OlBlueEyes said: "I'd think that South Pacific and The King and I are ranked pretty equally in the R&H big five. Both are really plays that could stand on their own merits without all that familiar music thrown in.
I don't think I'll ever see better productions of either. Same creative, same full orchestras, same star and the perfect cozy venue. It's hard to remember anyone here not liking The King and I, even if that person was young and completely unfamiliar with it.
So why did South Pacific play for two years and four months, with over a thousand performances including the previews?
Maybe as we Boomers start to exit, the "Golden Age" musicals will lose some of their luster, as the Boomers were the last to grow up surrounded by that music on TV, radio and HiFi."
I'm sure one factor was that the LCT South Pacific was the first Broadway revival the show ever had, which was not the case for The King and I.
I know I'm in the minority, but I didn't think The King and I was nearly as good a production as South Pacific. It was quite good, but was missing, for me, the spark and magic South Pacific had. (I thought it was actually the weakest revival last season, and was bummed it won the Tony over On the Town and On the Twentieth Century.)
When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain.
-Kad