No Star....No Broadway Show- Page 2

[maybethistime]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 1:11am

This is debatable, but I just wanted to bring this up to *try* and make a point.

The original production of GYPSY opened 1959 starring Ethel Merman, who at that time, was a nation-wide, well-known BROADWAY actress.
Ran for 702 performances.

The next revival was in 1974. It starred Angela Lansbury. At that time she had been nominated for 3 Academy Awards, 4 Golden Globes (Won 2), and already won 2 Tony Awards out of 2 nominations. She is a considerable "name".
Ran for 120 performances.

The next revival was 1989. It starred Tyne Daly, who had already earned 4 Emmys, out of a handful of nominations, and been nominated for 4 Golden Globes all for her work on the long running tv show "Cangey and Lacey." She had only previously been on Broadway in a flop play in the sixties.
Ran for 476 performances.

The final reviavl, which I'm sure most of us are fimiliar with, starred the incomprable Bernadette Peters. Possibly the last Broadway-made star, who is known for being a Broadway-star. She already has 2 Tonys, out of 4 nominations, and a Golden Globe, plus more than 40 years of professional and merited theatre work beind her.
Ran for 451 performances.

I know there are countless other factors that go into making a show a hit or a flop, but I don't think that in todays theatre a star absolutley MAKES the show, and we've all seen with the HUGE, OVERWHELMING SUCCESS of "Sweet Charity" with Christina Applegate. Shows that are selling their tricks or their logo like long running "Les Mis", or "Phantom" cycle through some stars, but mostly just employ "unknown" broadway actors and still sell out. Brooke Sheilds cound't keep "Wonderful Town" open. "Chicago" gets better reviews with its "unknowns" than with misfire "names" like Paige Davis or Melanie Griffith. Hugh Jackman was good, but "Boy from Oz" closed after he left. Joey Fatone couldn't sell out "Little Shop" while across the street, "unknown" Marissa Jaret Winokur is blowing the roof of the "Hairspray" box office. "Millie" ran for a few years with virtually no one. My point it that times have changed and big names CAN'T keep shows open anymore, and since Broadway doesn't "make" stars any longer, if a show wants to stay open, GOD FORBID it actually be good. The "Cabaret" Revival ran for a few years, not becuase of the "somewhat" "washed up" stars it sometimes had, but becuase it was great theatre.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 1:14am

Great points :claps: did you research that?!

[Forester]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 1:17am

Maybe the problem isn't the stars, but with the producers? Maybe they haven't kept up with the time when it come to publicity technique? This would be a great study for somebody's MBA. Have any of the opening musical try using the guerialla marketing technique?

[La Vie Boheme]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 1:55am

I just came back from it tonight...It was better than some broadway shows ive seen hands down. i dont see why it didn't make it...im sure theres a real reason and not because the show wasn't good enough. I actually met two people from broadwayworld there! it was a ton of fun!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 2:06am

MaybeThisTime:

I love your statistics. Good work! I do want to point out that in the case of GYPSY, Tyne Daly at the time of the 1989 revival was probably a more recognizable name to the general public then Lansbury in the 1974 production or really Peters in the 2004 mounting. Daly was coming off an enormous television hit, and her celebrity no doubt fueled that production. It also helped that the revival received rave reviews and won multiple Tony Awards.

Which leads me to where I think you are going with your post. I stand by my arguement, that while no, of course you don't need Tom Cruise to star in a show in order for it to succeed on Broadway, Tom Cruise could, nonetheless, make a hit out of just about anything he appeared in, regardless of the reviews (assuming he stayed with the show long enough for it to recoup).

But unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for some)Tom Cruise is not starring in many Broadway musicals of late. Nor are stars of his current calibre.

Most of the "celebs" braving the Broadway boards are, and lets be honest here -- B stars. Brooke Shields, Christina Applegate, Joey Fatone (okay make that a C- star). These names need solid reviews and a solid vehicle behind them. Indeed it would probably take a Nicole Kidman or Renee Zelwegger (A list Celeb) to be able to sell out a WONDERFUL TOWN or SWEET CHARITY on today's Broadway.

Shows that don't have a star quotient generally need reviews or brand recognition to sell them. And sell them, they often do -- WICKED (brand), HAIRSPRAY (reviews - and lets be realistic, nobody was going to see the show just to see Marisa Jaret Winoker).

