SPRING AWAKENING RUN -- why so short for a Best Musical?- Page 3

[gypsy4]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 1:34pm

I think SA was mocking broadway.

[jake6970]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 1:39pm

I think that In the Heights will definitely follow SA's trend...do great business for a while riding the tony success and then taper off really fast.

[KathyGriffinLovesYou]

Posted: 10/26/08 at 1:42pm

Everyone left at the same time. And it's so innappropriate and scarring I was ripping my hair out reading the script.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 7:45am

I think this is going to be more and more the way on Broadway and everyone (me included) has to adjust their internal numbers for how many performances is a big hit. The super long runs just dont' seem to be as common, for many factors, and I think to consider a show like Spring Awakening a non-success is ridiculous.


"PASSION won four: Best Musical, Best Book, Best Score, and Best Leading Actress (Donna Murphy). But the show was so bleak, and the production was problematic, so audiences stayed away. "

It also really divided critics--like most Sondheim it gets a lot more praise now (particularly the divine score) than it did back in '94. I think the production was pretty great though I suppose many think they had poor balance between the leads.

[Noel&Cole]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 10:22am

Go back pre- 2000. Most Best Musical winners didnt run for year after year. They lasted two seasons and when their way. CITY OF ANGELS, NINE, WILL ROGERS FOLLIES, TITANTIC, and MILLIE to name a few ran for about 800-900 performances and went on their way. AND THAT IS OKAY! Its still a victory. I do not think it is healthy for Broadway to have everything to run for 8 years. SPRING AWAKENING's success is wonderful and should be celebrated. It is amazing it lasted this long, and here's to them!

I hate to dissappoint the fans but IN THE HEIGHTS will likely last about the same amount of time as SPRING AWAKENING.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 6:29pm

Totally agreed (though I suspect Heights won't run quite as long ) Though of course many on here like to go on about how half those shows you mention are officially "flops" (but let's not start that up again...)

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 11/4/08 at 8:11pm

"Sondhead, the show has made musical theatre history. For one, it won 8 Tony Awards, a near sweep. What was the last musical to do that?"

The Producers won 12.

Paul W. Thompson, you can add Follies to your list of shows that won lots of Tonys, though not best musical, but had relatively short runs. It won seven.

"The original production of West Side Story ran for 732 performances"

West Side Story is an interesting case because it was doing good business when it closed. When Prince announced the closing, he then put the show on twofers and suddenly it was doing good business, albeit with a lot of tickets being sold at a discount. Seems that there were a lot of young people who'd heard about it but couldn't afford to see it. Suddenly they could and they went in large numbers.

But a tour had already been booked for after the closing and it was too late to put together a second company. So after the tour, the show came back to Broadway and ran for another 249 performances. It was fairly common for shows to come back to Broadway for a short return after the national tour closed (back in the days when it was rare for a show to tour before the Broadway production closed), but not for seven months. I tend to think that the original production of WSS really ran close to 1,000 performances because that return engagement was a return of the original production with the original leads.

"Well, you have to remember that SWEENEY was also playing the Uris (now the Gershwin) one of the biggest houses on Broadway. Had it played at the Booth or the Shubert, it probably would have had a somewhat longer run."

But, of course, that production could never have played in the Booth or perhaps even the Shubert.

During most of the first year of the run, it sold more tickets each week than any other show on Broadway, but I think it still never played a full week at capacity.

Had it played the Shubert, it probably would have run at or near capacity for most of the first year, but business went down significantly when the original leads left. So I'd guess that the run wouldn't have been much longer, and that it might have closed at an even bigger loss than it did had it played at a theatre the size of the Shubert.

"I think that In the Heights will definitely follow SA's trend...do great business for a while riding the tony success and then taper off really fast."

It's already running down, although admittedly most shows are suffering right now.