Posted: 1/21/24 at 11:20pm
it's amazing that it ever got onstage, so that's something.
Posted: 1/21/24 at 11:25pm
I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments here. So many are treating this news as a commentary on the need to have star power or bang for your buck, and that this was a good show that didn't have a chance to survive.
Just last week the comments were filled with complaints that the score is lackluster, the book is terrible, and that this never had any business on Broadway.
The grosses, word of mouth, and reviews suggest the latter was more true. If it wasn't that great, why act surprised and treat this like a prophecy on the state of Broadway?
Updated On: 1/21/24 at 11:25 PM
Posted: 1/21/24 at 11:37pm
I guess the nature of this show is quite personal for some of us, so the failure stings a little. Deserved or not.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 12:53am
> Three of the new musicals that haven't open yet are seeking emergency loans. While the others have almost zero advance.
Not sure which three that is, but the ridiculousness of prices for under-selling shows combined with the paucity of discount codes might be a factor. Looking at you, Outsiders ...
it feels like the people making pricing decisions have lost touch with their own market.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 1:32am
I feel like a lot of the discussion in this thread is about bad producing and how original musicals without big stars can't make it on Broadway. Those are valid concerns but it's ignoring the fact that How to Dance in Ohio only received mediocre reviews. This wasn't like some hugely acclaimed show that couldn't break through. It also didn't have the benefit of glowing reviews and that's the difference between a show like this and Kimberly Akimbo.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 4:09am
jimmycurry01 said: "I'm a bit surprised by some of the comments here. So many are treating this news as a commentary on the need to have star power or bang for your buck, and that this was a good show that didn't have a chance to survive.
Just last week the comments were filled with complaints that the score is lackluster, the book is terrible, and that this never had any business on Broadway.
The grosses, word of mouth, and reviews suggest the latter was more true. If it wasn't that great, why act surprised and treat this like a prophecy on the state of Broadway?"
You need to look at WHO is posting these comments.. it's not usually the people that were criticizing it, it's those that connected with the piece.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 5:48am
You should see it before it closes. If you haven’t it was a sweet, simple show. I think my best review of it would be Kimberly met the prom.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 8:51am
One of the cast members (Ashley Wool) posted: 'We are in an election year. Demand federal funding for the arts'
Fund the arts or subsidize Broadway? Those are 2 very different things imo
Posted: 1/22/24 at 9:26am
justherehanging said: "You should see it before it closes. If you haven’t it was a sweet, simple show. I think my best review of it would be Kimberly met the prom."
I'd rather gouge my eyes out than see something described that way.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 9:54am
There's a revival with two big name stars, and this show. Which would people on here honestly, completely truthfully go see? Which would people talk about, but not buy tickets to, and not tell people to buy tickets to? People on here literally said they would not tell people to see it. So- it's not ticket prices. It's not the shows fault.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 10:51am
Ashley Wool posted a long message on IG just now mentioning this show went from "its first reading to Broadway in less than two years"
And there you go. That's the problem. It's a show that felt like it was rushed to Broadway, sadly.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 11:32am
hearthemsing22 said: "There's a revival with two big name stars, and this show. Which would people on here honestly, completely truthfully go see? Which would people talk about, but not buy tickets to, and not tell people to buy tickets to? People on here literally said they would not tell people to see it. So- it's not ticket prices. It's not the shows fault."
Oh, stop. If people loved or even LIKE a show they recommend it. Why would anyone recommend a show they didn't? I constantly have friends asking me what to see, it would be irresponsible of me to suggest any show I didn't like .
It's not like anyone is camping out at the theater or tkts and shouting at possible ticket buyers not to buy tix. Just how many people here do you think actively told someone not to go? Or how many people were actually told? Get a grip.
For whatever reason, audiences weren't interested. It happens, it's certainly not any audience members fault. The percentage of regular theater goes here that saw this show is just as high as any other show.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 1:30pm
"It's not the shows fault."
This is one of the most delusional thing I've read on a site full of delusions. If more people wanted to see the show more people would have wanted to see it. If it was a better show word of mouth would have been better. If it was better produced more people would have seen it.
