London Loved It/New York Hated It

[Timon3]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 8:35am

So thinking of those London transfers where New York hated the show, from the top of my head thinking, Cabaret, King Lear (Glenda Jackson) and Enron.

What others?

[lilpunkin]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 8:38am

Tammy Faye? (Which to be fair was a clusterf*** behind the scenes.) 

 

Rupert Goold is kind of the patron saint of this thread in general.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 9:33am

Enron was so good. Americans don’t like shows about stupid Americans.

 

Matilda deserved so much better.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 10:13am

I was about to say, Matilda wasn't "hated" and had a respectable run but by rights should maybe still be running. It was not quite as good as in Stratford or even London but  still so much better than all but a very handful of 21st century musicals, and more accessible to general audiences than those. 

[valebal7]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 10:24am

Groundhog Day

[Kad]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 11:01am

The Glenda Jackson Lear wasn't a transfer.

Mincemeat is doing well but it certainly didn't receive the same rapturous reception here as it did in the UK.

Back to the Future will end its run in London after over four years and the Olivier, while it ran just shy of a year and a half here at a massive loss and was all but shut out of the Tonys. 

Updated On: 12/29/25 at 11:01 AM

[scripps]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 11:11am

Coram Boy. Debuted at the National Theatre, even had a return engagement, and then transfered to NY and closed at the Imperial after a month. 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 6:49pm

You could argue about a couple of Andrew Lloyd Webber shows like Woman in White, which ran I think 18 months in London and nothing close to that in NYC.  Starlight Express ran for well over a decade in London, but just under two years on Broadway.  But Aspects of Love may be the best candidate for this--largely well reviewed in London,where it ran for 1325 performances.  On Broadway it was savaged by critics,and only ran for 377 performances and somehow, despite having a then-record advance ticket sale, it also somehow was the biggest Broadway money-loser up to that time (yes, including Carrie.)

I admit, I usually think about shows that go the other way around--like Pippin which in its original London production only ran for 85 performances and reportedly is why Fosse didn't bother with London productions of Chicago (a non Fosse version did open) and Dancin'.

[Timon3]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 7:09pm

Kad said: "The Glenda Jackson Lear wasn't a transfer.

Mincemeat is doing well but it certainly didn't receive the same rapturous reception here as it did in the UK.

Back to the Future will end its run in London after over four years and the Olivier, while it ran just shy of a year and a half here at a massive loss and was all but shut out of the Tonys."

I thought Lear was an Old Vic production? Funny enough I was in that very theatre to see the brilliant A Christmas Carol.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 7:17pm

Except the Kardashians 

[Timon3]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 7:22pm

Was Groundhog Day hated? I remember it was well received but got shut out by other good shows in a fierce season which included Dear Evan Hansen, Come From Away, Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812 and Hello Dolly.

I wish I could say the say about Tammy Faye, that was just a **** show. I understand why Tammy got favorable reviews in London and dreadful ones in New York.

[walnutoraroach]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 10:32pm

Glenda Jackson DID do King Lear at the Old Vic directed by Deborah Warner in 2016, but the Broadway production was completely unrelated (and directed by Sam Gold). I actually saw both and really hated it at the Old Vic and (in the minority, I know) loved the Broadway revival. Specifically, I thought that Jackson was terrifically more moving and persuasive in the Gold production and that, weird as it was, it got out of her way and allowed her to command the stage in a way she hadn't been able to in London. Nothing has stuck with me about the Old Vic production except seeing Harry Melling (Dudley Dursey) as Edgar and the moment where Regan chucked Gloucester's eye into the audience!

[CoffeeBreak]

Posted: 12/29/25 at 11:20pm

Timon3 said: "Was Groundhog Day hated? I remember it was well received but got shut out by other good shows in a fierce season which included Dear Evan Hansen, Come From Away, Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812 and Hello Dolly.

I wish I could say the say about Tammy Faye, that was just a **** show. I understand why Tammy got favorable reviews in London and dreadful ones in New York."

Groundhog Day was generally liked in NYC.   The NYC critics, however, were doing the regular "it's been a British rave - we pick it apart" drama for reader and publication clout.  

It was Tony nominated for Best Musical, Best Director, Best Choreography, Best Book, Best Music,  Best Lead Actor, Best Set.  It was the "non-American"-based musical that year of the 4 noms ... It could have easily won in another year.  All 4 nominees could have.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 12:56am

While I think "Hated" doesn't really apply, the first two that came to mind were "Blood Brothers" and "Matilda".

[Sammy232]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 7:26am

I'd add Girl from the North Country? While it wasn't hated here it definitely received a very tepid response. I have to say personally I loved it in London and hated it here with the exception of Mare Winningham. 

