Riedel: Bebe B'way house of horror

Oh my. Nothing we really didn't know. Bebe is really the reason I am most looking forward to seeing this show. I wish they would give her more material.

Lane and the famous title should bring in the tourists in the summer. But, in the end, it looks like "The Addams Family" is shaping up to be this season's "Young Frankenstein."

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/theater/bebe_way_house_of_horror_9KpizbyYBX5A8hw97gaeAO

Updated On: 3/19/10 at 01:31 AM

I think she is talented sad she is in such an awful show.

---

I feel terrible for her. You can tell she's miserable in her performance. She deserves better.

"So Michael writes an article about a supposed unhappy star and that means the show is gonna flop? I don't follow his logic. $15M advance. $1.1M last week at an average price of $113. Even with a high weekly nut, the show is already 30-40% paid off before opening night with that kind of advance."

There's no way this show can possibly pay 30-40% of its investment by opening night. That advance can't be touched. And there are many shows that have had large advances that ultimately flopped. When the reviews come out and people start to stay away, those grosses will sink faster than the Titanic.

"I'm not predicting its success or failure, but I really don't understand how Riedel's mind is coming to these conclusions."

Young Frankenstein also had a healthy advance. It didn't live up to the hyp, and therefore people stayed away.

Hmmm anyone want to apologize to that poor sap who got ripped to shreds for saying that Addams Family had a huge advance?

ChicagoStar -- the show grossed $11M in Chicago. It didn't make $11M in Chicago. My rough guess would be $1.5M in profits or so. Maybe $2M depending on how they managed expenses.

On a separate note, ignoring the usual bitchiness and snarkiness and implied glee in rooting for a show's demise, what fascinates me about Riedel's feelings about the quality and/or dearth of Bebe's material in the show itself and some of the subsequent chatter, is that while I too would love to see Bebe Neuwirth the actress have more to do in a musical theatre vein (the Bebe Neuwirth I remember from decades past), I have my doubts as to whether the character of Morticia really lends itself that much more material than they've given her.

For better or worse, Gomez is the irrepressible imp, the mischief maker, the "master-of-the-revels" as I recall reading in a descriptive paragraph somewhere. Morticia is the paragon of self-confidence (paraphrasing another poster from a few months back), positively stoic in being unfazed by the world at large. In Chicago, her storyline gave her a wider range of emotion to play, and therefore lent itself to more material for her, but the reaction to her more "human" emotions was almost uniformly negative. Now, it seems, they've dialed the emotion back for her which makes her more aloof and cold -- arguably more consistent with the Morticia of the cartoons but less appealing for the audience, and specifically for Bebe's fans (of which I am one).

But I'm honestly not sure it would work to have it both ways -- that is, if we require her to be relatively emotionless, deadpan, unmoved , how much can there possibly be for her to sing about? The sardonic "Just Around the Corner" is perfect for both Morticia and Bebe (as even Riedel seems to admit), and a wonderful Act II opener, but even if her voice was better and even if her physical mobility was somewhat the same as it was 20 years ago, what else should Morticia be singing about that would be consistent with her nature?

Of course, I'm not a composer, lyricist or bookwriter so perhaps there are indeed unexplored themes that Morticia could be singing about while remaining true to her character (I expect subsequent posters to lecture me on precisely that). But I do sometimes wonder if everyone lamenting how little they feel Bebe has to do in the show -- and per Riedel, Ms. Neuwirth's own frustrations with same -- is really a fair critique of the show on its own terms or just fans like me (and Riedel) wanting to see more of her whether or not it serves the show best.

---

They're probably not giving her more songs because she can barely sing the ones she has. I mean, at least when I saw it she sounded terrible.

Then again, the show was pretty terrible, too, so..

What appear to be huge advance sales these days are very misleading. The weekly gross potential for Addams is well over a million dollars a week. That 15 million advance accounts for about 3 months of sellout business. If the ticket sales are spread over a 6 or 7 month period the show could be operating at weekly losses within weeks if the reviews are harsh and ticket sales dry up.

For a good comparison, in 1988, Phantom had an advance of more than 16 Million dollars at the Majestic before it opened. At that time its potential gross was about $500,000. Every good seat in the house was sold for 10 months. Scalpers tickets sold for less than premium seats to Addams!

To match Phantom's advance in adjusted dollars, Addams would need to have banked in excess of 35 million dollars already.

Gosmile, for a "good comparison" you pick the single most successful musical of all time?! By that standard, Wicked is coming up way short.

Point made about the advance being spread over 6 months though.

---

sad man.

Updated On: 4/20/10 at 01:03 PM

Remember, highly anticipated shows like Tarzan and Young Frankenstein had large advances when they opened and both flopped. The $15 million advance is good and the show should last at least through the summer but it's way too early to tell if it'll be a financial hit. If the advance dries up, they'll be in trouble. From what I can tell, it's not shaping up to be a critical hit either.

---

Updated On: 3/19/10 at 01:40 PM

I agree with the spirit of what both GoSmile and Yero have said -- the advance is essentially meaningless from a financial point of view. It may provide a small measure of security early in the run and it may provide a reasonably accurate measure of advance interest in a show, but it can't really be used -- certainly not pre-opening -- as an indicator of success or recoupment.

That said, I do disagree with GoSmile's semantics. A $15M advance -- if Riedel is correct -- is exceptional in this day and age, if only because it is so rare that any show achieves that kind of number. Does it ensure anything for "Addams"? Certainly not. But it still is exceptional.

I also would note that most shows, 'Addams' included, tend to shy away from "promoting" their own advance numbers, especially pre-Opening, so as not to seem arrogant or overconfident -- in particular, in the eyes of critics (who might feel the need to knock them down to size even farther). Indeed, except for Flahooley2 on this board, this is the first time I've seen a specific number for the Addams advance in print. So whether or not $15M is promising or exceptional or even accurate, the only person who is suggesting that we should be impressed with $15M is Riedel himself. At least based on the chatter on BWW, I'm sure the Addams folks understand the finances of Broadway -- as Yero and GoSmile have detailed -- and are no less nervous just because of their healthy advance than they would otherwise be.

---

The argument started: this show will bomb. And some timid soul stepped forward and said "It's got a huge advance- over $11 million already."

So the naysayers immediately charge in: "No, it doesn't! How could you possible know that!? You are a lying shill!"

So now Riedel says the advance is up to $15 Million and the chattering class can't decide if that's a lie or it's not really that much these days or still not a sign this show could be successful.

You're right- it's not proof that this show is going to be a hit, but it absolutely is proof that this is, right now, the most anticipated new show and there are a LOT of people who want to see it.