And sometimes you get a show like CABARET or CHICAGO which gives us a mix of all three -- brand recognition, reviews, followed by celebrity replacement casting.

There is no tried and true formula to having a Broadway hit. But bringing this back to SWEET CHARITY, the topic at hand, it becomes clearer and clearer that under the given circumstances, the Weisslers made the right decision.

Oh, and one last thing. Melanie Griffith got a rave review in the New York Times for her work in CHICAGO. But, she didn't really need it. The show was sold out the entire time she was in it. Guess that makes her a bigger star then we thought!


Updated On: 3/27/05 at 02:06 AM

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 2:24am

Don't confuse quality with the need for big names.

Quality with no names = an average chance to run

No quality with a name = better than average chance to run

Quality with name= big hit.

Why was Les Miz and Miss Siagon able to run forever with no star casting? Quality of production. Ave Q will run without name cause of quality. Spelling Bee will run cause of quality.

Producers bring in star names as the draw for the audience. You could put J Lo in BKLYN tomorrow and it would sell out. The average audience doesn't care if the show has won a Critics Circle award. All they want to do is say they saw Whitney Houston in Sound of Music.

[Marquise]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 2:26am

Walter Bobbie said it all when he was quoted in the paper about Charlotte stepping in for Christina Applegate

"When we started to do the show, we thought of Charlotte, but we couldn't raise $8 million on her name."

and THAT FOLKS is SHOW BIZ...

Updated On: 3/27/05 at 02:26 AM

[jarred03]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 2:32am

I understand what you are saying, but I have to say that shows like Sweet Charity that isn't superly famous or relies on one specific lead character than they need a star to carry it to opening, whether it's a hollywood star or a broadway star, they needed a star and Charlotte whoever is not a star.

Also shows like Good Vibrations and ASU do not need big stars in the show because people already know the famous music, the Elvis and Beach Boys are big enough stars to keep those lame shows open. I'll bet they won't last too much longer.

Honestly, I don't see the big problem with having "stars" open shows sometimes it really works out well. Don't forget the great Broadway work of Bebe Neuwirth, Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick, Marissa Jaret Winoker and Harvey Fierstien, Toni Braxton, Venessa Williams, Bernadette Peters, Alan Cummings, Phylicia Rashad, Denzell Washington, Richard Dreyfus, Tim Curry, Hank Azaria, and David Hyde Peirce, and the list goes on and on.

Actors are actors and I don't think people shouldn't be able to work on Broadway just because they are movie or television stars. As an actor myself, I want to be able to work in theatre and film without being labeled as one or the other.

[maybethistime]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 2:00pm

It seems that for the most part, a big star could bring a show to broadway, but more often than not, and "unknown" Broadway actor can garner better reviews. I don't think that if Tom Cruise was in a Broadway show it would automatically be a hit. No matter what, audiences want quality. Whether it's a bunch of no-name, no-expirience teenagers or if it was Tom & Nicole together in a play, no quality = no show.

[Ruth Sherwood]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 3:33pm

I don't think a show takes a star's name to be successful. "Wicked" is a success not because people knew who Idina Menzel or Kristin Chenoweth are. It became a hit because of the spectacle and the fact that you don't have to think to understand what is going on. "Wonderful Town" with a well-known star, Brooke Sheilds, didn't make it because you do have to think to understand the wit of the show. (I personally did not care for her performance, but she is still well known and she did receive very good reviews.)

So, while I do think a star's name will definitely help, it is not the only thing that will get people into a theatre.

Updated On: 3/27/05 at 03:33 PM

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 6:43pm

Yes, you need a star ... but sometimes the SHOW is the star.

Nobody checked the cast before buying tickets to A CHORUS LINE, and the people lined up to buy tickets at the Winter Garden probably couldn't name a single cast member for MAMMA MIA, and does the average theater-goer have any idea who any of those people in WICKED might be?

Sometimes the performer is the star. Did anyone really care what show Hugh Jackman was in?

You need one or the other.

When you have a SHOW that is a "star", combined with a performer who is a "star", you end up with a megahit a la HELLO DOLLY and the original FIDDLER.

[ShuQ]

Posted: 3/27/05 at 7:06pm

I think it depends on the show. You can't definitely put your finger on it.

I agree with TSR...if you have a good show...the cast doesn't have to be a star. You still need talent but not known talent.