Oh definitely, I think it would do well on Broadway, but it needs scaling down, which would take alot of detail away from the show!
The show itself could do with a slight re-write anyway, it has it's real highs and lows, the good bits are AMAZING, but the weak bits are just painful!
Maybe they could combine a score and script edit with a whole new set design, as a smaller version of the current set would just look odd, out of proportion, cheap and tacky!
Sister Act is in the wrong size theatre, already a point hit on here, if it was to play a mid-size theatre, it would be a sell out.
The show is very underrated and caught a lot of people by surprise on how good the show is, however the critics were very mixed on Sister Act. coincidentally it is rare we get a show on the West End board that is unanimously loved by, who saw the show, I love the show personally, but I was a stanch critic before I saw Sister Act and yes Patina is 'stellar'.
Ben Brantley gave this show a once over on his London trip this Summer, I leave it up to you to work out if Ben love or loathed this show, but worthy of a read as he reviews 3 other Broadway bound shows as well as Sister Act.
Blaxx, the point that is being made here is that the sizes of the theatres in London are very much different then those in New York. Sister Act would not have fitted in any of the smaller theatres regardless. Therefor, their only option was to go into a theatre that could hold massive sets and have a massive seating capacity.
It is one that is hard to fill to the top to the point of it being successful from a business standpoint regardless of whatever show is playing in it. That is the problem that people are talking about.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
Just for the record, I hope Shrek does not move to the Palladium. Maybe another house on the West End will work for it, but right now Shrek is playing in a 1,761 seat house and is most definitely not selling out. If Sister Act can't survive here, then Shrek most certainly cannot.
I don't know, as I far as I know, major London transfers bring the same set design, if not the closest thing.
winston89 - I understand that, but the show everyone seems to rave about includes the giant sets, and they (the sets) seem to be one of the most appealing parts of it all. What I question is if it could work the same if it was a lot smaller, and I really doubt it would on Broadway.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Goddammit, how many times do I have to say it? People severely underestimate how much the American public associates that movie with the Motown score. It flopped in Pasadena and Atlanta, and my feeling is that it squeaked by in England because the film too squeaked by. I don't foresee a happy ending for this.
"There is no problem so big that it cannot be run away from."
~ Charles M. Schulz
I don't really associate the movie with the score. The songs were a lot better in the second film than they were in the first. I like Menken's songs for the stage production better than the songs in the original movie.
"Therefor, due to the fact that it is in a massive theatre that is almost impossible to sell regardless of the show that is in there
Somehow, I truly doubt that."
Blaxx Conairs is trying to say that the theatre is far to big for any shows to sell it out, it just does not seem to happen, Sound of Music opened to stunnig reviews ad could not sell out, same with Chitty, even Joseph 2 years ago, Sinatra etc. The problem Sister Act has is the running cost must be huge as the set etc is very OTT. The show ALWAYS has empty seats, many of the full seats are sold at discount prices ad the show opened to mixed reviews.
To the people who are saying "why open it in lodon 1st, it's an american story"
It's Sister Act...the worldwide box office smash hit movie, the UK also takes loads of US shows that do very well here, this one has not take off as expected.
Its not closing for another year, by that time it would have had a very respectable run at the Palladium. The Palladium has been staging musicals since the late 70s and very few run more than a 18 months to 2 years. Producers booking the theatre never expect a longer run than that and if it dies then -bingo!
I just hope we get a Broadway transfer soon. Patina Miller is phenomenal on the cast recording so I simply cannot wait to see her in the role.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
I just hope we get a Broadway transfer soon. Patina Miller is phenomenal on the cast recording so I simply cannot wait to see her in the role.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
I think that the issue with the sets might be a non issue with tourists if/when the production transfers. Yes, the London production is getting good write ups for the scenic design. However, I don't think that is something that tourists who visit Broadway are going to either know about or care about if the show comes here.
I think that if they scale the sets back a little for Broadway, there will be no great loss and people wouldn't know what is missing if they haven't seen the original production before.
I mean, take a look at something like Legally Blonde in London. Considering the fact that it is going to be playing in a theatre in London smaller then The Palace on Broadway. They have to use scaled down sets. However, I doubt that is going to be an issue there due to the fact that a vast majority of people seeing the show in London are ones who haven't seen the original Broadway production and aren't sure of how the sets looked on Broadway.
I mean I would be shocked if this is the first story told of a show coming from London that had to alter the sets to fit a Broadway theatre.
and Fosse, you are incorrect in saying that they can't use London sets on Broadway due to union issues. The three golden parts that make the proscenium in Phantom, were in fact built in London for the Broadway production due to the fact that it was cheaper and then shipped over via cargo boat to Broadway.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
MamasDoin'Fine, exactly, I get the impression that they created the huge sets to fit the space that they were in. That they didn't want any extra space and that they would have worked well without a problem in a smaller theatre.
