LITTLE WOMEN & Its Audience. What Went Wrong?- Page 2

[StephanietheStar]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:57am

Margo---you make an EXCELLENT point!

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:23am

Updated On: 2/7/06 at 01:23 AM

[Katecab99]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:40am

i really enjoyed this show and am super sad to see it go.

i don't know if this is posted, or if it matters, but LW cancelled their performace tonight. i went down just to see it one more time and when i got to the theatre there were about 10 people in line at the box office and the theatre was all dark. the poor guy in the box office was refunding all the tickets and explained that instead of this evening's show,they decided to do a matinee this afternoon. does anyone know why they would do that?

hopefully i'll make it on sunday...

Posted: 5/20/05 at 7:09am

That is most unfortunate for all concerned.

Anyone else care to express their opinions on this topic?

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 7:25am

I absolutely concur with the opinion that the marketing failed the show, but the show itself is not entirely innocent. It wasn't good enough to really generate the must see word of mouth it needed to get people interested. There are fierce devotees of the show on here, but they are outnumbered hugely by people who didn't care for or flat out hated the show. I'm sure the situation was the same outside of this site as well.

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 8:24am

I agree with most of the above. A poor adaption, weak book and score all played a part in the show's demise despite a good cast. For the poster who wrote that it is difficult to take a book of that size and turn it into a musical, I disagree. When the right talent is involved, it can be done. Les Miserables is a perfect example. Little Women was also turned into very satisfying movies. You just need the right talent to do so and unfortunately, this musical didn't have the right talent.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 8:30am

Maybe the lack of a broadbased appeal... outside of the suburbs of Boston (where I grew up...as a matter of fact, as I type this I'm fifteen minutes away from the Alcott house)...how many people really care about Louisa May Alcott and the March sisters. Especially with umpteen film adaptions... certainly the lame one one that came a few years ago with Winona Rider and Susan Sarandon.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 8:40am

Amy McAlexander with her Cheno Lite routine did the show no favors, but that only bothers you after you get into the theater. Now this is the first time I've seen her....was it the character or the actress? I assumed she was playing Victorian Sally Brown as a character choice... is always nasally and screechy?

Aside from geeks like me, is there any innate male audience for Little Women?

It had a strong cast but aside from Maureen and Sutton, was it a "Oh, I've got to see him/her" or "Oh YEAH, now I remember him/her". For me it was the latter.

If any show would have benefited from stunt casting it would have been this one... by stunt casting I mean a Brooke Shields or Christina Applegate. Sutton and Maureen are luminous but aside of the theater community, frankly who cares? The non theater "insiders" who show up once a year were going to Spamalot, or Phantom and Chicago ....again!

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 8:50am

I am not exactly sure what went wrong with this show, but there was a wonderful chance it could have made it on Broadway.

[Luke0827]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 9:43am

1. The utterly confusing book. I see theater all the time, and I didn't realize until intermission that the show had gone back in time and then forward in the first act. And then in second act, the "action" picks up where the first scene in Act I left off. Make sense? Didn't think so.

2. The score. Why did every character have to have a song? So many of the songs were unnecessary, and almost all were unmemorable. Songs sung by each of the cast members just diluted the show.

3. The direction and casting. Sutton Foster is mighty talented, but I found her performance annoying in this. I really felt like I was watching a compilation of reruns from the old "Carol Burnett Show." The nutty characters Ms. Burnett created were funny in minutes-long skits, but two hours of saying "bloooood and guts" and acting out Jo March's stories while the ensemble performed the operatic tragedy -- and it was tragic, but for the wrong reason -- over and over again, got old -- fast. As for the rest of the cast, Maureen McGovern signs lushly, but I have to concur with the sentiments expressed about Amy McAlexander. Her performance made me cringe. She's not without talent, but she was not well directed.

The marketing didn't fail this show at all. The show failed itself, because it was not cohesive, compelling, nor musically enticing.

I suspect it will largely be forgotten, and of no use to high schools, because it is without a chorus. Unless modifications are made to the book...how 'bout a rousing kick line to the 'thrilling' Masachusetts song Beth sings?...it won't attract schools or theater groups.

[Justice]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 9:55am

They shoulda brought Rosie O'Donnell in as Jo.

[mikewood]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 10:07am

Luke...you made some nice points but I disagree with your description of Sutton's performance.

But the play was definitely hurt by the play within the play which didn't work.

[Ruth Sherwood]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 10:09am

I think one of the main reasons the show did not find its audience is because of the terrible marketing job. I also agree that the show has its flaws. The score had a few stand out songs, but was mainly enjoyable, but forgettable music. I agree that it was not the strongest book it could have had. However,I did not find the story to be confusing at all (I realized Jo was having a flashback when she changed from her dress to her "tomboy" clothes), and I have never read "Little Women". For the most part, I thought all of the performances were wonderful. Sutton Foster, who I don't think is the most versatile actress, was perfect as Jo. The only character I found to be annoying was Amy, but I've found her annoying in all of the films.
I also believe that part of the reason this show did not succeed is because it is not a big musical with a lot of spectacle. I know there are shows that are doing well without spectacle (Avenue Q for example), but a lot of what's starting to become successful are things like "Wicked", and "Spamalot".

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 10:10am

I love how Tiny posted a picture of Amy McAlexander with a caption that read "Run For Your Lives," when she has an icon of that screaming wench of a musical Brooklyn. Talk about running for your lives.

Someone sent me the Little Women cast recording tracks online, and I've only listened to them a couple of times. The music never really grabbed me, and I found most of it to be boring. The only song I like is Day of Plenty...I am sorry for the cast and people involved with this show. Like Good Vibrations, I hate to see a show close b/c they can't find their audience or because their show just plain stinks. So much hardwork and dedication is put into getting these things off the ground, it just makes me feel bad when they all don't workout. Good Luck LW cast!

