Shows that were expected to run much longer?

#1

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 7:55am

What are some shows that you thought or that people thought in general would run for much longer?

I believe Billy Elliot was expected to run for much longer in fact i'm shocked that it closed so soon after being sold out for most of 2009 and doing pretty well in 2010.

Another one is Sunset Boulevard which i think was expected to be another mega-musical that would run for years

Titanic???

Jerome Robbins Broadway???

Sweeney Todd???

#2

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:29am

Billy for sure cause it did so well at the box office and review wise as a whole. Sunset had a lucrative start at the box office while Glen Close was starring and after she left the box office fizzled. The show was also very expensive to run. Jerome Robbins ran for just about as long as a show of that nature should run. Titanic ran actually a tad longer than it should have. Sweeney was a dark Sondheim musical and as artistically wonderful as dark Sondheim musicals are they never seem to run for all that long. I believe the original La Cage was expected to have a longer run. Also Rent eventhough it lasted about 12 yrs was expected to run even longer. Avenue Q also ended it's Broadway run sooner than I expected. Memphis is running much longer than it should have.

#3

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:30am

I feel like the original RAGTIME was meant to be a mega-hit....a massive theatre was built for it, a history of the USA and topical issues (racism etc.), great performances, score and special effects (fireworks?)...to me it seemed like it wanted to be an American tourist attraction that would have run indefinitely...but maybe I have the wrong impression.

---

Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.

Updated On: 5/7/12 at 08:30 AM

#4

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:35am

Totally agree about Ragtime

#5

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:37am

Also comes to mind is last years Catch Me, while it was far from a mega hit it should have run longer than it did.

#6

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:39am

Agree with Ragtime and wasn't The Producers supposed to run forever on Broadway?

#7

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 8:45am

I also find it interesting that Ragtime made 44 million during 1998 selling 725,217 tickets. That show would never have such an incredible wide appeal today as it had not that long ago.

#8

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:08am

Titanic
Ragtime
Billy
Beauty and the Beast
Tarzan
South Pacific
The Pirate Queen
The Woman in White
Women on the Verge
Spamalot
The Producers
Shrek

Updated On: 5/7/12 at 09:08 AM

#9

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:09am

Various productions of GYPSY might well have been expected to run longer than they did, starting with the original production which received glowing reviews yet ran for just 702 performances. Perhaps Ethel Merman had a say in the modest run of this hit, wanting to take the show out on the road for 6 months. After all, what star of today would stay with a show for 702 performances, let alone tour with it. And who would have replaced Merman, if the show continued on Broadway?

The Patti LuPone GYPSY also received excellent notices but ran for under a year and frequently at less than capacity. I believe it was expected to run longer.

---

"Madam Rose...and her daughter...Gypsy!"

#10

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:10am

Catch Me If You Can
9 to 5

#11

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:12am

Victor/Victoria started out doing very well but fizzled

Beauty and the Beast (really? 13 years ain't bad)

The revival of South Pacific ran for 996 performances (couldn't they just have fit in 4 more shows to make it to the 1000, that's very odd to me)

Young Frankenstein is a great example

#12

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:28am

I feel like Disney was trying to set The Little Mermaid up as a big, long-running show, given all the money they spent on it. Shame it turned out so badly.

#13

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:54am

Yes, SP and Batb had amazing runs, but both were expected to run even longer.

#14

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 9:59am

The Odd Couple, reuniting Lane and Broderick.

Unfortunately, the show was terrible.

#15

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 11:53am

Billy Elliot
Women on the Verge
42nd Street revival
Next to Normal
Hairspray
Xanadu

---

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

Updated On: 5/7/12 at 11:53 AM

#16

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 12:15pm

Yeah, Billy Elliot is the first one that comes to mind for me.

#17

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 12:39pm

The Scottsboro Boys
Amour
Taboo
King Hedley II
Gem of the Ocean
Radio Golf
Anna in the Tropics

#18

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 12:56pm

Next to Normal and Xanadu we not expected to run longer even in the slightest, they were suprise "hits" (I have hits in quotes because Xanadu technically was not a hit since it did not recoup, but it ran 12 times longer than anyone expected...a year) both shows ran longer than much longer than many expected them to run..especially being such small shows

Also on the note of Shrek the Musical I was at opening night and one of the producers was talking to me and he told me they had budgeted the show so that it could recoup after running 3 years with a 50% capacity...which I guess went out the window at some point, since it did but its gross potential percentage did hover around the 50% and did take a nose dive in October, but then recovered. They honestly could of kept it running...its holiday, spring,and summer grosses, would have made up for the slight losses in the fall and winter.

#19

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:16pm

WeeThomas, The Odd Couple starring Lane and Broderick was a planned limited engagement from September 2005 - May 2006, and even got extended until June. Tickets sold out the first day, within hours. I think it did pretty well...

#20

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:23pm

The producers of Xanadu honestly were pleased it ran as long as it did. I'm sure they wanted longer purely from a fiscal standpoint, but they told me many times "We were told a month, but lasted a year." They had another Whoopi-style stunt cast all set and ready but that fell through so they announced closing hoping to get a new "name" in the show.

Shrek may have budgeted that, but the theatre has a right to kick a show out if the show falls below a certain point and a new offer is made on the theatre. I think they'll recoup in London, tour, and I'm sure ametuer groups. Who knows, though?

#21

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:37pm

@nasty_khakis
Being given an eviction Notice by the Neaderlanders is the only reason I can think of for it closing..based on how they budgeted the show
Also I have a feeling thats also what happened to Mermaid or Cameron Mackintosh was like "No you are not closing Mary Poppin's so that you can move Mermaid into the New Amsterdam...." since their grosses were pretty even and add to that the New Amsterdam has 300 more seats than the Lunt Fontaine and you realize Disney was likely making way more money off of Mermaid than they were Poppins...If I had to bet Newsies is going to have the same fate as Mermaid despite selling out week after week...the only reason Poppins is still open is because Disney is not its sole producer

#22

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:45pm

SPRING AWAKENING was supposed to be the next RENT.

#23

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:48pm

The revival of South Pacific ran for 996 performances (couldn't they just have fit in 4 more shows to make it to the 1000, that's very odd to me)

Is there something about round numbers that's important to Broadway?

#24

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 1:58pm

I was really sad that Next to Normal and Billy Elliot and Hair didn't run as long as they should have.

#25

Shows that were expected to run much longer?

Posted: 5/7/12 at 2:48pm

I truly believe Beauty & The Beast would have run longer.
I also think Ragtime & Billy Elliot too.

I remember when City of Angels (or was it Will Rogers Follies) closed and the times did an article about how it decided to close early to keep them wanting more. And it was actually a good idea instead of overstaying it's welcome.

---

"Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion's starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don't see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it's not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it's always there - fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge - they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that love actually is all around."