No Star....No Broadway Show

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:00pm

With the closing of Charity, it sends a message once again that without a "name" or "semi-celeb" in the cast, today's musicals don't make it to Broadway. DRS with Lithgow, Spam with everyone, Little Women with McGovern (and to a lesser extent Sutton).

Yes, we're lucky to have the Spelling Bees, All Shook Ups and Good Vibrations (lucky..hmmm), but it's becoming a star driven, Melody Barn kinda business.

In the 1950's, Charity would have come to town without Applegate. In 2000's, it would take Tori Spelling to bring this in. Sad.

Updated On: 3/26/05 at 09:00 PM

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:07pm

Millie didn't really do that. It what made Sutton a star. I'd be willing to disagree. Although to an extent I see what you mean.

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:11pm

we live in an age where movies have inspired broadway- and so middle america expects movies (and their stars) on the broadway stage...fortunitly- it is reversing and broadway is being taken to the cinema street...everything is in cycles...i have complete faith- this fad will go away.

[Tiny-Toon]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:19pm

Brooklyn opened without a name.

[musicnmath]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:25pm

I think it closed because it was a bad show (I saw it). Christina and her "star power" would not have made it better. Maybe would have sold a few more tickets, but it still would not have lasted as bad reviews spread. It was just not Broadway/NY worthy.

[Marquise]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:39pm

muscinmath,

you are missing the point of mr. tuttle's thread. he didn't say christina and her *star power* would have made the show better.
his point was that in today's day and age producers rely too much on recognizable household names to *sell* their shows. whether they make a show *better* or if the show actually lasts is another matter entirely.


Updated On: 3/26/05 at 09:39 PM

[Al Dente]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:44pm

Really? How do you explain Jackson and Gambetese headlining ASU? Or, the fact that even with some of the worst reviews in recent memory, Good Vibes is STILL running and there's not even a remotely famous person in that cast, not even by nonsensical BWW standards. When WICKED arrived very few people knew who Menzel and Cheno were and Foster is still no ones idea of a household name. There hasn't been a name, let alone a star in Chicago in forever and the list goes on. Charity was and has always been a tepid show at best and with Bobby and Cilento at the helm, it didn't stand a chance with or without Applegate.

[thespian geek]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:47pm

Brooklyn opened without a name.

Technically, yes, but it had all the Wicked fangirls backing it up because of Eden.

When WICKED arrived very few people knew who Menzel and Cheno were

Yes, but people know the name Joel Grey.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:53pm

They weren't spending upwards of a hundred dollars based on Grey's name. He's not a big star now and hasn't been for quite some time.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:56pm

Again, that fanbase for Espinosa did NOT bleed in to the rest of the real world. No one knew who she was and I venture to safely say, people still don't.

[TonyaFanatic]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 9:58pm

in regards to the All shook up and good vibrations shows, the star of those shows are Elvis and the Beach Boys. when u have a jukebox musical, that's what attracts the audiences.

[filmgirl325]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:00pm

Let's also not forget Avenue Q...it had no big names in it when it opened...and look how sucessful it is...when push comes to shove...big named stars are only a novelty. They draw really well at first...but a lot of times you take away the name and it doesn't draw as well.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:00pm

Broadway has always depended on a star to sell the show.

In the 50's, SWEET CHARITY might have been a vehicle for Mary Martin or Judy Holliday, who were both box office draws. The difference was that until the 1970s, Broadway had legitimate stars known around the country for being simply "Broadway Stars;" Ethel Merman, Carol Channing, Gwen Verdon -- they were featured regularly on the covers of magazines like Time and Life.

Those days are gone, and there are few, if any, names that could pull a crowd from middle America simply for being a "Broadway Star." Maybe Bernadette Peters and Patti LuPone, but even that is arguable.

Because there aren't any real stage stars with nationwide exposure, it's natural for producers to look to the world of television and film. Who else is the majority of the audience going to recognize?

