LITTLE WOMEN & Its Audience. What Went Wrong?
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:35pm
And than of course there is Amy McAlexander, the single most annoying person to ever step foot on a broadway stage. This show never had any hope with her in it.
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:36pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:38pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:38pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:39pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:40pm
This is just my opinion. I liked "Little Women", but I had never read the book, never seen the movies, and went the first night of previews.
Oh well....can it be that it was all so simple then, or has time rewritten every line...
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:40pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:41pm
It geared itself...or shall I say "advertised" itself as a Mother/Daughter musical, inviting all mother's and daughters, but leaving out sons and fathers. And in my opinion, fathers from middle America would rather see Phantom or DRS than sit through LW.
Also...there was no buzz. It was not the talk of the town, like Q, or Putnam, or Wicked.
I work at a restaurant around the corner, and many theatregoers come in with their playbills. I think I can count on one finger how many times I'd seen a LW Playbill.
It's really not surprising to me that it is closing...I mean, have you ever tried reading Alcott's book???
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:42pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:43pm
Updated On: 5/19/05 at 10:43 PM
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:43pm
Anyway, back to the original topic: I personally think the advertising for this show was rotten. I think if it had had better advertising, it would have done better.
Wishes come true, not free.
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:43pm
No, but seriously, I saw the show.. it was just boring. Sutton was the only good thing about it... she was amazing. The music was forgettable and the book was all about Jo!
I also agree with Justice.. why only Mothers and Daughters?!?
Updated On: 5/19/05 at 10:43 PM
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:49pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:54pm
McAlexander - that's a funny last name...
And I should know - people always assume my last name is Mc....but it isn't.
Updated On: 5/23/05 at 10:54 PM
Posted: 5/19/05 at 10:57pm
I still think that the show wouldn't be half of what it is without Sutton.
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:08pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:13pm
Though it didn't last long, I'm happy that it was here. It was a great production (I personally loved it), and hopefully it will find better audiences on the tour.
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:22pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:24pm
Perhaps other feel this way too......
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:29pm
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:32pm
Besides that who is left in seeing it? Seasoned theatre goers that see everything that comes out?
Posted: 5/19/05 at 11:34pm
Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:09am
Matt_G - It made me laugh when you told Tiny that was mean.. But Amy McAlexander got on my nerves too...
Also, I saw LW, and I liked it. It wasn't the best thing ever, but was decent. The thing that worries me, and I don't know if this has been brought up, is the growing trend of "spectacle" shows. LW had weak points, but it scares me that the trend of surviving shows on Broadway are huge spectacles. I hope that shows like LW that are quieter per se but important don't disappear completely.
Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:27am
Two-thirds of Broadway ticket buyers are women (according to the League of American Theatres). There's NO reason this show couldn't have done a better job of tapping into that audience, which is the majority of ticket buyers. There should have been constant ads out there "When's the last time you took mom to a show?" "Call mom and get together with her for the most family-friendly show on Broadway" etc......
They seemed to just roll over and die MONTHS ago and stopped trying to find an audience. While it's not a great show by any means, there's absolutely no reason it didn't run AT LEAST a year and the producers and marketing team are to blame for that.
Updated On: 5/20/05 at 12:27 AM
BroadwayWorld TV