Posted: 5/4/22 at 9:06am
No crystal ball required. With last weeks gross of $206,000 and a capacity of 54%, there is no likely way this production can survive even the potential of a slew of Tony nominations next Monday. A double page ad or two and post opening buzz has sadly not helped . The curse of mixed reviews and that damn lamp post..
Posted: 5/4/22 at 9:10am
Or that the show isn't that good. Not a curse, a result of the production. (Despite a singular standout performance.)
Posted: 5/4/22 at 9:28am
As I, and others, have said in other threads:
There’s no point in speculating about when Paradise Square will close, or whether it will be able to last until Tony noms. The powers that be have already demonstrated that they’re willing to bleed money for it. Whoever is funding the show, we have no idea what their breaking point is, because whatever it is, it’s based on emotion, not logical economics. For all we know it will keep playing for the next 6 months (but probably not)
Posted: 5/4/22 at 11:07am
PARADISE SQUARE isn't a really bad show. It's not a blockbuster for sure but it isn't a turkey. There is plenty to enjoy in this show but gone are the days when these Grade B musicals could enjoy respectable runs.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 12:21pm
The show hasn’t targeted an audience because it doesn’t seem to know who its audience is. Originally aiming to be Les Ragtimeables, it feels like a theater experience without a knowable profile. Can you build sales around a single eleven o’clock spot? So far, no. It has one of the hardest working casts on Broadway, to a person, but no obvious marketing budget and again, no well communicated product to offer theatergoers as consumers.
Updated On: 5/4/22 at 12:21 PM
Posted: 5/4/22 at 12:32pm
It's hard for a producer to understand the Broadway audience when you haven't worked on Broadway since the Clinton administration. A lot has changed in the theatre since then. And during that time he STILL didn't learn to step back and let creative teams do their jobs.
The show probably would have been better without Garth's constant meddling, and it would have sold better –– maybe not drastically better, but nevertheless better –– with a different ad campaign and a proper ad budget. C'est la vie.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 1:50pm
This seems like a show that should be playing as much TV performances as possible, but they’re choosing to spend their money on a cast recording.
It would have had a whole special episode if Rosie’s talk show was still on.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 2:00pm
A professional recording of "Let It Burn" is worth it, imo.
Updated On: 5/4/22 at 02:00 PM
Posted: 5/4/22 at 2:08pm
dramamama611 said: "Or that the show isn't that good. Not a curse, a result of the production. (Despite a singular standout performance.)"
A lot of awful shows run for much longer. It's also a matter of luck and timing, which they didn't have.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 2:41pm
There is one, and only one person to blame for Paradise Square’s demise: Garth Drabinsky
Posted: 5/4/22 at 2:42pm
Well in these topsy turvey covid times, nothing is "normal". (And I don't disagree^)
Posted: 5/4/22 at 3:17pm
GiantsInTheSky2 said: "This seems like a show that should be playing as much TV performances as possible, but they’re choosing to spend their money on a cast recording. It would have had a whole special episode if Rosie’s talk show was still on."
The press agents can pitch it as much as they like, it's up to the producers of those talkshows to book the shows they want to showcase. They could do multiple talkshow performances for the cost of a cast album, since they don't pay the talkshow for that exposure, it's just a matter of talent/rehearsals/transportation. When a show gets awful reviews and when there are so many other, worthier Broadway shows to spotlight, you're up you-know-what's creek. It's nobody's job to be charitable to a flailing show at any media outlet. (There's also the issue that this show is repped by The Press Room, whose only other major client is Hamilton, which has already been covered to death and doesn't do TV performances, so there's very little for them to leverage.)
A TV performance on a morning show doesn't move the needle all that substantially nowadays when you don't have famous people involved or existing buzz to stoke. Plenty of shows that Rosie spotlighted still flopped, same with Whoopi on The View.
The show is, simply, a bomb, and there's barely anything that could be done to change that at this point. Had the Tony noms come out yesterday, we probably would have received a closing announcement today or yesterday.
Updated On: 5/4/22 at 03:17 PM
Posted: 5/4/22 at 3:31pm
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "
A TV performance on a morning show doesn't move the needle allthatsubstantially nowadays when you don't have famous people involved or existing buzz to stoke. Plenty of shows that Rosie spotlighted still flopped, same with Whoopi on The View."
When Whoopie and the women say "You MUST go see this show - it's AMAAAAAAAZING", you know they're giving it the kiss of death and it will be closing soon.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 3:51pm
There are so many reasons for this abject failure but Garth's fingerprints are on all of them. This includes responsibility for the show's sluggishness, interrupted exhausting near-endless finale numbers (and I didn't dislike the show LOL); second or third string collaborators and associates (largely due to so many people unwilling to work with Garth) [it's true that Garth has not produced a show in this century, but it is also true that his director is not a musical theatre person and has never directed a Broadway musical, big or small; his set designer had not designed a Broadway set in a decade and had never designed a big Broadway musical; ditto his general manager; and on and on.] And then there is the matter of the (now inexplicable in light of the current spendthriftery by virtue of which the show continues to bleed profusely) money problems that hampered the show from the get-go and through the early previews when it developed a reputation for delays and cancelled performances. The good news is that the show will provide an excellent case study for educating future producers and GMs.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 6:45pm
Dollypop said: "PARADISE SQUARE isn't a really bad show. It's not a blockbuster for sure but it isn't a turkey. There is plenty to enjoy in this show but gone are the days when these Grade B musicals could enjoy respectable runs."
