LITTLE SHOP...WHAT WENT WRONG?

What do you think went wrong with the new broadway production of LSOH? I thought it would have lasted much longer, but sadly it's ending its run tonight. I saw the show on its 2nd day of previews and loved it then! I heard they made improvements as well. It ran for over 4 years off-broadway, so it's obviously not the material and the plant design is great as well. What do you think? Thanks :)

Oh, I heard mixed things about him. Some people said he was great some said he stunk. I guess its a love it or hate it thing


who do you think would have been better. I could see Roger Bart playing that part. I could be wrong

Updated On: 8/22/04 at 05:51 PM

I think it was a matter of, "If I can rent the movie for $4, why should I pay $100 to see the same thing?"

example: Chicago

and I have a feeling Phantom and The Producers (if it's still running in 2 years, I think it will be) I'm sure will do the same

or it could attracted tourist cause it's a show they have heard of because of the movie.

did the movie do well or was it a flop?

It did very well from what I heard.

I saw Little Shop in the spring, and my husband and I both thoroughly enjoyed it. I love the cast recording. I don't know why it wasn't popular. I've seen the movie version, and to me it paled in comparison to what I saw on Broadway.

---

I think the phantom movie will help the show run for a year or two more, cause we all know it isn't gonna be running for ANOTHER 17 shows, however wonderful of a movie it may be. soooo many people have already seen the show, and when they see the movie, their gonna wanna compare the movie to the musical. look at chicago, some people decided not to see the show because of the movie, but a lot said" ohhh this was such a huge hit, i wonder if the musical will be the same!

The show doesn't "play" in a Broadway-size house. It belongs in a smaller theater where its offbeat sensibility and comic horror will have more impact, as it did in its original incarnation. Just another example of producers' greed and poor judgment.

Updated On: 8/22/04 at 06:39 PM

The problem of low attendance came long before Joey Fatone came.

To be sure, any production is a colloborative venture, Rathnait, but choice of venue is ultimately the producers' call, as it's they who hold the pursestrings.
By the way, did you find a coach?

I agree with the comments about the show being inflated for Broadway -- only this wasn't standard inflation, i.e. adding more people and (until the finale) more expensive effects. They simply blew up the original concept. It had thed same look, the same plant, basically, and those elements were more charming in a place like the Orpheum. On Broadway, it was like a large type book -- the same book, just bigger.

But the bigger issue with revivals coming after hit movies is about "brand name appeal." My guess is, CHICAGO, like CABARET, has a very specific "brand name" -- it connotes sexy women, risque lyrics, a general POV of "naughtiness" and sophistication. People feel if they plunk down their hundred bucks, they are getting a true "broadway" brand (never mind that the Weisslers cut out production values -- John Q public doesn't know from "Encores.") LITTLE SHOP suggests too many different things to different people: a send-up of a 50s B movie, a campy sci-fi based entertainment, or even a beloved source for "Suddenly, Seymour" for piano bar queens. It doesn't have much sex or sophistication of other shows, and isn't a star vehicle. I thought the TV commercial might help -- when they gave away the one "secret" of this production, and showed the plant hovering over the audience. But people who don't want a huge puppet over them were not pulled in.

Also, the show really doesn't have a very satisfying 2nd act. The last number -- scrapped for the film -- leaves you in a desolute place, since everyone is gone. I think this has a subliminal impact on audiences.

---

Updated On: 8/22/04 at 07:19 PM