"But in the theatre world, a flop means that a show did not make it's money back by closing."
I've been working in the theatre world for 20 years and I disagree with that. Some people have come to define it as that over the years. But traditionally it means more than that.
Here's what Ken Mandelbaum says:
I believe "flop" is a broad term that can be defined in a number of ways. For the purposes of my book Not Since Carrie: 40 Years of Broadway Musical Flops, I defined a flop as a musical that ran under 250 performances and did not return its investment. (A show like The Roar of the Greasepaint---The Smell of the Crowd managed, thanks to a pre-Broadway tour, to make back its investment in under 250 performances.)
I did not define "flop" as a show that failed to return its investment, because there would have been far too many titles to include. Indeed, celebrated shows like Sweeney Todd and Into the Woods failed to return their investment in their initial Broadway runs.
However, some sources, like Variety, tend to define "flop" just that way: as a show that failed to return its investment. And yes, by that standard, many distinguished shows were flops. I choose to draw a line between financial flops and artistic flops. Many shows that failed to return their investment were strong shows."
We don't even know yet if Grey Gardens has made back its investment. And it will have run over 300 performance, not including off-BWay, by the time it closes.
In any case, by any definition, even yours, I don't think we can call it a flop yet.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