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 10:18am

The Trevor Nunn-helmed revival of Oklahoma!.

When it was in London, it received a ton of acclaim. Although when it eventually came to Broadway, it wasn't as well received.

[Timon3]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 10:42am

I stand corrected with King Lear! Thanks.

Matilda got rave reviews, recouped and actually run longer than Billy Elliot, what it didn’t get was the Tony, it didn’t win that for no other reason than it got beat by the excellent Kinky Boots, if it came to Broadway a year earlier it could’ve beaten Once, who knows? A year later it definitely would’ve beaten A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder, that was a good show, but not great like Matilda or Kinky Boots. Kinky Boots actually won best musical Olivier in London.

I was listening to a interview with with Cameron Mackintosh, about 7 years ago who commented on Oklahoma he produced both West End and Broadway productions, that he couldn’t get a work permit for Hugh Jackman, then commented on how times have changed.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 2:07pm

scripps said: "Coram Boy. Debuted at the National Theatre, even had a return engagement, and then transfered to NY and closed atthe Imperial after a month."

There was a period of transfers that were well-received in London, but underwhelmed critically or commercially here. I recall Jumpers and Enron, to musicals like The Woman in White, American Psycho and Taboo.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 2:19pm

I can’t be the only one who thinks Kinky Boots is trash.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 3:14pm

I don’t think it’s trash exactly but I found it extraordinarily underwhelming when I saw it a couple weeks after its Tony wins. Matilda was just the superior show and production in every way. 

[Ke3]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 3:40pm

Matilda and Gentleman’s Guide would’ve been such an interesting battle. I find them both to be supremely underrated although I think Matilda likely would’ve won the Tony between the two. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 3:43pm

I have to imagine the best example is still Starlight Express.  It managed to have a decent run on Broadway, but iy lost its investment, while Starlight ran a decade, and more recently had a theatre build just to stage its revival.  Another example of extremes would be Blood Brothers, which als o had a decent run on Broadway, but still lost its investment, while the London version ran forever.

In the ancient past, an incredibly lauded production of Orpheus Descending (starring Vanessa Redgrave)from London did not catch fire in NYC, fine as it was, and closed pretty quickly.

 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 5:31pm

Jarethan said: "I have toimagine the best example is still Starlight Express. It managed to have a decent run on Broadway, but iy lost its investment, while Starlight ran a decade, and more recently had a theatre build just to stage its revival. Another example of extremes would be Blood Brothers, which als o had a decent run on Broadway, but still lost its investment, while the London version ran forever.

In the ancient past, an incredibly lauded production of Orpheus Descending (starring Vanessa Redgrave)from London did not catch fire in NYC, fine as it was, and closed pretty quickly.

"

I said Starlight ran *decades* but actually it *only* ran 18 years I guess (yeah they redid the show in the 90s but it was still essentially the same run.)

I was pretty sure that Peter Hal Orpheus Descending was a limited engagement on Broadway?  That's one of my favourite plays (by Williams or anyone) and yet I can't find out just how run its London engagement was, but I assumed both were limited runs (it ran three months on Broadway.)  Of course it did lead to Hall and most of that cast doing a movie version (for TNT cable network of all places) which has some issues but I'm glad we have.

 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 5:33pm

TotallyEffed said: "I can’t be the only one who thinks Kinky Boots is trash."

I'm with Kad.  I find it fine--it's basically a solidly constructed show, staged with typical Jerry Mitchell slickness but it's lacking for me any real *moments* (moments of anything really) if that makes sense.  Everything is easy to predict and kinda perfunctory.  

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/30/25 at 5:38pm

everythingtaboo said: "

There was a period of transfers that were well-received in London, but underwhelmed critically or commercially here. I recall Jumpers andEnron, to musicals like The Woman in White,American PsychoandTaboo."

Woman in White was a baffling transfer as it was always struggling in London (and got very mixed reviews) ultimately running a year and a half (and I kinda have a soft spot for the show, so take little pleasure in that :P )

American Psycho seems to be the Almeida curse that Tammy Faye suffered from as well.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's a MUCH better and more interesting show.  But in both cases the shows got great reviews and had sold out limited engagement runs in the TINY (300 seats?) Almeida and then, I guess call it producers' hubris, the decision was that the next move should be a big Broadway production.

(I guess Taboo suffered from that too--the DVD of the London production shows how reliant it was on being a VERY intimate production.  I assume for Broadway there was a concern maybe that they had to really exaggerate and play up things like the 80s London club scene for whatever reason and, God love Charles Bush but he wasn't a great fit for the sincerity of the show, although I'm sure he was just doing what he was asked to, by camping it up.)