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 10:54am

Personally, I'm surprised any producers still gamble on smallish literary adaptations. Even much beter shows, such as Amour and Triumph of Love in recent years, haven't had the muscle power to stay in the public's attention.

Q and Urintown had novelty and a healthy dose of profanity to stir up a buzz. Worthy subject matter soon becomes a yawn. I dread the next musicalization of Pride and Prejudice, Sunnybrook Farm or the Swiss Family Robinson. These days it has to be big, brash or raucous. Or preferably, all three.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 11:04am

Katecab: I also tried to catch the show last night and was informed rather rudely that "there was no show" I have to say if they have been haveing that kind of attitude to the people who actually come in wanting tickets it is not hard to imagine them closing.
Why would they switch to a matinee, does anyone know? It seems they had to have lost a lot of business that way.

Posted: 5/20/05 at 11:14am

I think the show could have succeeded (or at least had a decent run) with a different ad campaign. Margo makes an excellent point: The theatre audience is mostly women. The lack of appeal to men shouldn't in it self kill a show. You just need to communicate to your prospective customers.

The first problem I think was the show's logo: The multi-colored silhouttes were pointless, generic and entirely out of place. It put me in mind of an 80's era haridresser. It certainly didn't communicate anything about the show the way a good poster does.

I've heard the producers always had their eye on the "Road" where they thought this show will be a big draw. I'm curious to see how that turns out.

[baddadnpa]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 11:17am

THe LW Tour will play very nicely in the red states.

[MTVMANN]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 11:17am

Most people just assume it's going to be boring......for the tourist, you can't see everything, so why would you want to see something boring when you can see something hyped and talked about??????

[Madame X]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 11:27am

I'm not a fan at all of the source material so I'm a bad person to ask about this, but regarding the Thursday matinee, that was apparently announced a month ago or so.

Margo - that promotion you mentioned "Where was the big Mother's Day promotion for the show (moms go free, daughters for half price all weekend)?" - was that wishful thinking or was it actually a promotion that wasn't marketed well?

[keggss23]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:57pm

I think there are several contributing factors for the show closing.

As mentioned before, the marketing for this show was abissmal. They could have really marketed it aggresively to mothers, daughters and sisters. I don't remember who said this earlier, but it does seem that the show just rolled over and died months ago.

I don't live in NY and did not get the chance to see this show (grr) but from the cast recording, the score sounds very weak. Too much time was spent on the operatic tragedies and they got old and boring very quickly. There are moments in the score that are very good (Astonishing, Days of Plenty)which makes me think that there was definitely potential for something much, much better.

I also think that there could have been more character development for all of the character's except Jo. Beth's death could have been a really touching and sad moment, but I found myself not caring because I didn't get to know Beth at all. I didn't really care about any of the characters because they were written as filler.

However, although this is by far, not the best show, I would have seen it if I lived in NY because I think Sutton Foster is incredible. Sutton is a big draw, but only to those who follow Broadway and let's be honest the number of people that follow Broadway are few. The tourists that go to see a show want to see a show they have heard about like Phantom, Mama Mia, Lion King, Spamalot, etc. I don't think Little Women had strong enough buzz.

I am looking forward to the cast's next projects and I know we will see them all again soon.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 12:59pm

Madame X, then why couldn't they have any kind of notification at the theatre!
It was just weird to watch as they yelled at people for trying to pick up tickets to a show that was closing.

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:02pm

"Q and Urintown had novelty and a healthy dose of profanity to stir up a buzz. Worthy subject matter soon becomes a yawn. I dread the next musicalization of Pride and Prejudice, Sunnybrook Farm or the Swiss Family Robinson. These days it has to be big, brash or raucous. Or preferably, all three."


There was NOTHING profane about Urinetown. That was an extremely family friendly show. People of all ages could enjoy it, without there being worries of inappropriate material. I think it's funny that people find the word urine to be profane. Its a fact of life, we all pee.


Urine
urine
UrInE
uRiNe
URINE
Urine
Urine
Urine!!!!








Updated On: 5/20/05 at 01:02 PM

[My Fair Lady]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:12pm

I saw the show once a few weeks afetr it opened. I really only saw it for Sutton Foster and my mom saw it with me for Maureen McGovern. One of my not-very-theater-geekish friends saw it with us. I have to say the show is enjoyable, but mediocre. The show is nice but extremely forgettable and the book was pretty bad. I remember reading about the original composers, and they should have kept them. The show probably could have lasted much longer, also if they had a different person write the book. Also, the commercial wasn't very good. The Brooklyn one is a good commerical, but the Little Women just has the ending orchestrations for Astonishing, a picture of the logo and says "Mothers and daughters should come to Little Women!" I think they should have had a tiny clip of the end of Syutton Foster singing Astonishing instead of just the orchestra, because hearing that doesn't make you want to see the show. Also, I had to agree about Amy McAlexande. God, she's annoying.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:50pm

Madame X -- that was me thinking out loud about promotions that they could have done, but didn't bother to try.

I agree that the silhouette ad campaign was generic and useless. Who was that going to attract? Why didn't they instead use a picture of the the whole cast, this big loving family of women together, smiling and warm with Marmee at the center? It would have conveyed that the show was about family first and foremost and would have struck a chord with all of those mothers and sisters and daughters out there. AND sold a lot of tickets.

There are plenty of worse shows than LW that managed to have decent runs because of a good marketing strategy. Pity the LW folks didn't try harder.

Updated On: 5/21/05 at 01:50 PM