The show's subjected matter appealed to a narrow market and the producers were unable to broaden that market. The folks that did see the show (including the majority of critics) did not find value in recommending the show beyond it's narrow market. The end.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 1:36pm
inception said: "justherehanging said: "You should see it before it closes. If you haven’t it was a sweet, simple show. I think my best review of it would be Kimberly met the prom."
I'd rather gouge my eyes out than see something described that way."
OUCH!
Posted: 1/22/24 at 2:04pm
KJisgroovy said: ""It's not the shows fault."
This is one of the most delusional thing I've read on a site full of delusions. If more people wanted to see the show more people would have wanted to see it. If it was a better show word of mouth would have been better. If it was better produced more people would have seen it.
The show's subjected matter appealed to a narrow market and the producers were unable to broaden that market. The folks that did see the show (including the majority of critics) did not find value in recommending the show beyond it's narrow market. The end."
This.
How to Dance in Ohio would have fared no better in any other climate. "The show" comprises not just the final product we see on stage, but its authors, director, producers, and its company. The writing & directing wasn't compelling enough to appeal to critics and enough of the general public, the story felt trite, and the admirable themes were not conveyed in an interesting enough way. The onstage production looked like a cluttered mess. The cast was adequate but not spectacular enough to transcend the material. The producing choices ranged from desperate to baffling.
It is nobody's fault but the show.
That it ran a single performance on Broadway is a significant achievement and the people involved should feel proud that they made it a lot farther than some other shows.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 2:10pm
The show had its heart in the right place, but the execution in every aspect from the book and score to the direction and design were terrible. Talented cast, though.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 2:12pm
KJisgroovy said: "
"It's not the shows fault."
This is one of the most delusional thing I've read on a site full of delusions. If more people wanted to see the show more people would have wanted to see it. If it was a better show word of mouth would have been better. If it was better produced more people would have seen it.
The show's subjected matter appealed to a narrow market and the producers were unable to broaden that market. The folks that did see the show (including the majority of critics) did not find value in recommending the show beyond it's narrow market. The end."
There's a way to have said this without insulting me and calling my viewpoint delusional sweetie. Explore other options.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 3:38pm
I know but I chose the words I chose on purpose. Your statement was delusional.
I would be honored to be blocked by you.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 3:56pm
Because thats the only sentence that matters to hearthemsing.
No one insulted YOU, just your ludicris statement
Posted: 1/22/24 at 4:33pm
A federally funded “national theatre” would be the perfect fit for a show like this. Education being the priority, not entertainment or profit. Buses of school kids brought in at a doable group rate to help them understand. A public service.
Ashley Wool is right.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 4:41pm
Well, there are many nonprofit educational or youth theatres and programs across the country. The producers opted to make a poor gamble and open a commercial Broadway production instead of go that route.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 4:47pm
When a show is commissioned by commercial producers, they want to try to see a return on their investment (and years of labor developing it), and obviously everyone HOPES that a show will be profitable and find an audience & acclaim in the way that Come From Away and DEH and Fun Home did.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 4:49pm
I know it's just a dream, but a national theatre would carry a certain cachet and trust that other non-profits might lack. A federal seal of approval would get the customers in.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 4:59pm
Jay Lerner-Z said: "I know it's just a dream, but a national theatre would carry a certain cachet and trust that other non-profits might lack. A federal seal of approval would get the customers in."
Considering half this country seems to hate the idea of a federal government that does anything useful or even just nice, I'm not sure.
I also think you're really discounting the importance of theatre outside of New York City and the outreach work they do. Regional and community theatres do have educational programs that are funded by subsidies and grants- and they're the best suited and equipped to serving the kids in their communities, not a national theatre in a distant city.
How to Dance will likely be widely produced in educational theatre settings. It will have a much larger reach than it ever could have by being on Broadway.
Posted: 1/22/24 at 5:07pm
Can't we have both?
Ideally, a NT that tours to popular bigger theaters, chasing the commercial audience without any pressure to recoup.