The exception are shows that are high concept -- that sell themselves, without a star: WICKED based on the most beloved- soure-material-film ever made, MAMMA MIA!-- the pre-existing score is the star. AVENUE Q -- completely unique pop culture derivative.

I'm not even going to include something like BROOKLYN in the discussion, because it falls into a different conceit all together called -- Producer with deep pockets.





Updated On: 3/26/05 at 10:00 PM

[Al Dente]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:04pm

Thank you and Bravo Michael Bennett. I have been trying to get that same message across since I joined this board and you did it in a paragraph. My hats off to you.

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:20pm

I think it was just poorly-planned Broadway Economics. You can make a show work without a star, but that requires a good show as the active ingredient. and that involves sitting and actually watching the shows, which seems silly when all you have to do is swing by the Musicals shelf of Blockbuster, write down the titles and there's your season!

Charity is something that no one is going to go to see without a big star in it, and a star can sell that show. But this is one of the countless lessons that can be drawn back to the MERMAN FACTOR. In this case MERMAN teaches us that:

The star vehicle can only be truly effective if your star is built to last or if it's a Jerry Herman show.

But really, anyone can argue that Judy or Ethel were just more talented or dynamic than whoever it is the kids are hyping, that's not the issue. but in the end it's a question of durability. Merman and Channing- both built to last. And that Chita is going to outlive us all!

to carry a star vehicle, the star must be virtually indestructible; we're talkin' MERMAN Attendance, or maybe 1 missed show throughout the run. Pacing and balance, things MERMAN teaches us all.

if your star is going to be running around breaking feet this early in the run, imagine how many she'd be up to by the Tonys. that's when you have to be a real producer, protect the investment with an executive decision, and make the character legless. maybe on a wooden car or in a wagon, and just u see how fast that foot heals.

on that note, anyone know if charity is sold out tomorrow? I'm going to be in Boston for easter but remembered I'm not catholic.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:27pm

Matt, your arguement about attendance is a valid one: when your show is selling out pretty exclusively because of the involvement of HUGH JACKMAN or ANTONIO BANDARES, even one absense a week is perhaps enough to generate enough ticket cancelations to put the show's weekly running cost into the red.

But I must say, that in Applegate's case, her injury was just a freak accident. You could argue that she didn't have enough training or stamina to carry a long run of the show if she had broken her foot during a dance number, but she broke it swinging off a lamp post. That could have happened just as easily to an otherwise resiliant star like Ethel, Mary or Chita.

And I only partially agree that the star driven show has to be of a HELLO DOLLY calibre in order to run. True Mary and Ethel had their ill guided "star flops," but shows like THE BOY FROM OZ and WILDCAT received pretty horrible reviews and managed to sell out anyway, as long as Hugh and Lucy showed up to the theatre.

Sometimes, in dealing with star power, the wattage of the star seems to make a difference.

My guess is that if Nicole Kidman somehow decided that she wanted to star in a revival of SARAVA or VIA GALACTICA, the show would run regardless...






Updated On: 3/26/05 at 10:27 PM

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:35pm

Actually, Merman missed more than one performance of GYPSY. She was out for about a week and a half due to a blood vessel that burst in her throat.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:36pm

Well, let's be clear here.

Charity was and is a STAR VEHICLE and came to Broadway the first time in 1966 starring Gwen Verdon -- one of the biggest stars on Broadway at the time (and EVER).

Brooklyn has been struggling along at barely break-even grosses since it opened and has likely not repaid more than 10-20% of its initial capitaliztion. If it closed tomorrow (not saying that it will), it would have lost the vast majority of its initial investment and thus be a flop.

Good Vibrations has lost money most weeks since previews began and will likely never get close to recouping its producers' initial investment.

Applegate, even prior to her injury, had not been proving to be a major box office draw in New York (or on the road) thus far and even prior to her injury, Charity's advance in New York was fairly mediocre (which is one of many reasons that the Weisslers decided to pull the plug on the revival).

MILLIE was a flop on Broadway -- it only recouped 80% of its initial investment, despite running two years and winning the Best Musical Tony (Urinetown, incidentally, recouped).. Sutton Foster, talented as she is, is NOT a star that sell tickets to the masses, as anyone paying attention to Little Women's weekly grosses knows.

