The point is, I would guess, that the show survived mediocre reviews and went on to have a five year run. The Times couldn't kill it, and neither could the culture vultures. The Tony telecast certainly brought it to the attention of a wider public, but a five year run is not the result of a Tony telecast -- it's the result of an adoring audience that creates word-of-mouth. That audience didn't consist of avid theatergoers, to be sure, but of a general public that had a great time -- for five years, which ain't hay. It's a relatively cheap show to mount, and will have low running costs, so why not? The question is whether that adoring audience has completely aged out of theatergoing, given that the song catalogue they adored was mostly from the late '50s and early '60s. That will be interesting to see. As for the talent on stage, which was extraordinary, they were mostly unknowns and probably will be again, since there isn't a star part that would attract a real star. So it's a good opportunity for letting some really talented people show off what they can do. Personally, I'm up for it, but, then, I remember those songs with a lot of passion.