Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:00pm
As the title suggests, which shows were considered to be more successful (better received by critics, made more money) in other cities/continents (e.g. Amazing Grace in Chicago, Dr. Zhivago in Australia) than they did on Broadway/in New York?
Updated On: 11/10/15 at 08:00 PM
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:07pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Honeymoon in Vegas much better received during its run at Papermill?
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:10pm
I'm not exactly sure, but I think it was better received at Papermill. Many people did have high expectations for Honeymoon in Vegas before it opened on Broadway though.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:12pm
Mack and Mabel was huge when it opened in San Diego and then LA. The reviews and the word of mouth were sensational. It had a long pre-Broadway tour that also included St. Louis and DC. By the time it opened in town they had played about 4 months.
But the closer M+M got to New York, the more there were grumbles about how there were problems that no one (which really means Gower Champion) could fix.
And the show never really worked.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:24pm
Honeymoon got respectable reviews here. What sunk it was the asinine decision to have a 2 month preview period encompassing the holiday period for a show that did not need nowhere near that long
I saw the original M&M. The show was fine but it was a sad story in real life so that is the way it had to end on stage. It deserved a much better fate.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:28pm
Big Fish was another show that failed to transition well after its run in Chicago if I recall correctly? Is it possible that a lot of shows make adjustments that are unnecessary before transferring to Broadway? Or is it more plausible to assume that the adjustments they make on productions are not enough?
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:34pm
The latest revival of Les Mis was very well received in Toronto, but received mostly mixed reviews when it opened on Broadway, if I recall correctly. I believe most of those less than stellar reviews focused primarily on the strength of the cast, but I believe I am mistaken on this one?
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:36pm
Finding Neverland was trashed out of town too, but critics, like Brantley, held their tongue more since it was " work in progress" .
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:40pm
Big Fish was another show that deserved better. It was fine in NY. Many people never heard of the movie.With prices spiraling out of control,people are being more selective and picking and choosing more than they used to. As a result, some shows fall by the wayside. Fish was one of those shows.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:40pm
Duplicate post
Updated On: 11/10/15 at 08:40 PM
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:42pm
It seems to me that for any flopped show, you can assume it did better out of town.
(A). It had to be successful enough to get to Broadway in the first place
(B) there is probably a lower standard in the various out of town spots, especially since audiences know they will still be working on it.
(C) financially speaking, there is less competition against Broadway-bound shows out of town. More local people will want to go see it, because of its high-profile nature. Once it's on Broadway, it's up again all the other shows
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:45pm
I definitely agree that Big Fish deserved better. The strength of the music alone was enough to keep it running. You're right in saying that it was not a well known film so it wasn't a big deal when it was adapted for the stage. Those who were not aware of the film would see the title alone and have no idea what it was about.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 8:47pm
I will always and forever believe that Honeymoon in Vegas deserved better.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 9:05pm
As I mentioned initially, Amazing Grace was well-received in Chicago, but was definitely not as well-received on Broadway. Personally, I felt as though the subject matter and title alone were enough to keep it from being successful but again that's my personal opinion.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 9:46pm
The 2002 'revisal' of FLOWER DRUM SONG was a hit at the Mark Taper in Los Angeles in the fall of 2001, extending its run an additional five weeks from the original December 2, 2001 closing date until January 13, 2002. The critical response was very favorable. It came to NY in October, 2002, received mostly negative reviews, and closed after 169 performances in March, 2003.
In the olden days (when I was young) shows frequently tried out in Los Angeles and my hometown of San Francisco under the auspices of the Civic Light Opera, which presented four shows, each running for about 7 weeks, each year. They had a huge subscription base, guaranteeing large pre-sold audiences, so a tryout show with bankable stars such as GIGI (Alfred Drake, Agnes Moorehead, Maria Karnilova), LORELEI (Carol Channing), THE ACT (aka SHINE IT ON) with Liza Minnelli, HOME SWEET HOMER (aka THE ODYSSEY) with Yul Brynner, and THE GRAND TOUR (Joel Grey) played to full houses regardless if the shows were very good or not. So although you could call them 'successful' because they made money, one could argue that, if the shows had not been part of a subscription series, they may not have finished out their runs.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:06pm
Tanz der Vampire, the original version of Dance of the Vampires, has been well-received and even beloved pretty much everywhere else it has played, with maybe one or two exceptions. It's a shame that they thought American audiences wouldn't enjoy a show that the rest of the world embraced and decided to make all of those unnecessary changes.
I'm still hoping that the English-speaking world will give Tanz another chance someday by either opening it in the West End or even something smaller like a national tour or Paper Mill Playhouse. It really is a great show that deserves better treatment. (And I just want a cast recording with the original score in my native tongue.)
Updated On: 11/10/15 at 10:06 PM
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:15pm
Vampire musicals, much like Wildhorn shows, are dead and buried. Their time has come and gone and the critics have decided they must protect the public from both. It ain't fair but then again who said life was fair.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:18pm
Did vampire musicals ever really have a time at all?
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:23pm
Pardon the pun but they were D.O.A. before they opened.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:25pm
perfectlymarvelous said: "Did vampire musicals ever really have a time at all?"
I guess if you count that tiny bundle of years where DotV, Dracula, and Lestat all came around one after the other.
To be honest, Roxy, the reason these shows did so poorly wasn't because the stories had to deal with vampires, but rather because these productions all just seriously sucked, and they absolutely deserved the horrible reviews that came their way. Lestat would have been ten times better if they had just made it Interview With the Vampire: The Musical; at least then the story would have actually had focus. As for Dracula and DotV, look no further than the videos on YouTube featuring the German productions; now THAT is how you put on a good vampire musical.
Since the vampire musical onslaught happened so recently, I understand why American producers are hesitant to put on shows with that subject matter. However, I really do think that, with time, we could grow past that and give the genre another go, because there really are so many ways one could make it work.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:30pm
The new revival of Side Show got rave reviews everywhere they played except could not sell tickets at all. When I saw it in DC, the theater was probably 50% full, as well as when I saw it on Broadway last November.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:31pm
Disagree re Lestat. We enjoyed it. DOTV was a camp festival . Would love to have seen Tanz
Re Dracula, we like Wildhorn and enjoyed it as well. It was not the greatest thing we ever saw but it was enjoyable. Since Wildhorn's name on it, it was doomed to fail
Updated On: 11/10/15 at 10:31 PM
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:35pm
Dr Zhivago was by no means financially successful in Australia, as far as I know (or at least, it didn't meet expectations). It might have received slightly better reviews than Broadway, but we are notorious for being overly positive.
The FOLLIES revival was not a disaster on Broadway (in addition to great reviews, it did very well financially for about half the run, and I think probably still holds the record for highest grossing Sondheim show in a single week on Broadway). However, in DC it was basically sold out for every performance for the entire run there. I realise the comparison between a 1100 week theatre in a 1-1.5 month limited run is different from a 1600 seat theatre for a 5 month run, but still.
Posted: 11/10/15 at 10:35pm
"The sponge was a hoot!" -- Mr Roxy on Dance of The Vampires, 12 years ago
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
