I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the strategy is/was that they thought this could essentially become a staple of New York musicals that tourists would feed for years. They'd line up to see "New York, New York" as part of a trip the same way they'd go to a museum. They'd recognise the iconic 'New York, New York' song in particular and love it and tell their friends back home. They also probably thought LMM's name is a gold mine and overestimated his draw in this context. They probably thought it'd be critic and award proof because the title is so striking. It just didn't work out this way at all for some reason.
I must admit, I was hoping to catch this show so I too was hoping it would catch on. But alas.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Kad said: "I know out of town tryouts are costly and generally falling out of practice but getting these new musicals out of their development bubble and in front of paying audiences before they open in the unforgiving Broadway market is extremely valuable."
That sounds good but I can't think of a single show recently that has opened out of town that has made their show better before coming to Broadway. "Once Upon a One More Time, I thought had promise when it was in DC, but they didn't change the show much between DC and New York and it wasn't better. at all. "Bad Cinderella" opened in London and from all accounts the show was worse when it opened on Broadway.
The only recent show I can recall making major adjustments out of town was Beetlejuice, which was atrocious in Washington.
binau said: "I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the strategy is/was that they thought this could essentially become a staple of New York musicals that tourists would feed for years. They'd line up to see "New York, New York" as part of a trip the same way they'd go to a museum. They'd recognise the iconic 'New York, New York' song in particular and love it and tell their friends back home. They also probably thought LMM's name is a gold mine and overestimated his draw in this context. They probably thought it'd be critic and award proof because the title is so striking. It just didn't work out this way at all for some reason.
I must admit, I was hoping to catch this show so I too was hoping it would catch on. But alas."
It's totally this! They wanted a 42nd Street, the kind of show that's a one-stop-shop for tourists, but there's a bevy of more specific options available - Disney shows for the kids, jukeboxes for the nostalgic adults, quality hits like Hadestown and Hamilton that people have some level of FOMO about, etc. Nobody's paying top dollar for a period piece based on a 46-year-old flop movie if it doesn't have rave reviews and/or amazing word of mouth.
It’s not all bad for Kander though. He still might have three shows running simultaneously in NY if the DeBose Spider Woman revival comes in this season.
I really hope Frecknall’s Cabaret becomes a big big hit, I’ve heard nothing but incredible things.
And Johnny’s not wrong about SLIH’s grosses, either. I’d hate to see it vanish by Labor Day.
Chicago is one of the best known and loved musicals of all time regardless of how creaky the Broadway production can be these days (though, honestly, it was pretty damn great when I saw it earlier this year with Jinkx Monsoon). It’s a weird comparison point.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
I've not been go NYC for about 8 years and it's shocked me a bit how expensive broadway is now. I could go to Europe for the weekend (I live in the UK) for the cost of two decent tickets to the big shows on Broadway.
Compared to last time I came, I'm actually having trouble finding something a) I want to see b) and is a reasonable price that's not located miles back.
While mistakes were made, the question should more be "why do musicals cost this much right now and how do we fix it?" rather than "what are producers thinking in this specific case?"
Because &Juliet, A Beautiful Noise, Sweeney Todd, Here Lies Love, SLIH, MJ, and The Music Man were all also raising money around the 20-25mill range. It seems like a full cast/full orchestra/full set/not transferred from a non-profit Broadway musical costs $20mill anymore. What is an extra $5mill when your team is entirely made of legacy creatives?
The issue is absolutely systemic and the bottom will fall out at some point if it hasn't already.
RippedMan said: "Why don't they partner with NYC tourism and make it THE show to see? Like come see the namesake show on Broadway. It ends with the title song. Should be such an easy sell to tourists."
When people describe this show, it sounds like a better version of the NY Spring Spectacular that played Radio City. People didn't want that either. Tourists want Lion King, Chicago, Wicked... something that feels like a real show even if it has commercial appeal.
The article certainly had a malicious tone to it. Perhaps more musicals should be performed like Encores and then if they are a hit, transferred for a limited run or longer.
I agree the spotlight should be shone on the wildly inflating costs. Many dismissed Webber at the time, but as Phantom was closing, he wrote that Op-Ed about exactly this. And he was right. Many took his remarks to be defensive about Bad Cinderella or disappointment over Phantom's closure, but he said pretty clearly the model has gotten to the point where it's simply too expensive. And if you care about new musicals, it's increasingly just too cost prohibitive.
SOME LIKE IT HOT and NY NY are good examples. A big show by today's standards? Sure. But is it wildly bigger than other shows we had 10-15 years ago? No. It's kinda just what you'd call a full-sized, fully produced musical. And if that is gonna cost $25-27 million, then we are going to get far less of them.
It's a shame because I WANT "big" new musicals. I don't want it to be only scaled down productions and lavish star-driven revivals that can succeed. But I worry those will become obsolete much like non-franchise big movies are.