GYPSY to close on Broadway on May 30 -- Page 3

[leomaxfrank]

Posted: 4/22/04 at 12:30pm

bway1564: i'm really glad you enjoyed it. i really had hoped when i saw it originally that she would bring something amazingly different to the role - i just left wanting so much more. i'll give you this: it was a week after she had that kickin upper respiratory infection a year ago, and missed A LOT of performances before that. But she was tired, seemingly bored, and underacted. I was really sad. A friend of mine who saw it about a month later - post Tonys - also said she left a lot be desired. Damn shame. I had heard however, that she matured greatly with the role, and that makes me happy. I just wish I was a witness.

[Annie Get Your Rose]

Posted: 4/22/04 at 4:44pm

Dame- You are the Biggest Damm Hussy in this place! I do not understand how some people can be so against this show. I have seen all Gypsys except the Merman and Thought Peters was the best. Dame Hussy we dont need to hear ur bitchin anymore . Wut would be the point of goin on tour w/out Peters? She is the ONLY reason the show faired as well as it did!

[Bway_Mill_Fan]

Posted: 4/22/04 at 5:09pm

does anyone know if the discount will still work or if it will be revoked?

[DAME]

Posted: 4/22/04 at 5:28pm

Annie,
You think the show fared well? It almost closed already once before and is closing now. It was a turkey. I am glad you enjoyed it however. Alot of people here did. HUSSY!

[PJ]

Posted: 4/22/04 at 7:01pm

I highly enjoyed Bernadette's performance. But, being so young, I have no other Rose to compare her's to. But I have to admit I love Lansbury's recording, key changes and all. Her "Rose's Turn" is the best. Her "Some People" and "Everything's Coming Up Roses" are excellent as well.

[gypsy#12]

Posted: 4/23/04 at 3:57pm

The "ONLY" reason, I highly doubt. There are many talented people in this show. That's the problem, I think. People weren't being told about the ensemble and the story. my generation doesn't even know about the movie. But we all watched hairspray last month on vh1. we all saw hugh grant in xmen. We all know wicked is something to do with the Wizrd of oz. They just didn't make it new. They did what all the other productions did. Advertise the star of the show and not the story. It 's a great story that takes you on a journey through three character's lives. A mother, a daughter, and a lone man. Not to mention, the other daughter, the aching chorus boys and chorus girls, the world of vaudeville before hollywood, the strippers before they actually did bare all, and the truth about FAMILY. They should of updated it, instead of doint what they always do. Saying, "now come see this person play the part of momma rose." it's sad. it's such an amazing thing to see right now. but nobody knows it.

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 4/23/04 at 5:03pm

Hugh Grant? I assume you mean Hugh Jackman? lol

Well I've never seen another production of Gypsy (other than Bette's tv movie). I couldn't sit through the original movie. Watching Rossalind Russell playing Rose was like watching a drag-queen. :[ Loved her in other films though. But I still knew about the story before seeing this production.
I am 22 years old, so in a sense I guess I'm sort of part of the younger generation. It's sad to think that teens (and even people my age) only attend theatre for the person in the lead, and if they don't know what a show is about before they see it, they don't bother to research it or see the show and learn. Just because they are not advertising the details of the show, is no excuse not to know what it's about. Gypsy has been performed on stage countless times, and has had 2 movies.
Good to know you all know Wicked has something to do with the Wizard of Oz. Why don't you all try reading the book or simply attending the show if you want to know about more people in the story, rather then complaining that it's not advertised enough.

I totally get where you're coming from about how it was advertised; and you're right. But anyone who knows theatre knows the story of Gypsy (well, most people anyway). The story does not need to be advertised in that case.

[moljul]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 10:09am

Well I think a lot of shows would consider a 13 month run on Broadway to be a pretty good run. And I'm not including the previews. This was never a show that was going to run for a long time. It never has in the past why should it now. And the only reason the other revivals made back their investment is because they toured with it. They didn't do it solely with Broadway ticket sales. I'm assuming that is why this company is considering touring. No it wasn't a blockbuster hit on Broadway but it certainly was not a "turkey".

[DAME]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 11:05am

You wouldn't consider it a turkey? Well when I call something a turkey I am going from purely a financial stand point. And let me see... very seldom was the house full, advertising must have cost a fortune, you got a star salary to pay, and a star director salary to pay........ huge cast,,, two closing notices....
Now sure there are turkeys that have had shorter runs, ( Oh brother, Moose murders). But I bet you.. when the final numbers come out... this show will be considered a turkey.

Updated On: 4/26/04 at 11:05 AM

[moljul]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 11:29am

Well by your definition then, the Landbury and Daly revivals would be considered turkeys as well. If you look soley at their Broadway run numbers and their length of run. It was the tours that made those revivals financially successful.

