TotallyEffed said: "“It doesn’t need to go to Broadway.” “Should it come to Broadway?” “It shouldn’t go to Broadway.”
One of my least favorite arguments on this board. Nothingneedsto be on Broadway. There’s no“does this need to be on Broadway” magic eight ball. A showeither raises the money to get to Broadway or it doesn’t. There is literally no other journey it needs to go on. It’s not a metaphysical phenomenon. It’s just producers making decisions."
I'd disagree to some extent. I'm thinking particularly of an off-Broadway show a friend helped compose and appered in, that got a great response in a little theater but just wasn't ever right for Broadway (he says so himself), yet would up there and flopped.
I'd even use Rocky Horror as an example, since it was a hit on the King's Road (they intentionally didn't move it to the West End--although in, like, the last year of the original 5 year run, it was finally put there) and around the world but orginally flopped on Broadway because it really isn't a "Broadway" kinda show. Yes, we are now experiencing the second successful Broadway revival, but in the last-go wrong, a lot of the intentionally tacky qualities were lost, and I think that may prove to be the case for this revival, too.
Litttle Shop is another show that's really an off-Broadway show. It only really works in a theater small enough so that the final Audrey II seems to tower over the audience. Wouldn't want to see Dames at Sea on Broadway, either.
There are shows that rightly belong off-Broadway, maybe even rightly off-off-Broadway. It isn't metaphysical, but there is a "feel" shows have, that are or are not best served by a Broadway production.
Not saying the Jamie Lloyd production should be included in the "doesn't belong on Broadway" category, but I don't think such questions are moot. And the fact that people with the money may force a move doesn't always mean the move is smart.
Updated On: 3/28/26 at 06:51 PM
