Hairspray dosen't seem to be holding up well.

After the reviews for Hairspray came out it seemed the show would have major legs. But after a couple of years the show is showing its age a lot sooner than I thought it would. Any thoughts on why other "crowd pleasers" like Mamma Mia still gross close to a million dollars a week and Hairspray is around $600,000. I realize these are slow months, but i just expected more from this show.

I think the fact is that there are many oter shows that are over-shadowing the show, such as MAMMA MIA!, W*CKED, LION KING, PHANTOM, SPAMALOT, etc. and maybe the public is just thinking more of shows like those, and don't consider HAIRSPRAY, or maybe they already saw the show and want to see other things. Who knows?

---

Although I adore it and would see it again....

Maybe since it's been on tour for awhile, alot of people have seen it and also it is coming to Vegas.

---

Well it has NO stars in it right now.

It's not doing THAT bad without a star.

"Also, Hairspray is more "star-dependent."

I couldn't disagree more. While Darlene Love is brilliant - I don't think she's selling thousands of tickets.

The Original cast was terrific but mostly "unknowns" - especially outside the theater community.

The Producers would be a better example of a show that is more "star dependant."

I think the producers and creative team behind Hairspray, personally, did a great job of making the show not only incredibly strong - but also never marketed the show as celebrity - or star driven.

---

p.s. for 2005 - capacity has averaged right around 90 percent.

The lower gross has to do with more discounting/tkts sales that didn't occur in the first couple of years. That's quite normal.


(edit) re: producers is also in a bigger house.

---

Updated On: 11/1/05 at 08:16 PM

No, I definitely think HAIRSPRAY is more star dependent. Harvey Firestein may not have been a household name, but he made such a palpable stamp as Edna that ticket sales dropped the minute he left and have never been quite the same. MAMMA MIA! has never had a "name" star. HAIRSPRAY has always made a point of keeping at least one name in the cast. If they could get by without having to pay a star salary they surely would...

And Harvy Fierstein was???...I think not.

Check your logic.

Harvey Firestein was a big enough name in NYC to help propel advance ticket sales. John Pinnette may not be a name, but Darlene Love is to most baby boomers.

Calibre of stars mean nothing. Carolee Carmello and Michelle Pawk are certainly just as talented as Linda Hart and Barbara Walsh but none of them are going to sell tickets to toursits. MAMMA MIA! has just shown good taste in keeping Broadways best leading ladies employed. It's definitely not about trying to sell tickets based on their marquis value. And the proof is that the producers choose pretty routinely not to renew contracts to avoid having to agree to pay increases.

Updated On: 11/1/05 at 08:36 PM

True, the show isn't filling the Neil Simon the way it did a few years back. But all shows eventually lose a bit of steam in their run. Believe it or not, the Big "W" will after a while as well.

But I really don't like the title of the thread itself. When I first saw it, I thought this was bashing the cast, which just so happens to be incredible.

I would think most people know who Harvey is. I saw the show in June, with Bruce. The theatre was PACKED.

---

mamma mia will run longer than hairspray becuase abba was huge in the 70's, reaching millions of people via the radio and selling millions of cd's. hairspray is based on a cult film by john waters, who is not a household name in middle america among forty and fifty year olds, while abba is. also, those people who were fans of abba in the seventies are well established now, and have money to spend. people who are fans of the hairspray movie are more artsy people (yes, it is a generalization, but a true one, and I know there are exceptions.) who don't have that $100 to blow on a ticket all the time. when you compare the numbers, it just makes a lot of sense which will close first.

---

Got a Light I have to assume that for some reason you hate Hairspray and want to start crap bashing it. You've drawn a conclusion that is completely, utterly unsuppported by facts:

1) Hairspray still sells about 80% of its tickets each week. That is great for a show that's run over 1300 performances. It's been seen by over 1.8 Million people and has grossed just under $150 MILLION dollars. There is no worry that Hairspray will be shutting down any time soon star or no star. If the movie does indeed get made that will be another shot in the arm. Who knows what a bout of Star Casting could do to ticket sales? Obviously the producers realize that they don't need to resort to drastice measures yet....

2) A new Production in Vegas proves there is no shortage of audience for Hairspray.

3) Your argument that Hairspray isn't "holding up" because it doesn't gross as much as Mamma Mia is ridiculous. You can't compare one show to another. The only real way to evaluate the box office health of a show is to look at it's tickets sales. And Hairspray is doing great. I wish I had a piece of that box office.

4) And yes, kids, all shows close eventually. Hairspray will indeed "Not hold up" in a few years and after a triumpant return by Harvey, a few more rock stars as Link, and, maybe even that Osbourne girl as Tracy, they will have to close the show and take down the marquee. But who knows, that could be 5 years from now....