How Long Do You Think [title of show] will Last — Page 2

Wow...it is still open! kidding...

If the numbers don't pickup - which I doubt they will...even on a low budget it is doomed.

OK - How about Stunt Casting!
To start I nominate: Rosie O'Donnell and Tom Cruise.

Rosie because she usually likes to stick her nose in everything and Tom...well...he's a "friend of Rosie" - and of course...let's see if Oprah can add some funding as an extra producer! (Because Tom likes her couch to jump on.)

Maybe we could leave 2 of the originals in the show, they could write a song about 50 percent and the ghost of Dorothy Loudon could sing it!

Circle in the Square probably would have been ideal...

Spelling Bee didn't have much of an intriguing name either but I think became a good "2nd choice" or "back-up" show as a result of being right next to Wicked, which aided its long run.

I think the real question is this:

Given his obsession with musicals that performed less than 50 times on Broadway, would Jeff prefer his musical to be ranked among them, or on the opposite extreme, prefer his musical to win a Tony?

And when is their 50th performance (since opening night) btw? Is it before or after Labor Day?

Maybe one of you guys could ask Jeff about this at Borders on Thursday afternoon.

Oh, and about the stunt casting Rosie remark:

Don't underestimate star power.

Just look at Xanadu, the little musical on wheels that could. The moment it lost Cheyenne's dance belt to Damn Yankees, it took only one word to keep that little show on the charts: WHOOPI.

Problem is, Jeff and Hunter basically created characters that could never be performed by anyone but themselves. If some big names did take over, it would make the already cryptic dialogue even more indecipherable (e.g., the scenes where they talk about Sutton Foster replacing Heidi).

it may be a great show, but tourist have NO interest in seeing that show. its like being an outsider on an inside joke. and they NEED to appeal to the tourist if you are going to survive, sad to say.

it may be a great show, but tourist have NO interest in seeing that show. its like being an outsider on an inside joke.

Gotta agree with that one. Especially when the mega-fans of the show seem to think they have to laugh earlier, louder and longer than anyone. I have heard more than one person make the comment that it seemed like the audience was "filled with family and close friends of the performers". Reports from various nights. That really doesn't make your everyday person want to see it. It almost made this local very much into theatre person not want to. I did, and thought the show was ok...nothing spectacular, and definitely not worthy of all the loud and hysterical laughter coming from a few select locations.

---

There were several lines that I missed no matter how hard I listened because people were laughing so loud and long. And the 4 on stage didn't bother to wait for it to die down, which only adds to the feeling of exclusivity among the followers/lovers and the rest of the commoners.

---

Updated On: 7/29/08 at 08:24 PM

I too, wish they would have been able to take advantage of Circle in the Square. The show is creative and would pair perfectly with the creative space. It's not as big, meaning less money to rent. I think the show sounds great, as I've never seen it, but I would think I would feel like a lot of it is lost in such a big space. It too, wish that they'll pack up and move to Circle in the Square just to take advantage of it's ability to bring more out of the show than traditional theatres can. And the location right next to Wicked could be good too, especially with all of those lotto losers :-P

Oh, and by the way, "cults" at Broadway shows are nothing new, so you can't blame [tos] for that. Blame RENT. That's when it really started, I think, with the Rent-heads.

You can blame the performers for not pausing a bit after lines, though. Somehow I think Jeff, Hunter, Susan and Heidi just get so caught up in their 15 minutes of fame they forget the real reason why they're on stage.

I think [title of show] might be able to survive if every keeps telling 9 people! While it is a hot topic on Broadway right now, I know my parents would never come with me to see it. I personally love the show and plan to see it again in November (if it lasts that long which I hope it does!) but I plan to see it with theatre friends. What I was worried about when its Broadway opening was announced was its appeal to tourists. This whole thing is very on-the-edge-of-your-seat. :/

I remember watching one (only one I watched actually) episode of The Title Of Show Show on thier website. They talked about how The Booth was one theatre that they wanted. I could have seen it doing well at The Booth and can sort of do what Xanadu did/does. And, that is that being right in the middle of things could help out with ticket sales. The Helen Hayes is a perfect location for Xanadu because it is right in the theatre district. If a tourist is walking around trying to get tickets for something they can easilly stop by the Helen Hayes and get a ticket for Xanadu because it is right in the middle of things.

Had they used the boot not only would it have been a good size theatre for the show, it would also be right in the middle of things as well. Unfortunatly, it is at The Lycuem, a theatre that you can't really see just by walking around. It is sort of tucked in the back out of eye sight. And I find that if I didn't know that it was there and where it was I might think that the theatre wasn't there at all.

I think that with the show being what it is and the numbers being what they are. The Lyceum was the ultimit bad choice for theatres for this show.

And, as for comparing the cult following of Title Of Show to something like the Rent Heads. I feel that that difference is like night and day. Rent, although it had/has a cult following, it also had a story that anyone could see and understand. Title of Show just has the cult following and a show that no one would get if they weren't a constent theatre goer and knew a lot about Broadway. A catagory most tourists don't fit in unfortunatly.

---

Although I unfortunately think it's going to have a lifespan closer to "Passing Strange" than "Xanadu," both of those shows struggled for most of their runs. Weeks under 50%, even 40%,for "Passing" especially weren't uncommon, as were weeks under $200,000 and that show seemed almost as culty as some portray TOS as being. As I said last week, the low ticket price average could be a result of the $47.50 discount and TKTS...I know I took advantage of that.

I'm hoping word of mouth spreads, advertising improves and it gets a decent run. In interviews, it seems like the cast is less concerned with a long run that having achieved their dream of making it to Broadway. Hunter's face at curtain call reflects that.

I personally loved the show. It's not perfect and the "donuts for dinner" line died at the performance I saw, but I really identified with what was going on onstage. Cliched as it sounds, I found pieces of a lot of people, including myself, in the cast and their story...plus I laughed harder than I have in a long time and was on the verge of tears at least three times.

The show has many dynamics to it. I find it somewhat annoying that people refer to it as too insidery, or that it’s aimed at theatre folk. All the rap it's getting as being too insidery, makes people ONLY see that part of the show. It has a universal message of perseverance, ambition and friendship. Maybe it doesn’t resonate as loud as the theatre trivia but it’s there, you have to be open minded when watching the show; that maybe the reason why it doesn’t attract tourist. Tourists take it at face value instead of truly connecting with the show.