NY, NY may be on its way to closing-NY Post — Page 3

The article really is pointing out what is very obvious just by looking at the grosses. NY, NY is a a mammoth bore. Sure, the set is impressive, but the book is abysmal, and the two leads are giving two of the most bland and lifeless performances I have seen on Broadway in quite some time. The show is just not exciting.

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.


The interesting thing is that although I personally hated the show, the audience seemed extremely divided. About halfway through the show I realized that you're exactly right: This is a show just meant to sell tickets to tourists. It's about as generic as a Broadway musical can get because it's easy for tourists to pick if they can't afford Wicked or Hamilton or the Lion King. And I guess that's why I genuinely thought it would do well.

Even though I and my friend found ourselves struggling to keep it together at some of the outrageously bad lines in the book, the couple next to me laughed uproariously and clapped constantly. In fact there was a lot of laughter for terrible jokes and overall the audienced seemed to enjoy it. However, on our way out and during intermission, we overheard at least 3 different groups talk about how confusing it was and how much they disliked it. So I think you're right, they thought it could become a staple on Broadway for tourists, and it wasn't a bad plan. It just didn't work.

I think Kander's and Miranda's names attached to a production sell tickets, but unfortunately the show wasn't what people wanted, you really need to screw it up to not sell tickets with all these names attached to this production, plus the name of the show itself is a classic and it's performed in NY NY.

People like me, that love LIZA don't really like this new version that much. I think they could have done a wonderful job with Happy Endings and other numbers, yet, they missed a ton of opportunities to cast a great LIZA type of singer, make the show a bit more glamorous than it is, etc.

I think the characters of Emily Skinnier an the violinist were great, the number in the construction site was glorious, the Latin dancing was good too, but it lacked direction. I thought the fact they added other Kander and Ebb songs from other show, was a great touch to please us, Broadway aficionados.

I thought it was my favorite out of all the shows that were nominated for Best Musical at the Tonys, a very weak year in my point of view. I didn't really like this show, but it was the best of the worse in my opinion.

This should come as surprise to absolutely no one. I called this from the get go. At $25M (before addition of priority loans) and $950K weekly running costs, even. if they sold out every performance with no discounting, the show wouldn't recoup for over 45 weeks. Why in the world would anyone risk investing in a show like that especially when it comes in cold and no stars? Even if LMM was starring in it, he couldn't drive tickets for Freestyle Love Supreme. As for Stro, the fact is she hasn't had a hit show since The Producers in 2001. That's called a drought. Put bluntly, the numbers don't work and I warned people this would happen. All my friends seemed shocked that I called this. It's not rocket surgery. It's math. It sad to see a show close, but when it's so obviously badly produced (which is shocking with Tony winning producers on board), it shouldn't come as a surprise.

dramamama611 said: "If their nut is 950, they've hit that about 50% of the time (ish) - but the writing is on the wall."

$950K was the number quoted for SLIH also. Do we think that was accurate? On face value it appears NYNY would be more expensive to run.

Doesn't it take MOST new shows more than a year to recoup?"

Depends on the budget of the show. Grey House's budget is quite large for a play and is struggling but The Shark Is Broken is very modest (full disclosure, I'm part of the production). If Shark can get good and not sold out full price attendance, it could recoup as soon as 10 weeks especially with tax breaks. Musicals do take much longer in general, but with budgets $12M or less and good attendance, it should take shorter than a year. That's why I wouldn't touch NY NY or even Back To The Future which is rumored to be around $23M. I don't know their weekly nut, but that would mean parking your money even in a best case scenario for over a year.

Leaf Coneybear said: "Part of the key also, I think, is actuallymakingchanges in previews. I saw one of the first previews and it was pretty painful. At times I had to keep myself from laughing out loud at the book: As my friend put it, it sounded like AI wrote a musical. Absolutely no substance, and of course way too many things going on.

If these had been addressed early on it may have helped the show promote itself, but as far as I can tell the script is still terrible, Colton's still doing his weird accent, and they have about a million plots going on to the point where no one cares about any of them. As sad as it is to see a show close, this one has been a long time coming."

So true. Well put.

It was honestly one of the most baffling experiences to sit there watching it and then read online that nothing was being done to fix it during the remaining previews. This was a show crying out for cuts, rewritten arcs, a new song or three and some new choreo (that beam number wasn't as good as some claimed - it could have been better.)

Is it slightly more palatable than Carrie was back in the day? Sure. But it's still a flop. I'm surprised it didn't close two weeks after opening.

