Shows that were better on Tour/Regional rather than Broadway?

[anmiller07]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:00pm

Can you think of any? I always preferred RENT on tour as opposed to Broadway, but that was mainly because I thought the tour cast was usually better. Was there ever a time where a tour got more critical acclaim than its Broadway counterpart?

[Quiche2]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:02pm

I thought that the tour of WEST SIDE STORY was better than on Broadway.

[darreyl102]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:08pm

i Thought that 9 to 5 and Memphis's tours were better then when i saw them on Broadway. Especially Memphis.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:11pm

Addams Family

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:15pm

I wouldn't say better because they were both fabulous experiences, but Mary Poppins felt pretty fresh on tour than when I saw it on Broadway.

[tamra2]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:21pm

I agree with Darreyl the 9 to 5 tour was MUCH better

[philly03]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:30pm

-WONDERLAND regionally (pre-Broadway)
-The Chess National Tour that ran in 1990 (?) with Carolee Carmello under Des McAnuff was much better as well.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:37pm

9 to 5 was BETTER on tour?... That makes me wonder just how bad it must have been on Broadway. The tour was tacky, boring, lifeless, and long.

[JRybka]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:53pm

As much as I loved loved loved both Ragtime's on Broadway. I will say that the tour they did a couple years ago was amazing.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:53pm

^ I could say the same about Chess, which was a total fiasco being regularly re-written on the road. The songs were interruptions and lacked any amount of cohesion with Robert Coe's revisions to the Richard Nelson book.

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 2:56pm

I thought the Memphis tour was a lot better than the Broadway production

[coverboyz]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 6:32pm

Agree with Addams Family assuming you mean the tour and not the Chicago tryout.

[NoHSMisNotAMusical]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 7:19pm

Yeah, Addams Family tour for sure.

[Emmaloucbway]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 9:56pm

I agree with the Addams Family tour. The changes made the show way better than the Broadway production.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 11:06pm

I very much preferred the pre-Broadway tour of Jekyll and Hyde compared to what ultimately opened at the Plymouth.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 3:16am

Miss Saigon's 1st national tour was so much better than its Broadway counterpart. That includes cast.

The 2nd national tour was also better than Broadway, but the 1st NT was miles ahead of both. As with all Cammack productions during the 90s, all three reproduced the massive John Napier designs and differences amounted to negligible details. But still, there was something about the 1st NT that provided a much more fulfilling experience.

[Jake01]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 7:02pm

The THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE tour got better reviews than the Broadway production; it probably seemed less overblown without the excessive turntable and working elevator, both cut by necessity. Also, it had a phenominal cast, headed by Darcie Roberts (I always wondered what Ben Brantely would have thought of her, since he found Sutton Foster grating in the role).

[justoldbill]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 7:54pm

The national company of ZORBA, re-thought and somewhat restaged by Hal Prince after the Broadway engagement. It starred John Raitt, Barbara Baxley and Chita Rivera and it was stunning. I was once talking with Fred Edd and John Kander at some event about this production, and they both said, "Oh, you saw the GOOD one."
I can't compare it with New York- that production closed two weeks before I was coming to New York to see it, darn it!

Updated On: 7/24/12 at 07:54 PM

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 7/24/12 at 8:12pm

Patrick Wilson and Sarah Uriarte were significant improvements in the tour of Hytner's production of Carousel. And though the thrust staging had been so breathtaking, the casting made the tour more satisfying. I wish I could say the same for other tours that lost their thrust stagings (South Pacific and War Horse).

[ggersten]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 12:38am

I didn't see it, but remember reading that the Titanic tour was better than the Broadway version - because the necessary stripping of set pieces and "spectacle" let the score come though.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:14am

^ I saw both. And I agree the tour was more effective.

It's one of the few cases in which scale actually does a show no favors in my experience. Also, I did not understand the need for such a huge space on Broadway when the set was mostly, well, empty space. A show that big should have something to show for it, but the space was filled with what appeared to be a Kindergartener's rendering of a ship. The tour got rid of all that extra space and the scene at the end depicting the sinking was a HUGE improvement.

I don't remember what they did with the act one finale on tour that was so hokey on Broadway (a model of the ship--complete with itty bitty, flashing lights--gliding across the stage and striking a miniature glacier as a *crashing* sound effect reverberates within the auditorium. "Cute" is ineffective during what should be a dramatic moment), but whatever it was didn't cause me to cringe as hard, lol.

[sbflyfan]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 7:50am

I thought the changes made to the "Xanadu" set/staging for the tour were better than on Broadway and easier to follow.

Gone was that huge mirror, and instead, Sonny's mural was on the back wall of the set, with the muses coming in and out of the wall, down the ramps and onto the stage. I always questioned the trap door used on Broadway... if the muses were DESCENDING from the heavens, why have them rising up from below the stage?

The mural was much easier to see when it was projected on the wall, instead of reflected in the mirror used on Broadway. It was a pretty cool animation and looked very realistic.

(Also, during "Suspended in Time," the wall opened up and revealed a starry night sky as Clio rode Pegasus. It was just a minor addition the Broadway production didn't have, but it added a little extra to the scene).

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 07:50 AM

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:16pm

For those of you who say that the Memphis tour was better than Memphis at the Shubert, I have a question about the staging.

On Broadway, there are lots of entrances and exits that use not only trap door, but fast-moving trap doors. And, the big radio station box center stage comes out of the stage too. Are all of those entrances and exits, as well as the radion station, just done from the wings?

[Wildcard]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:29pm

"I didn't see it, but remember reading that the Titanic tour was better than the Broadway version - because the necessary stripping of set pieces and "spectacle" let the score come though."

I thought the Titanic tour was one of the worst tours I've ever seen. I love the score of this show but sadly, the spectacle is part of its appeal. The sinking of the ship on tour was such a sorry sight. People coming out of the theater when I saw it were all pretty vocal about how they hated the show.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:48pm

As much as I liked the Broadway production of Hairspray, I actually preferred the national tour when it first opened in 2003.

I also enjoyed the Wicked, Memphis and Chorus Line (revival) tours more than their Broadway counterparts.

Regionally: I liked Roundhouse Theatre's production of Our Town (2001) much more than the Broadway revival starring Paul Newman.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 01:48 PM