Some shows don't need stars to sell tickets and recoup-- Wicked, Avenue Q, Urinetown -- but others do. A Sweet Charity revival without a star was going to be a tough sell -- that's why it closed.

Updated On: 3/26/05 at 10:36 PM

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:36pm

Q made its stars

[ashley0139]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 10:58pm

hehe. It's "the merman factor".

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 11:04pm

oh I have nothing against Christina Applegate. her presence on the TV during my formative years might actually be the root of my continued, admittedly baffling heterosexuality. but I remember the crush I had on her, that was love my friend.

I'd be happy if Christina wound up taking another shot at Broadway. But if this Weissler lawsuit stuff is true, then I wouldn't count on it any time soon

so I didn't mean so much to say anything about the relative frailty of her feet, rather it speaks to the frailty of the situation! the producers let the entire haphazard structure come together. all it took was a freak accident, you lose the star instantly and are left lying to the public to buy time until official doctor's reports come back.

Charity not only has to be able to perform the dancing, she has to stay healthy enough to do it so many times a week, and a little fatigue is all it takes to miscalculate, land the wrong way, and suddenly you've broken everyone else's foot too.

for an almost iconic character like Charity who is defined and set apart from other spunky musical theatre chicks by the dance element of the show you, as a producer, wouldn't take as big a risk unless you have a standby that you believe can sell the show in acceptable amounts.

it's a shame Charlotte didn't get the chance to open in in NY, but the pre-sales are so ghastly as it is, it would have just been unpleasant for everyone involved. and we musn't forget what's important here: Terrence Mann needs to focus on his Broadway return. And Charlotte did of course get to open in CARRIE. Any word on her plans? Chicago probably needs her.

Posted: 3/26/05 at 11:06pm

I thank Michael Bennett and Al Dente for their insightful posts and agree wholeheartedly.
I can't help but think about the times we live in. There has been much debate on here about whether message boards like this one can make or break a show. While I don't have a firm opinion on that, you can't argue that with the media today (including TV and the internet), a show might have a totally different life that it may have had without the speed of light technology allowing us to know more about backstage drama, reviews, opinions, gossip, etc. Prior to the 90's, a show as mediocre (my opinion only) as Sweet Charity did good because Gwen Verdon was starring in it. It probably would have happened the same way (closing out of town) should Gwen Verdon be doing it today. Producers need to protect their pockets more than EVER before and as a result, we will never have the kind of broadway that the generation before us had.
Additionally, it hit me that the type of Music, Movies, and Entertainment in general that was "mainstream" prior to 20 years ago was much more narrow a field than it is today. There is so much more to choose from in each of those genres, and as a result, people's tastes are more diverse. A-list celebrities of yesteryear were so big that people really didn't focus on the B, C, and D List Celebs. Now, with reality TV, and the internet, those B, C, and D listers are psuedo A-Listers. My point is... Broadway stars back in the day were considered A-List because they were great at their craft. And they drew crowds, and shows did well. To someone outside of the theatre world, the Sutton Fosters, Idina Menzels, Sam Harris's, Lillias Whites, Michael Cerveris', etc. are nobody. And while I don't have more light to shed as to why, I still think it's a shame.

Updated On: 3/26/05 at 11:06 PM

[Princeton78]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 11:07pm

According to today's Boston Globe, Charlotte is going back to "Chicago."

[Broadway Matt]

Posted: 3/26/05 at 11:36pm

now there's no reason to talk about Merman's blood vessel throat incident. it may be true, and just for the record, I do like Melissa Errico. I like those Q stars too, whose names escape me, but don't forget an immutable truth about both melissa and john t: MERMAN would win in a fight

Posted: 3/27/05 at 12:32am

So what you are saying is it would take mega watt celebs like Tom Cruise or something to get a show to be a hit today...

I dont think so--- look at Wicked and Avenue Q- no big stars just plain talent...