The shame of a show like this --- which is not offensively bad but not remarkably good --- is that it just feels like such a waste of money and time, when $25M could have been put towards a better show. Or a $15M musical + two plays.

That they were even able to raise the money for this project is kind of staggering.

I don't think there's a case to be made justifying $17mil+++ budgets for any show that lacks the name value and spectacle of something like Moulin Rouge. It's irresponsible producing.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "The shame of a show like this --- which is not offensively bad but not remarkably good --- is that it just feels like such a waste of money and time, when $25M could have been put towards a better show. Or a $15M musical + two plays.

That they were even able to raise the money for this project is kind of staggering.

I don't think there's a case to be made justifying $17mil+++ budgets for any show that lacks the name value and spectacle of something like Moulin Rouge. It's irresponsible producing."


While this show is one of the more expensive ones of the season, this could literally be said of any Broadway show or any live entertainment show. The cost to run shows in general is completely outrageous. I’m also not sure exactly where people are getting their financial audits of the show from?



People make excuses for the shows they like but bring it up when they don’t like a show. Again, I don’t know why this show in particular is getting piled on, but this all seems like a result of people tantrumming that shows they want (many of which often aren’t even in the works..or real) aren’t on Broadway, and act as if any show they don’t like is taking that fantastical show’s spot, and, in an almost form of protest, say/do whatever they can to deter people from seeing a show they dislike. It continues to get more and more out of control and it’s borderline pathetic in many cases—specifically the dramatic tiktoks and posts about a ticket initiative at Drama Bookshop where less than 10 tickets were given out, but people instead spread that the show was “giving tickets out left and right”. And these are absolutely the reasons why some shows are weary of having these accessible ticket initiatives..the snark never stops.



And don’t even get me started on people critiquing shows because the show ends up being different from what they pre-wrote and pre-directed in their heads.

Robbie2 said: "Reason why this failed and another bomb for Stro is : 1) she cast the 2 leads with average charmless talent and both are unremarkable and not great singers. 2) the book was a disaster and needed major editing of scenes-characters! It's also overproduced and needed major cutting of at least 30 minutes. It was too long and everyone that we know said the same thing along with those exiting the show ...just too long. It will be gone soon."

What do you think will be gone first- this or OUAOMT?

Robbie2 said: "Reason why this failed and another bomb for Stro is : 1) she cast the 2 leads with average charmless talent and both are unremarkable and not great singers. 2) the book was a disaster and needed major editing of scenes-characters! It's also overproduced and needed major cutting of at least 30 minutes. It was too long and everyone that we know said the same thing along with those exiting the show ...just too long. It will be gone soon."


Calling the two leads “not great singers” is laughably outrageous. I strongly disagree with calling them “charmless” (particularly Colton Ryan who I think is arguably one of the most charming male performers on Broadway right now), but that’s much more subjective…but “not great singers” is once again an exaggeration of you maybe not liking their performances, which is fine. Anyone can search up a video of both of them singing and see that they’re both strong singers.

Agreed the show is long, and even though I enjoy it, could’ve used some trimming. The book wasn’t the greatest, and there are a lot of characters we’re introduced to in some way, but very few of them have their own storylines and meld into (mostly) Jimmy’s. For me, the amount of characters and little info that we got about them was very obviously done on purpose because…it’s New York…and not just because they were trying to overstuff a story with a bunch of stories as I’ve seen others suggest. It’s supposed to feel crowded. I’ll also point out that there’s a lot of storytelling told through dance and movement during transitions into different scenes.


Again, the book is not perfect, but it’s like any show that doesn’t follow the most simple and easy-to-follow show structure is deemed to be flawed and done unintentionally.

Calling the two leads “not great singers” is laughably outrageous. I strongly disagree with calling them “charmless” (particularly Colton Ryan who I think is arguably one of the most charming male performers on Broadway right now), but that’s much more subjective…but “not great singers” is once again an exaggeration of you maybe not liking their performances, which is fine. Anyone can search up a video of both of them singing and see that they’re both strong singers.

They didn't see the show because it's literally the only reason why anyone would come to the conclusion that two incredible singers can't sing. It's laughable, delusional, and just a lie. And yes, Colton is one of the best right now in terms of charm and looks on Broadway. Yummy.

FYI: You don't get to have an in-depth opinion about a show you have not seen and complain about it over and over and over again. Illegal recordings don't count, thanks so much.

Updated On: 7/18/23 at 03:49 PM