Auggie27 said: "The show hasn’t targeted an audience because it doesn’t seem to know who its audience is. Originally aiming to be Les Ragtimeables, it feels like a theater experience without a knowable profile. Can you build sales around a single eleven o’clock spot? So far, no. It has one of the hardest working casts on Broadway, to a person, but no obvious marketing budget and again, no well communicated product to offer theatergoers as consumers."
As someone who tends to see a lot of flops (because it's easier to get tickets) I agree it isn't a terrible show. It comes very close to working and with some changes it could be a more satisfying theatrical experience. It just has the feeling of a show that's been workshopped too long and that couldn't let go of ideas that don't quite work. I thought about Les Mis and Ragtime and Newsies and Hamilton. It somehow feels less radical than all of those shows. It's not woke enough for the eat the rich crowd and the fact that there are just two random lesbians who help Angelina and only heterosexual couples patronizing Paradise Square is strange. The show's specificity presented with those universal lyrics made it feel exclusionary in a way those other shows do not. Women who aren't the leads are barely represented which is an issue because, unlike Ragtime, these women aren't really representative of the whole community. There's a little too much choreography and the story gets too muddled for the kind of Les Mis/Newsies audience that wants an easily digestible story. The rallying moment is also the most unintentionally hilarious song. It wasn't an empty artistic endeavor but I do not know who this show is for.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 7:40pm
Vintage Snarker raises a cascade of compelling missed opportunities. Refreshing take indeed. To me, the piece frets so about framing teachable moments it falls into presentational agit prop; not preaching to the choir, daring the choir not to embrace its lessons. Too little is dramatized, too much is footnoted. The many hands that shaped the narrative were terrified the audience might miss any potential parallel with contemporary America; as a result, we’re deprived a needed ingredient in dramatic storytelling: allowing audience discovery.
No one believes we get it without help. It’s a damned good chunk of America’s origin story. Yet from the top we’re warned that we must see ourselves in the unfolding tale or we lack an appreciation of our gnarly racist history, hell, powers of analysis. Broadway attendees are savvy, educated folk. A little trust would have gone a long way.
Updated On: 5/4/22 at 07:40 PM
Posted: 5/4/22 at 11:16pm
I mentioned in the previews thread that I thought the show was far far stronger in Berkeley a few years ago. Back then, it had real edge and artistry to it (not to mention a completely different main character) and just a general sense of dignity that it no longer has.
The show has, through the ravages of time and poor producing (as well as the loss of Marcus Gardley), turned into schlock eerily similar to Riverdance. I can't say I'm surprised nobody wants to pay to see it.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 11:20pm
It makes me sad because there IS a good show in there! It needs about a third cut, another third rearranged, and a solid chunk rewritten (including new lyrics). So many storylines and themes that are introduced and immediately squashed, or not carried through the rest of the show. Tonally it can’t decide what show it wants to be which prevents any real flow. I understand that conflict is necessary, but damn.
There’s good music, dancing is the strongest aspect (even though it’s sometimes structurally overdone), and the cast is FANTASTIC. They really are doing great things with less-than-stellar material. I want this show to be better for them more than the audience.
I hope that whatever future this show has, it comes with changes. It wouldn’t be rocket science to make this work.
Rant brought to you by seeing this again this evening. There was a technical error in act two that held us up about 15mins. Bravo to this really talented cast.
Posted: 5/4/22 at 11:41pm
I agree with the recent comments. It's so much easier to just dismiss an awful show or love a great show. This one is frustrating because it's somewhere in between –– amidst not-great elements there is a powerhouse performance, an interesting story concept, thrilling choreography, and a few songs that I wouldn't mind hearing again.
It's frustrating because in a world where it looks like some shows don't try nearly hard enough or are cheap cash-grabs, this one almost tries TOO hard.
Posted: 5/5/22 at 1:08am
Synecdoche2 said: "I mentioned in the previews thread that I thought the show was far far stronger in Berkeley a few years ago. Back then, it had real edge and artistry to it (not to mention a completely different main character) and just a general sense of dignity that it no longer has."
Stephen Foster has been reduced to a plot device. Points to the actor for managing to make this character not annoying but, as far as I can see, he only serves two purposes in this incarnation of the show. He's there so someone can play the piano and to introduce the idea of someone being paid to entertain at the bar. It's forced writing especially because it makes no sense that Owen and Washington both want to earn their keep through dancing. (Nelly has so many lines about her husband carrying things. Why wouldn't she put them to work doing manual labor?) And later, he's there so that
Joah/Washington can get caught and Nelly can get in trouble. There are any number of other ways for Tiggens to find out Nelly has been hiding him.
The cast is truly great. They manage to almost avoid being dragged down by the material.
