Jekyll & Hyde to Close May 12? The buzz was right :-(- Page 2

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 3:51pm

ucjrdude902 - I saw him on ESPN with Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith and he seemed like a very nice and regular guy who is a big NY sports fan. As for target audience, just because you like sports does not mean you would never go to a Broadway show.

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 4:14pm

Big surprise.

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 04:14 PM

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 4:47pm

If they had a stronger Lucy, a better book, better design, and overall better direction, it could have been great. I liked it in La Mirada, but could not imagine that this was headed to Broadway.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 4:51pm

Okay, so now where are all of those "Jekkies" that attacked the people who said the theater was empty and the show sucked...?

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 4:58pm

Yankeefan - I have to laugh. ANYONE on with Bayless and Smith seems like a very nice and regular guy compared to those two pompous morons. I'm surprised they would have even let him talk.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 5:41pm

FishermanBob - Yes Smith and Bayless are pompous but he was allowed to talk and seemed to have a good time. He got his plugs in for J&H so it was mission accomplished. IMO - He probably is a "fan" of the show and thought it would be fun to be celebrity guest which is a regular feature on the show. Most guests (mostly Rap/Hip Hop) talk a little sports and then plug their CD or show.





Updated On: 5/3/13 at 05:41 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 5:47pm

If they had a stronger Lucy, a better book, better design, and overall better direction, it could have been great.

So, start from scratch...

[Kad]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 5:50pm

If the show was playing in someone's basement, it'd be sold out for years!

[Marlothom]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 9:08pm

I'm disappointed for the cast and crew - I didn't enjoy the show but I thought everyone was working hard and most importantly, that the limited run was a realistic one for fans to see this show. I hope they all find work soon.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 9:15pm

So along wth all his other flops,
Frankie now has a flop revival of a flop.
He's on a roll!

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 9:58pm

Maybe there is some legal agreement that all of his shows have to be revived by 2015? Who knows the real store why he keeps getting produced...next year we will see The Scarlet Pimpernel be revived!

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 10:16pm

I've been a Jekkie since middle school and even *I'M* not surprised at this point. I may like WIldhorn but I've never been one to deny the obvious.

[DealingwithDivas]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 10:53pm

Amen!

[IronMan]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 11:27pm

Trivia: This will now be the shortest-running Wildhorn show on Broadway at 30 official performances, besting the record set by WONDERLAND with 33 (BONNIE & CLYDE had 36).

At least they'll have something to take pride in!

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 11:48pm

Pride...that's one word for it, yeah.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 8:23am

CurtainPullDowner - The original J&H played over 1500 performances so is that really a "flop". I understand the definition of a "flop" is a show that did not make a profit but still 1500 performances is pretty good. Heck, there are shows that won Tony for Best Musical that did not have that many performances on Broadway.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 8:56am

" I understand the definition of a "flop" is a show that did not make a profit but still 1500 performances is pretty good."

If a show plays 1500 performances and does not turn a profit, something is wrong. That means it was squeaking by, only meeting cost for 1500 performances.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:29am

I actually consider a show that ran 4 years without making a profit a bigger Flop than most. It means they played most weeks without making their nut. Someone was throwing money into it just to keep it alive.
Yes a lot of people were employed but someone was paying the piper.
It also set up the "impression" that Wildhorn had a great future ahead on Broadway and producers and backers have been losing money on his shows (on Broadway) for years.

[groucho797]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:49am

A revival of Wonderland - now that's not funny! This show was to Broadway what Jonestown was to Kool-Aid.

Funny thing happened after the show, though; my friend called me up a week later and said "Have you listened to the cast recording?" So I got it.... played it through once, and found I liked it. I mean really liked it.

Then I played it through again... and through every single song, I found myself saying "Wait - he stole this cliche from this song... and this cliche from that song...". And I found myself unable to listen to it ever again.

And that's what I'm finding with Wildhorn - the best way to describe him is that he's a terrible recycler. IMHO, of course.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:52am

Jekyll Foreva!

LOL

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:53am

Kad - If you are squeaking by and only meeting cost for 1500 performances that is still better than closing in less than 6 months. Just getting enough people into the theatre to stay alive for around four years to me is not a "flop". "Bonny & Clyde" was a flop, "Wonderland" was a "flop" but I don't think the original J&H was a flop. As for putting money into a show, I can't imagine anybody in the business has that deep of pockets to keep something running for longer than a couple of months.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 11:00am

A flop means it didn't turn a profit. There's no addendum for run duration
Jekyll and Hyde managed to run four years without recouping. It doesn't matter it ran four years to accomplish that. It means it was barely keeping its head above water and meeting run costs with some left over. It means it was discounted or comped heavily, it means it had producer money keeping it afloat. Sure, it ran longer than most shows- and what does it have to show for it?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 11:32am

Jeckyl Hyde

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 11:55am

I saw J & H on tour many years ago and it was really good...simple direction, good actors, dramatic, the production fit the show. This one was too blown up, too overblown, computer projections, unnecessary special effects, poor sound (it was painful it was so loud and tinny), it was just awful. The biggest personal disappointment was towards the end when Jekyll and Hyde sing against each other...in "Confrontation". It should be one of the best moments where the lead actor gets to sing both as Jekyll and Hyde together - changing from one character to the other from line to line. When this is well done, it's highly impressive. To see them "cheat" on Broadway where Jekyll got to sing with a pre-recorded version of Hyde on a projection (therefore only singing half the song live) was the epitome of why this version failed so miserably. It was all splash and not much value.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 12:08pm

Kad - Yes, a show that does not make a profit is a "flop". I guess I am just trying to point out there is a difference between a show hanging in there for almost 4 years and something closing in a month. What does it have to show for it, I would say it employed a bunch of people for 4 years. It entertained thousands of people during it's original Broadway run. It introduced the country to the wonderful voice of Linda Eder.