The official Broadway numbers

Angela Landbury's Gypsy: 4 Previews and 120 performances. Though I know this was essentially a limited engagement and the Broadway run was more of an advertisement for the tour, I believe.

Tyne Daly's Gypsy: 23 Previews and 476 performances. They closed after a few months and moved to a smaller theater. I think they toured for quite a bit before and not after.

Bernadette's Gypsy: 33 Previews and 451 performances by May 30, 2004. Possible Tour.

Sorry, but the numbers show that the current revival of Gypsy is certainly right up there with the most successful revival and if you count previews and regular performances together, the Tyne Daly revival is playing 8 performances more than Bernadette's revival.

Sorry, but a turkey this one ain't and I think their numbers are even more impressive considering it is the 3rd revival production of this VERY well known musical. Updated On: 4/26/04 at 11:29 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 11:41am

Actually I am familiar ith the numbers for the Tyne Daly production and it was no Turkey. The show only lost money once Linda Lavin took over. Angelas was also not a turkey. Not a money maker,,, but not a financial lost.

[moljul]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 11:44am

Dame, I was adding on the numbers to my previous message while you were typing your message so I know you were not responding to my edited message.

I know the Daly revival was successful but once again BECAUSE of the touring. There was even an article in the NY Times about a month ago stating that all Gypsy revivals made back their initial investments from their tour.

[DAME]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 11:55am

You are wrong. The Tyne Daly revival made lots of money on the road before NY but was a critical and financial success on the road as well as broadway. The show did not move to a smaller theater in NY. Tyne Daly left and Linda Lavin got horrible reviews. They had planned to take the show with Tyne to London but the political situation at the time was considered to much of a risk and the producers opted not to. The show was then brought back for a very limited engagement with Tyne to the Marquis theater. If Tyne had stayed with the original production for a longer period it would have made even more money. The show always played at a minimum of 90% attendance at the St James theater and had more of a event status about it.
You are right.. Lansburys version was always considered a touring production . But even with that the numbers were much higher ( considering the year and value of money at the time). But Lansburys was also met with unanimous crittical acclaim and considered by the creators to be their favorite.
The current revival of Gypsy has been on a constant struggle. And so many may disagree... but I also believe the internet and how fast we can spread word now had something to do with it.

Updated On: 4/26/04 at 11:55 AM

[moljul]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 12:05pm

But if this production of Gypsy does not tour, I think comparing their finances with the Daly version is like comparing apples and oranges. Did you ever think all the money the Daly version made on their TOUR contributed to them being successful financially during their Broadway run?

You are right about the length of run at the St. James. I read the numbers wrong. They ran from 11/16/89-1/6/91 at the St. James. When I first looked at it I thought they were there for 1.5 months instead of a year and 1.5 months. Though if I am reading the Broadway Database correctly, it seems Linda Lavin came in while the show was still at the St. James?? Tyne appeared to come back about 3.5 months after it closed at the St. James and the show ran at The Marquis for 3 months and 10 days. Updated On: 4/26/04 at 12:05 PM

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 12:09pm

on an off note - has anyone else seen Tyne Daly's one woman show a few years back? I want to say that it was called "Mystery School" but I'm not sure if that's right or not. Anywho.. It (or should I say SHE) was incredible. She played 5 different characters and only changed her manner and a few props in the blackouts between scenes - her monologues were wonderful and she acted the s**t out of it! Tyne Daly - you Rock!

[DAME]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 12:09pm

Yes I agree. Touring it before broadway was very smart. I kind of wish the producres of the curret revival would have done the same. I even bet you the show would have been better for it. Linda Lavin did take over while it was at the St. James. I always felt so bad because they had a picture of her in one of the side doors; and some whaco had carved out the word "sucks" on it. It was never taken off and I can't imagine having to walk by that every day on your way into the theater to do the show and see that .

Updated On: 4/26/04 at 12:09 PM

[moljul]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 12:18pm

Just an out of town tryout would have helped this production so much. It seems Sam Mendes really uses his preview performances to complete the show instead of having it pretty much in place by the first preview. If they had been able to make all the changes (and there were major changes during previews), the show would not have been battered so much in the beginning. Those who went to the preview performances clearly did not like seeing a show that was still a work in progress. Opening cold on Broadway was a poor decision.

[DAME]

Posted: 4/26/04 at 12:21pm

And Bernadette in it was always considered a risk. From day one alot of people had their strong opinions about this bit of casting. It would have been smarter to let her settle into the role on the road. I really don't understand why they didn't do it. A pre broadway engagement of Gypsy starring Bernadette peters those not sound like to hard to sell.

Updated On: 4/26/04 at 12:21 PM