I think the real problem may be that while Spring Awakening has its fanbase, producers may still doubt its commercial viability (which as Michael Riedel reported was supposedly a reason why Falsettos was postponed).
Well that sucks. At least they advertised it as a 'limited run', so it isn't so bad as an open ended run shutting up early. My hopes of it potentially transferring to another theatre and continuing on are pretty much dashed though hope this doesn't affect its potential Tony nominations.
The thing is, besides being an utter toad of a human being, Riedel usually has the least knowledge of the topic in the room. He doesn't usually understand the content or approach of a show, and is always completely and unfailingly socially ignorant, which makes it really infuriating when Susan can't get a word in edgewise. A definitive mansplainer; it's always painful when he has female guests. I watch the show sporadically when I really want to see a guest, because it's the only theatre talkshow we have, but it would be so much better without this hateful clown in a dadcoat. (thanks ScaryWarhol)
haterobics said: "c0113g3b0y said: "Well that sucks. At least they advertised it as a 'limited run', so it isn't so bad as an open ended run shutting up early."
I get that. But announcing that your previously open ended run production is closing shop early sounds worse comparatively, IMO lol
Limited runs can end earlier than expected, too.
"
The thing is, besides being an utter toad of a human being, Riedel usually has the least knowledge of the topic in the room. He doesn't usually understand the content or approach of a show, and is always completely and unfailingly socially ignorant, which makes it really infuriating when Susan can't get a word in edgewise. A definitive mansplainer; it's always painful when he has female guests. I watch the show sporadically when I really want to see a guest, because it's the only theatre talkshow we have, but it would be so much better without this hateful clown in a dadcoat. (thanks ScaryWarhol)
Please keep in mind that the 2009 critically acclaimed (yet short-lived) Broadway revivals of both Finian's Rainbow and Ragtime were remembered with several Tony nominations, including Best Revival of a Musical.
c0113g3b0y said: "I get that. But announcing that your previously open ended run production is closing shop early sounds worse comparatively, IMO lol"
I go the other way. If a show says 16 weeks only! Strictly Limited! And tries to sell itself quickly based on scarcity, and everyone is like, eh, that's OK, we're good... that seems worse to me.
haterobics said: "c0113g3b0y said: "I get that. But announcing that your previously open ended run production is closing shop early sounds worse comparatively, IMO lol"
I see what you mean.. guess it sucks either way. really wanted to see this production succeed tbh, even if it didn't extend.
I go the other way. If a show says 16 weeks only! Strictly Limited! And tries to sell itself quickly based on scarcity, and everyone is like, eh, that's OK, we're good... that seems worse to me.
"
The thing is, besides being an utter toad of a human being, Riedel usually has the least knowledge of the topic in the room. He doesn't usually understand the content or approach of a show, and is always completely and unfailingly socially ignorant, which makes it really infuriating when Susan can't get a word in edgewise. A definitive mansplainer; it's always painful when he has female guests. I watch the show sporadically when I really want to see a guest, because it's the only theatre talkshow we have, but it would be so much better without this hateful clown in a dadcoat. (thanks ScaryWarhol)
It's a real shame it's not catching on, but to the layman theatregoer- the tourists who comprise the vast majority of ticket sales- this show was on Broadway in very recent memory, and the advertising doesn't do much to make it clear why this production is distinctly different.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Kad said: "It's a real shame it's not catching on, but to the layman theatregoer- the tourists who comprise the vast majority of ticket sales- this show was on Broadway in very recent memory, and the advertising doesn't do much to make it clear why this production is distinctly different.
that's what I'm thinking too.
