"Peter Pan Live" — Page 27

#651

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:23pm

he was looking at a place, two stars to the left, a place where time in never planned, it's not on any chart, you must find it with your heart, "Christopher Walken Land!"

I'm literally cracking up at this!

---

Keeping BroadwayWorld Illustrated

#652

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:30pm

First of all, let's just agree that this was MUCH better than Sound of Music.

With respect to artistic quality or execution, I suppose you could argue it was "MUCH" better (although many would beg to differ, myself included). With respect to the final results, however, this year was much worse than last year and has to be considered a disappointment. A 50% drop in unadjusted initial ratings, even while being publicly played off by the executives as no big deal, is very alarming. Especially when you consider that the budget for PETER PAN was, I safely assume, far great than the SOUND OF MUSIC.

Updated On: 12/7/14 at 09:30 PM

#653

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:34pm

Well, I believe it comes down to what you want. Someone who is not talented but draws in people, or someone who IS talented and not as many people know. I like the second option better.

#654

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:36pm

" With respect to the final results, however, this year was much worse than last year and has to be considered a disappointment. A 50% drop in unadjusted initial ratings, even while being publicly played off by the executives as no big deal, is very alarming"

Which is why I even wonder if there will be a show next year. This might be it folks.

#655

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:41pm

Well, I believe it comes down to what you want. Someone who is not talented but draws in people, or someone who IS talented and not as many people know. I like the second option better.


Ah, but the second option doesn't generate as much revenue for the for-profit corporation as the first one does. The massive drop in ratings (and, thus, revenue) between SOUND OF MUSIC and PETER PAN proves that. I'd venture to say Carrie Underwood brought in an additional few million viewers on her name alone. Maybe more.

If you want musical theatre to be in the "mainstream" and you want these broadcast corporations to take risks, you should also be in support of them making choices that will help maintain the financial viability; such as bringing on a mega music superstar like Carrie.

#656

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:52pm

To be fair. I am sure many veiwers felt burnt after the Sound of Music, I know I did and had no desire to invest the time on Pan.

---

Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!

#657

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:54pm

"I'd venture to say Carrie Underwood brought in an additional few million viewers on her name alone. Maybe more."

Or maybe the reason "The Sound of Music" had more viewers is because the movie is one of the most highest grossing movies of all times (adjusted for inflation) and to many people "Peter Pan" is just a kids show. "The Sound of Music" is a much better known property and it's beloved.

Or maybe it's because last year, a "live" musical hadn't been done on TV for many, many years and this year was nothing new.

Or maybe people who saw Carrie Underwoods dreary and amateur acting attempts turned some people off of musicals.

#658

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 9:55pm

You don't experience a 50% drop-off because of that. There's just no possible way.

Had a name bigger than Walken and/or Williams been cast, on the same level of Underwood, their ratings would have been higher. It's a hypothetical so there is no way we'll ever truly know. But that's what I feel.

#659

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 10:00pm

All those factors likely had a hand in it. The success of SOUND OF MUSIC LIVE won't probably be recreated because it was the perfect cocktail of draws. Star, property, novelty, it had it all.

---

Keeping BroadwayWorld Illustrated

#660

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 10:01pm

South Fl Marc. I could care less about Underwood's performance. I'm indifferent about it. Most theatre fans/critics hated it and most of her fans loved it. There's no point in debating that since, at the end of the day, art is subjective.

My post was not about the artistic performance; it was about the financial outcome and I was simply arguing the merits of bringing on a mega superstar/A-list name to a project like this. PETER PAN is a globally known, and mostly beloved, title. Carrie Underwood's performance in 2013 was not the largest contributing factor to a 50% ratings drop in 2014.

#661

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 10:27pm

"this year was much worse than last year and has to be considered a disappointment. A 50% drop in unadjusted initial ratings, even while being publicly played off by the executives as no big deal, is very alarming."

Oh so now you're a television network expert too? There is more than one reason for the lower ratings. One would be SOM was the first, a novelty. Second, no one knew, but they know now, that the show was re-broadcast a week later and available on On Demand and DVD after the initial airing as this will be. The first Pan ratings haven't reflected the DVR's in use either.

#662

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/7/14 at 10:36pm

We have to agree to disagree. Before The Sound of Music Live, I was not an Underwood fan and the reason I sat down to watch on December 05, 2013 is because I love musical theatre and most importantly love the sound of music. I was not disappointed and loved both Carrie Underwood along with the rest of the cast. I enjoyed that show immensely. Despite this fact and as some of you know, I was very sceptic about another Peter Pan and I had predicted the drop in the rates of viewers for the reason that this show had been done to many times for television and even recordings were available. There was also a fact that NBC said publicly the main role might be given to a male actor and then a woman was announced. I also believe that the show had poor marketing.

