#26
Posted: 7/14/14 at 9:16pm
Anyone have an idea about how long it takes to get a refund from Ticketmaster?
Holler If Ya Hear Me Closing — Page 2
#27
Posted: 7/14/14 at 9:39pm
Is King Kong still coming? Or is that not until the 2015-16 season?
Men don't even belt.
#29
Posted: 7/14/14 at 9:46pm
bryan, here is a link to the Playbill vault. It has the playbill that you can look at online with the song listing. :)
http://www.playbillvault.com/Show/Detail/Whos_who/14051/56055/Holler-If-Ya-Hear-Me
http://www.playbillvault.com/Show/Detail/Whos_who/14051/56055/Holler-If-Ya-Hear-Me
#30
Posted: 7/14/14 at 9:48pm
There was a lot of footage of the cast in the studio recording, would that have just been the demos?! Seems like they did record a lot of the music, though, no?
#31
Posted: 7/14/14 at 10:07pm
Even the post mortem on this show is different from most, as nearly the entire house is still available for the closing night...
#33
Posted: 7/14/14 at 10:13pm
Having a chance to go has never been my obstacle. I just never wanted to see the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern version of West Side Story set to Tupac music... 
#34
Posted: 7/14/14 at 10:59pm
The stadium seating is all scaffolding, it should be easy to remove.
#35
Posted: 7/14/14 at 11:50pm
Maybe this could speed up "The Bodyguard" coming over?
#36
Posted: 7/15/14 at 12:09am
I saw Bodyguard in London. Not sure they can fit the production in that theater the way it is in London.
#37
Posted: 7/15/14 at 5:22am
"You act like the producers were unable to analyze the weekly grosses and only the savants on this board were truly able to understand that 17% of potential grosses meant the show wasn't doing well financially. "
This is exactly my point - how obvious it was that the show needed to close. I'm confident that the reason they kept the show open is because they believed ticket sales would improve and they would eventually make money. The reason I am confident of this is because the lead producer recently told Variety that they wanted to keep the show open for this reason. But it was just so obvious that it was never going to happen for a variety of reasons (bad reviews, bad word of mouth, and most importantly: consistently bad ticket sales). Seems like very obvious poor decision making to me.
"Well, now on to the next weekly death watch."
Mmm Brb, going to polish of the coffins of BULLETS and ROCKY (only half-kidding, but the fate of these shows is much less obvious than Holler if Ya Hear Me was).
This is exactly my point - how obvious it was that the show needed to close. I'm confident that the reason they kept the show open is because they believed ticket sales would improve and they would eventually make money. The reason I am confident of this is because the lead producer recently told Variety that they wanted to keep the show open for this reason. But it was just so obvious that it was never going to happen for a variety of reasons (bad reviews, bad word of mouth, and most importantly: consistently bad ticket sales). Seems like very obvious poor decision making to me.
"Well, now on to the next weekly death watch."
Mmm Brb, going to polish of the coffins of BULLETS and ROCKY (only half-kidding, but the fate of these shows is much less obvious than Holler if Ya Hear Me was).
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 7/15/14 at 05:22 AM
#38
Posted: 7/15/14 at 6:57am
It's too bad. I commend the producers for believing in their show and for letting it try to find an audience.
There was a lot of talent on that stage, and some good things in this show. It needed more time to get it into shape and realize its potential.
There was a lot of talent on that stage, and some good things in this show. It needed more time to get it into shape and realize its potential.
#39
Posted: 7/15/14 at 7:33am
After todays review in the New York Times,I reckon the Palace will be turned into the Highlands for a lavish production of Brigadoon.
#40
Posted: 7/15/14 at 12:21pm
I wonder why every out of town revival that gets a good review is suddenly seen as a shoo-in for a Broadway transfer...
Is Broadway just a dumping ground for Chicago's (perhaps nicely done) MacOperetta, and other towns' recycled oldies?
Not that I would have called Holler a truly new show; technically you could, but wipe off the make-up and all there was to see was a string of theatre cliches [pinned to a catalog of 10-20 year old rap lyrics.
Is Broadway just a dumping ground for Chicago's (perhaps nicely done) MacOperetta, and other towns' recycled oldies?