The thing is, besides being an utter toad of a human being, Riedel usually has the least knowledge of the topic in the room. He doesn't usually understand the content or approach of a show, and is always completely and unfailingly socially ignorant, which makes it really infuriating when Susan can't get a word in edgewise. A definitive mansplainer; it's always painful when he has female guests. I watch the show sporadically when I really want to see a guest, because it's the only theatre talkshow we have, but it would be so much better without this hateful clown in a dadcoat. (thanks ScaryWarhol)
When I have mentioned show options to people visiting town as well as locals, and describe this show as the show I am most excited to see and a seemingly good option, everyone has immediately said: Any other options?
this saddens me...i saw this production in LA and it blew me away - far exceeding what the original did...andmy god, it doesn't seem like that long ago i saw the original on broadway.
you haven't already had the chance to see this, check it out.
id put it in my top 10 theatrical experiences of all time
He wasn't the lead producer on either of those...I think the biggest factor is that Broadway audiences have a weird sense of time, and 9 years feels too soon for this show. It was like when Les Miz came back the first time: the sense was, 'oh, did it ever leave?'
Does it really matter whether something has come or gone? Either you've seen it or you haven't, you want to see it again, or you don't. Whether it's been on holiday in Florida in the meantime is irrelevant.
To me, this seems like a niche production- not everybody likes sign language as part of the choreography. Why should we assume it would have wide cross-over appeal?
devonian.t said: "Does it really matter whether something has come or gone? Either you've seen it or you haven't, you want to see it again, or you don't. Whether it's been on holiday in Florida in the meantime is irrelevant.
To me, this seems like a niche production- not everybody likes sign language as part of the choreography. Why should we assume it would have wide cross-over appeal?
I don't think that is the case. It's a case of the average theatregoer / tourist looking to see a show thinking that this production is the same as the 2007 production based on the marketing / advertising of this revival.
"
The thing is, besides being an utter toad of a human being, Riedel usually has the least knowledge of the topic in the room. He doesn't usually understand the content or approach of a show, and is always completely and unfailingly socially ignorant, which makes it really infuriating when Susan can't get a word in edgewise. A definitive mansplainer; it's always painful when he has female guests. I watch the show sporadically when I really want to see a guest, because it's the only theatre talkshow we have, but it would be so much better without this hateful clown in a dadcoat. (thanks ScaryWarhol)
devonian.t said: "Does it really matter whether something has come or gone? Either you've seen it or you haven't, you want to see it again, or you don't. Whether it's been on holiday in Florida in the meantime is irrelevant."
I think it's extremely relevant. The bulk of ticket buyers are out-of-towers, people for whom going to New York and seeing a show is a luxury and rare event. Why would they spend money to see a revival of a show they can remember seeing in the recent past?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
I worked on the Deaf West "Big River" 12 years ago and it was the same problem. It was very hard to get people interested and in the door. Once they were there, virtually everybody loved it and found it profoundly moving, but getting them there proved a real challenge. And that had the advantage of the Roundabout subscriber base.
It's a shame but sadly not a surprise. I think it sounds to the uninformed like "special needs" theatre where it's about supporting the performers rather than seeing a great show, but that could not be further from the truth. With "Big River" a problem was that it was a title that people weren't excited about, so that coupled with the ASL device kept people away. There was hope of a commercial transfer, but the extension at the Roundabout sold very badly and that was that. The tour was similarly difficult to sell, and we didn't have the advantage of word of mouth because we had short runs. The recent-ness of SA I think is hurting this one similarly.
I wish there were an obvious solution but I can't begin to think what it would be.
I think it's extremely relevant. The bulk of ticket buyers are out-of-towers, people for whom going to New York and seeing a show is a luxury and rare event. Why would they spend money to see a revival of a show they can remember seeing in the recent past?
But that's what I said- if they saw it before, where they have been in the meantime is irrelevant- either they'll fancy seeing it again or want something new. It's the same as this "Is Wicked/ Lion King/ Phantom still running?" business. To tourists new to Broadway they are new opportunities. To those who've been before, they'll either fancy a re-visit after their time away or opt for something they've not seen. What the production has been doing in their absence makes no difference.
I don't think they've nearly enough to advertise why this production is different and unique, as compared to the original production which didn't close that long ago. The logos are even very similar, for goodness sake.