"If you try to shag my husband while I am still alive, I will shove the art of motorcycle maintenance up your rancid little Cu**. That's a good dear"
Tom Stoppard's Rock N Roll
I still think it's naive to blame a theatre for a show not selling well. I think that you really are trying to say is that the production team aimed too high by putting the show in there, when in reality the show only justifies being produced in a much smaller house.
Because, I doubt that a mega-hit musical that sells the same amount of tickets in another theatre would suddenly stop selling tickets if moved to the Palladium.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
I agree Winston and there is no Broadway theatre stage the size of the Palladium, so the job of the designer is simply to fill the space of whatever theatre they ultimately pick. Certainly the PASADENA PLAYHOUSE where the show premiered isn't that large.
'I still think it's naive to blame a theatre for a show not selling well. I think that you really are trying to say is that the production team aimed too high by putting the show in there, when in reality the show only justifies being produced in a much smaller house.'
A problem with London theatre is that we do not have many mid size theatres (1300-1800 seats), which producers find ideal, we only have 5 - Adelphi, Palace, Prince Edward, Shaftsbury and Victoria Palace. Compared with New York which has 16 - Broadway, Gershwin, Hilton, Hirschfeld, Lunt Fontanne, Imperial, Majestic, Maquis, Minskoff, Neil Lennon, New Amsterdam, Palace. St James, Shubert, Winter Gardens, Richard Rodgers.
However London has 4 super theatres (2000+) which New York doesn't, Palladium, Lyceum, Apollo Victoria and Drury Lane, which is great as long as you can sell out your tickets, hopefully at full price initially to pay for the show, if you must sell tickets at discount price you need to fill the theatre as the rent on these houses is going to be astronomical.
This is where Sister Act has failed, it has gone into a too big theatre for the show, I am not talking the show here, the show is perfect, I am talking financial (box office), Sister Act is not selling all its seats and doing too many discounts and comps, so what I am saying is that the theatre is too big for its box office.
Exactly the same happened with La Cage, Saturday Night Fever, Showboat, Fiddler on the Roof here at the Palladium, Beauty and the Beast, Grand Hotel, Barnum at the Dominion, Lord of the Rings, Witches of Eastwick, Anything Goes at the Lane, if these production played mid size theatre the run could of been a lot longer, as the rent would be more manageable.
If 2000+ seater theaters worked New York would of had them up a long time ago. Look at 2 of Broadway's biggest houses The Gershwin and The Hilton both really have not had hit shows, Wicked aside, I bet Wicked wishes New York had a theatre the size of the Palladium!
However if you get to sell out the super houses the rewards are magnificent.
so what I am saying is that the theatre is too big for its box office.
That was my point, the theatre is too big for the show. I was just questioning the fact that the huge production and sets seemed (to me) to be part of why people liked it so much. I just wonder if the show would be disappointing if it's downscaled.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Jeeps, I got the great blaxx to agree with me! lol
With the point ^^ I made above about being a lack of mid-size theatres in London, I think it maybe possible that the producers ha no choice but to take The Palladium, as maybe the only theatre at the time available.
When 'Sister Act' announced its opening dates there was indeed a distinct lack of the size theatre it really needed to play in. Drury lane had 'Oliver!' Adelphi was/is holding out for 'Phantom Dross' Dominion not available for at least another 2 years being the home of 'We Will Rock You' 'Wicked' London's biggest selling show in 15 years ain't vacating the Apollo any time soon. ...it goes on and on.
The London Palladium is a very much desired theatre but not all shows work there.
The set of 'Sister Act' is big but could easily of been done in a smaller stage house.
Popular opinion last March was that two shows, 'Priscilla' and 'Sister Act' should have swapped theatres. I still think this would have been a good option. 'Priscilla is selling better than all other shows except 'Oliver!'. It could have done a set season at the Palladium of 18 months and 'Sister Act' could have had a very healthy run at the Palace. The sight line horrors of 'Priscilla' at the Palace would not have happened at the Palladium and 'Sister Act' has no action that would have been hindered by the Palaces sigh lines. 'Sister Act' will continue to do good business at the Palladium until it close next September. The announcement that 'Shrek' may take the theatre is not this weeks news, its been around for months. That being said, the most likely home for it is going to be the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane and Lloyd Webber is gonna but his new baby, 'The Wizard Of Oz' into his Palladium.
**The Australian producers of 'Priscilla' are in London re-casting this week. The show is now know to be making the Palace its home until early 2011.
And considering the director of SA was fired before opening, I don't think we have to worry about the Broadway version being a carbon copy of the London one... I think they even continued to do work on the show after opening, though they certainly have tinkered with it a lot over the years... it's so close to being perfect...
somethingwicked is the aficionado on all things SA, but hasn't been around recently. Anyone know whats up? I hope all is well.
I've seen it twice in London. The second preview was very, very different to the performance I saw 3 or 4 weeks ago. It is avery strong production as it now stands. Patina is a stunning addition to the West End stage.
Interestingly, and sadly, the production was entirely ignored (along with 'Priscilla') in the LOndon Evening Standard Awartds this year. They were the two biggest shows to open in London this year