Not that I would have called Holler a truly new show; technically you could, but wipe off the make-up and all there was to see was a string of theatre cliches [pinned to a catalog of 10-20 year old rap lyrics.
#41
Posted: 7/15/14 at 12:44pm
"This is exactly my point - how obvious it was that the show needed to close. I'm confident that the reason they kept the show open is because they believed ticket sales would improve and they would eventually make money."
If they had kept the show running for 3-6 months, I'd be the first to agree they're nuts. But given that this show is not the usual Broadway musical fare and they probably assumed it might take a bit of time for it to find an audience, I just don't think it is incredibly unreasonable for them to give it 3-4 weeks along with a concerted publicity push to see if there were any signs of life before pulling the plug. It's difficult to conclude ticket sales are consistently bad until you have more than 1 or 2 data points to draw from.
If they had kept the show running for 3-6 months, I'd be the first to agree they're nuts. But given that this show is not the usual Broadway musical fare and they probably assumed it might take a bit of time for it to find an audience, I just don't think it is incredibly unreasonable for them to give it 3-4 weeks along with a concerted publicity push to see if there were any signs of life before pulling the plug. It's difficult to conclude ticket sales are consistently bad until you have more than 1 or 2 data points to draw from.
#42
Posted: 7/15/14 at 2:37pm
TonyVincent, the stadium seating took a little over two weeks to put in, so it will probably take the same amount of time to get out, so it probably won't delay anything from coming in.
As for the Palace, my bet would be on Finding Neverland, but that show will transfer to whatever theatre Harvey Weinstein wants it to.
As for HOLLER, I think there might have been a good 90 minute one act show in there somewhere, but they insisted on making it way longer than it needed to be. I think if the producers still believe in it, they could work with it for a while and end up with a really good show in a couple of years, but Broadway was certainly the wrong first stop for it.
As for the Palace, my bet would be on Finding Neverland, but that show will transfer to whatever theatre Harvey Weinstein wants it to.
As for HOLLER, I think there might have been a good 90 minute one act show in there somewhere, but they insisted on making it way longer than it needed to be. I think if the producers still believe in it, they could work with it for a while and end up with a really good show in a couple of years, but Broadway was certainly the wrong first stop for it.
Anything regarding shows stated by this account is an attempt to convey opinion and not fact.
#43
Posted: 7/15/14 at 3:24pm
While it wouldn't have solved all of their problems (the book and direction were a mess), the show would've benefited from a longer preview period. That way they could've booked themselves on talk shows, let word of mouth develop, and try to build some sort of audience. Doing it after you've opened with dismal reviews and crap grosses wasn't going to help much.
A little swash, a bit of buckle - you'll love it more than bread.
Updated On: 7/15/14 at 03:24 PM
#44
Posted: 7/15/14 at 6:47pm
I understand them wanting to keep it open once they've dumped all the money into it. I don't understand why they would entertain this idea to begin with.
Can't remember who said it in this thread, but I agree that there are no demographics for this piece. Absolutely none. Are there people willing to pay to rubberneck to see the newest show one time? Yes, there always are. But it's silly to think that RAMBO: The Musical or NBA on Broadway or whatever is next will be a hit. Fans of those artistic endeavors do not frequent Broadway. Why do the creatives/producers not get that?
GOLDEN GIRLS: The Musical - That's a different story. Picture it...
Can't remember who said it in this thread, but I agree that there are no demographics for this piece. Absolutely none. Are there people willing to pay to rubberneck to see the newest show one time? Yes, there always are. But it's silly to think that RAMBO: The Musical or NBA on Broadway or whatever is next will be a hit. Fans of those artistic endeavors do not frequent Broadway. Why do the creatives/producers not get that?
GOLDEN GIRLS: The Musical - That's a different story. Picture it...
#45
Posted: 7/16/14 at 5:36pm
I disagree that it was an awful concept, I think it was a rather intriguing one. Sadly it wasn't given time to develop and had a pretty dismal promotional campaign (at least when it would have mattered). And there was nobody who wanted to see it for what it was, as opposed to seeing it just so they could complain how bad it was. Of course, could anyone really blame them?
Keeping BroadwayWorld Illustrated
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95