV! The cast was a Japanese band called "Attack All Around." 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 1:57pm

I def use this album as a vocal warmup. As terrible as the lyrics and story are, it's def fun to sing.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 2:12pm

Apparently the show is a giant hit somewhere in Asia.

Not really.  A pop band wanted to do a musical and heard about the show.  They flew the team out to assemble the production for a venue in Tokyo and it toured Japan for three months.  Enough money was generated from that tour to pay for the Broadway cast recording released in November 2009.  That was all.  It enjoyed greater success in Japan than on Broadway, but wasn't a "giant hit".

The person who deserves the lion's share of blame is Peter Marks, who wrote an outrageous rave review of the Virginia production in The Washington Post that set the transfer in motion.

Personally, I think anyone who puts all their eggs in one reviewer's basket will always be the one to blame, not the critic.  Especially for a tiny single-set four-actor musical with no recognizable name attached.  That being said, the two main Chicago critics always don the kid gloves for anything that seems to aim for Broadway and either rave whatever the show may be or if they don't like it, downplay the negatives to very brief one-liners surrounded by fluff.  If you read the Chicago reviews for The Last Ship or Desire Under the Elms, you would think they'd still be running on Broadway today.  But in the case of Glory Days, blaming Peter Marks for the failure of the Broadway production sounds like the producers really shouldn't need to know anything about producing a Broadway show if they have one good review in their pocket.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 2:54pm

This photo they took of the writers makes it look like they just got engaged or something.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/11/17 at 2:56pm

Boosterism, to borrow the term LarryD2 used earlier in this thread, is a major problem in regional theater criticism. And since DC, Chicago, and LA/Southern California have become the major spots for pre-Broadway engagements these days, their chief critics (Marks, McNulty, and Chris Jones) engage in it regularly. Having shows transfer from their cities to Broadway not only makes them look influential, but makes their cities look like viable tryout spots for future musicals and (rarely) plays. Anything with even the whiff of transfer possibility often gets a fawning, uncritical review that makes it sound like the next Hamilton or Dear Evan Hansen.

Updated On: 8/11/17 at 02:56 PM