Shows that are successful out of town but flop on Broadway?

[Cfried]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:18pm

The first recent production that comes to mind is HONEYMOON IN VEGAS, which had a stellar run at Paper Mill and received raves yet flopped on Broadway. What else?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:28pm

Lennon? It seemed to do pretty well in San Francisco (I saw it there twice).

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:34pm

Ring of Fire did its tryout in Buffalo and was an absolute blockbuster. Then it came to Broadway and quickly folded.

[Sunny11]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:36pm

Financialy speaking some of  the factors of success are different out of town compared to broadway.

• Limited run vs open run
• Smaller house vs a larger one
• lower competition from other shows for audiences
• Cheaper ticket prices out of town 

A like for like comparison can't always be made.

 

 

[steven22]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:38pm

Big Fish! I loved it in NY! 

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:38pm

Sunny11 said: "Smaller house vs a larger one"

This brings to mind On the Town, which I believe did quite well at its Barrington Stage run and would have also done supremely well on Broadway had it not woefully picked the Lyric Theatre.

[TheSassySam]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 5:47pm

Wasn't "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum" a complete flop out-of-town because of the first song? That's why they added, "Comedy Tonight," in the beginning. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 6:01pm

Desire Under the Elms.  The Chicago critics raved the latest Falls/Dennehy production and Chicagoans obediently flocked and gushed over the show.  I couldn't wait to get out of that threatre and didn't understand why they were so rapturous over the incomprehensible unintended silliness happening on stage.  I couldn't imagine it would be embraced in NY.  OOF!

Million Dollar Quartet was a staple for over 7 years in Chicago, but flopped on Broadway (save for the Featured Actor Tony award).  But that was really more about the show simply being too small for Broadway.  At an Off-Broadway house, it would probably still be running.

Updated On: 12/9/16 at 06:01 PM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 6:15pm

I seem to recall  Finding Neverland was sold it's entire ART run

[markypoo]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 6:30pm

Well Desire Under The Elms DID feature Pablo Schreiber's nude derriere, after all...

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 7:19pm

Mister Matt said: "Million Dollar Quartet was a staple for over 7 years in Chicago, but flopped on Broadway (save for the Featured Actor Tony award).  But that was really more about the show simply being too small for Broadway.  At an Off-Broadway house, it would probably still be running."

 

 

It did transfer to New World Stages after ending its year long run on Broadway, and only ran for another year there. I can't imagine that it really would have done that much better if it had opened directly Off-Broadway.

[whatdoesntkillme]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 8:46pm

Not exactly an out of town tryout, but American Psycho was a hit in the West End and flopped on Broadway this past summer. 

[ukpuppetboy]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 9:42pm

"Not exactly an out of town tryout, but American Psycho was a hit in the West End and flopped on Broadway this past summer."

American Psycho in London played a very limited (but sold out run) in a well respected north London producing venue with a loyal fan base and membership. The short run was pretty much sold out before it opened so I'd say it's very debatable that it can be quantified 'a hit' and it is not true it was produced in the West End. The fact that it didn't transfer in actually probably further calls into question it's real success here either.

[gleek4114]

Posted: 12/9/16 at 9:55pm

If I recall correctly, Lestat made more money in San Francisco than any other tryout in that area up to that date (including Wicked). I'm not sure if that is still true today, but we all know how Wicked did on Broadway in comparison to Lestat...

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:23am

gleek4114 said: "If I recall correctly, Lestat made more money in San Francisco than any other tryout in that area up to that date (including Wicked). I'm not sure if that is still true today, but we all know how Wicked did on Broadway in comparison to Lestat..."

It DID get a big pre-sale, largely based upon the WIcked experience. However, the stench of a horrible flop was quickly evident at the Curran. It was anything but a hit in SF.

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:33am

MarkBearSF said: "gleek4114 said: "If I recall correctly, Lestat made more money in San Francisco than any other tryout in that area up to that date (including Wicked). I'm not sure if that is still true today, but we all know how Wicked did on Broadway in comparison to Lestat..."