#663

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/8/14 at 12:52am

The show wasn't a ratings disaster. It was a net positive night for NBC and actually cost only 1 million more than TSOM. TSOM was a hit because of Carrie Underwood and because it's the most beloved musical of all-time which Peter Pan is not. It did half the business of TSOM which is all NBC needed for it to do well. I think NBC is currently still committed to doing more of these but just need to be a bit more careful next time. This means getting bigger names, choosing better known musicals, and being thriftier with the budget.

#664

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 9:53am

Does anybody know if the wires will be painted out for the DVD release and if it will have any editing at all?
I am also curious to know how the ratings will do for the re-broadcast on Saturday

#665

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 10:52am

SNAFU, who was intimately involved with the broadcast, believes they will. Don't be surprised if they do.

#666

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 11:48am

Musicaljen, they painted out the wires rather quickly for the various promos. I was told that they were filming the rehearsals leading up to the live Broadcast to be able to have some better takes if they happened and that they would in fact be removing some of the more obvious wires digitally.

---

Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!

#667

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:02pm

I wondered if there was additional flight footage to replace what was shown on the live broadcast, or if they would go back and refilm that part.

---

Hey Dottie! Did your colleagues enjoy the cake even though your cat decided to sit on it? ~GuyfromGermany

#668

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:04pm

Is there additional footage of the show's actual script being performed (not even touching the new lyrics and additional songs), or has that, too, gone the way of 1955?

---

Formerly gvendo2005
Broadway Legend
joined: 5/1/05

Blocked: After Eight, suestorm, david_fick, emlodik, lovebwy, Dave28282, joevitus, BorisTomashevsky, Seb28

#669

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 12:12pm

I think the new teleplay was always in use. While I enjoyed the new teleplay, I thought it was their mission with these projects to present the material like it was originally presented on Broadway? The Sound of Music didn't receive a new teleplay,So I find it strange that they did it with Pan. I know that Zadan and Meron have had Pan in the works from time to time, and I wonder if what we saw was what supposed to be part of the television remake that was supposed to be on ABC back in 2007.

#670

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 3:43pm

^They did swap out "An Ordinary Couple" for "Something Good" but most productions do that now. I agree that Peter Pan may have been more successful without the revisions. The Sound of Music remained mostly unchanged and the new material in their Peter Pan strayed further away from Barrie's words than any other presentation of this musical that I have seen. The Rigby production seemed to make an effort to restore more material from the original play than even the original Broadway production utilized. This was a bit of a departure. When they did The Sound of Music they trusted the material and the results were in their favor. Peter Pan was like a workshop of a revisal broadcast live on television and everything just sort of fell apart. If they do this again next year I think it would be in their best interest to pick a tried and true title and leave the material as is.

#671

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 3:47pm

Have to wonder how many people may have not watched it precisely because Sound of Music was so bad. Also, let's face it, all else being equal (starry caliber cast, etc.) Sound of Music is arguably a much easier sell than Peter Pan is.

#672

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 3:58pm

Thanks so much for the information. I already pre-ordered the DVD and was really wondering about what changes we might get. Last year the line flub by the Admiral was re-placed from rehearsal footage.
Back to those who are talking about the drop in viewers. From Peter Pan itself I excepted nothing less. Its not as popular as the sound of music and Carrie Underwood. The Music Man might do very well so fingers crossed they will go for that one next year

#673

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 4:03pm

I personally think the biggest problem is that Peter Pan really isn't a very good show. Pretty but bland songs, a fairly dull book, all it really has going for it is colorful characters that can make up for the deficit if they are played well.

It is a show people LOVE but that is mainly out of nostalgia. Is it fun? Sure. But Peter Pan just doesn't have the draw of The Sound of Music.

I am in my late 30's and the only reason I know Peter Pan is because we taped it off of TV on the only time I can recall it ever being broadcast in my lifetime.

Sound of Music is on somewhere every Christmas and Thanksgiving.

Fox's Grease will improve on these numbers, but not hit Sound of Music levels.

---

Baritone in search of a role in a new musical...

#674

Peter Pan comments and reviews

Posted: 12/9/14 at 4:11pm

Does anyone have any news regarding Fox' planned GREASE LIVE broadcast aside from the initial announcement?