It DID get a big pre-sale, largely based upon the WIcked experience. However, the stench of a horrible flop was quickly evident at the Curran. It was anything but a hit in SF.

 

"

So people bought tickets to a completely different production before it even started performances solely based on the last tenant of the venues success story? Which had no correlation or connection whatsoever to this new, incoming production?  Seems silly to me. You'd think San Fransicoans would know better. 

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:38am

9 to 5 did pretty well in LA, no?

[rcwr]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:53am

I seem to recall  Finding Neverland was sold it's entire ART run

Yep, it was sold out and adored at ART. I never saw it in NY but a whole lot changed, even admitting that I don't know the half of it.

[oknazevad]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 1:05am

Sunny11 said: "Financialy speaking some of  the factors of success are different out of town compared to Broadway.

• Limited run vs open run
• Smaller house vs a larger one
• lower competition from other shows for audiences
• Cheaper ticket prices out of town 

A like for like comparison can't always be made.

"

 

The the latter two are definitely a factor. Not sure about the first two, though. Without knowing all the specifics, I don't know if a limited run does inherently better than an open ended one. Also, the houses are usually essentially comparable in size, even larger, as they're the often the same ones that host national tours, which are often converted old vaudeville houses or movie palaces. 

 

Updated On: 12/15/16 at 01:05 AM

[Sunny11]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 2:20am

rcwr said: "I seem to recall  Finding Neverland was sold it's entire ART run

Yep, it was sold out and adored at ART. I never saw it in NY but a whole lot changed, even admitting that I don't know the half of it.

"

Reread the reviews from ART, adored isn't an accurate description. https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Review-Roundup-Broadway-Bound-FINDING-NEVERLAND-Opens-at-ART-Updating-Live-20140814

In New York they made over a million dollars a week for the first 6 months and ran 17 months, not exactly a flop.

 

[rcwr]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 2:29am

Sorry, you're right, Sunny11; I didn't mean critics and I should have been clearer. I meant it selling out and a lot of repeat audience and people wishing to get tickets who couldn't. Just the Cambridge word of mouth and vibe around here.

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 3:11am

GreasedLightning said: "Seems silly to me. You'd think San Fransicoans (sp) would know better. "

Agreed. However, there was a lot of love for sometimes SF homegirl Anne Rice, misguided trust in Elton John and a desire to get in on the next big thing.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 9:59am

Henry Sweet Henry received excellent reviews  and did solid business in Philadelphia. Sixty-six performances in NYC at the Palace, which is too bad because it was a delightful musical comedy with great choreography by Michael Bennett.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 10:41am

GreasedLightning said: "MarkBearSF said: "gleek4114 said: "If I recall correctly, Lestat made more money in San Francisco than any other tryout in that area up to that date (including Wicked). I'm not sure if that is still true today, but we all know how Wicked did on Broadway in comparison to Lestat..."

It DID get a big pre-sale, largely based upon the WIcked experience. However, the stench of a horrible flop was quickly evident at the Curran. It was anything but a hit in SF.
 

"So people bought tickets to a completely different production before it even started performances solely based on the last tenant of the venues success story? Which had no correlation or connection whatsoever to this new, incoming production?  Seems silly to me. You'd think San Fransicoans would know better. "

*San Franciscans

I really don't remember this being the case, but I don't remember it not being the case either. I think people were very excited about another new show coming that could be just as good/as big a hit as Wicked. Not to mention the solid cast, and intriguing-at-least creative team.

I was at what I think was Jack Noseworthy's final performance. Lestat was an experience, that's for sure.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/10/16 at 12:53pm

Sunny11 said: "In New York they made over a million dollars a week for the first 6 months and ran 17 months, not exactly a flop."

I don't believe it ever recouped it's investment. So I'd define that as a flop.