The numbers concerning "A Tale of Two Cities " are scary

I think that this show will do fine. I don't know if I would add South Pacific to the list of shows you mentioned. Only because it is playing at a non profit and I am under the impression that numbers are done differently there.

I think that there are people who are skeptic who are waiting for reveiws to come out before they buy tickets.

And, since I know people on this forum LOVE to compare this show to Les Miserables. Here is another way that they can. When Les Miserables opened in London it didn't get good reviews. It was word of mouth that got it to be the success it is today. I think that that will be the case for Two Cities.

---

Great word of mouth can kick a show into the stratosphere, no doubt about it. And a reversal of fortune can begin the next day when reviews cone out singing the praises
of a song.

But the numbers as of now and admittedly based on a very small sample, suggest to me that the backers didn't do enough due diligence and if that's the case these folks have a mountain to climb.

By way of comparison, "Spamalot" broke records for advances sales bringing in $20m and Billy Elliot is already at the $10m mark. Taking in $3m is the kind of money a retread drama takes in.

The bottom line is, ticket sales are reflecting the mixed reviews and that has got to change to give this show a fair shot at success.

It would be sad it the show fails because from concept to opening night, all the principles--the director, Miss Santoriello, and the producers were all first-timers who didn't have the necessary experience to find or create income streams that
would fatten their coffers enough to allow them to survive the imminent assaults of
Dreamworks (Shrek) and "West Side Story".

I heard Miss Santoriello originally had written an adaptation for Wuthering Heights but found it too nihilistic. "A Tale of Two Ciites" became her project by default.

There have been a lot of red flags (no pun intended) surrounding this show and now the numbers are indicating it is a show with major hurdles ahead of it.

Updated On: 8/26/08 at 02:17 AM

It's good, not great. But it's still the best advance sales going on.

---

Don't forget that group sales don't have to pay upfront, I would imagine that by the time Billy Elliot opens it's advance will be closer to $15 million

I was at a preview Wed and was blown away! We Loved it! My 18 year old daughter and her boyfriend were so moved by the show they went out and bought the book! At intermission it seemed to me that most people were feeling the same!

Are they doing 7 shows this week and next?

I think they only did 6 previews this week...next week they are doing 7...then it starts 8 shows a week.

Re: "Buzz":

Perhaps you should revisit those threads where posters speak of their "reviews" and remind them that they are not really "reviews". I believe the most recent was a guy named "Robert".

You know precisely what I'm talking about whether I use the words "review", "opinion" "report", or "buzz".

Money.

Sarasota not withstanding, opening a show of this magnitude in terms of cast requirements and staging is a high-wire act with so relatively little in the kitty.. My guess is that tickets in Sarasota didn't go for more than $100 and the competititon for an audience wasn't quite as keen.

The people behind Spamalot had the foresight to give the show a quick run in Chicago, where audiences are more similar to those in New York.

I hope the show is wonderful and that it makes it! It would be great to have one of the all-time classic stories in the mix for the new season... but you are right it's a tough "nut" to crack. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if the new season beats the recession!!!!!

Dear Eagleman, i never used the word nihilistic to describe anything - no less "Wuthering Heights"! Depressing maybe, but not nihilistic! And I definitely never took on "Tale" by default (whatever that means) Surely nothing you remain passionate about and committed to for over 20 years can be your project "by default"!!!

This thread really smells of agenda to me. Eagleman, I've read your other posts (many of them bashing this show to no end) and in other posts, you've demonstrated a high degree of knowledge on the business, which means you would know that:

1. $500k is a very standard nut these days. Every show coming to Broadway is going to be close to that number so what's your point? This is not an extraordinary point for this show.

2. I don't know if the theater in Florida was for profit, but if it was, then you know that they put funding into the development as part of the deal. As such, the recoup wouldn't be for a full $16 million (assuming that is the right number to begin with). I don't know the answer to that because I don't care. Then again, I'm not starting threads about it and if you are, then you should know the answer to that question.

3. You argue that the producers didn't have the "street smarts" to wait for more investors. What does that have to do with your argument? Are they short on funding?

My point is that it seems suspicious to start a thread knocking a show using very simplified facts to help your argument when you've demonstrated in other threads that you do understand to some degree how complex the numbers can be when producing a Broadway show.

---

Miss S:

There was nothing intended to be derogatory about the word "default". I should have used the word "serendipitous" instead.

I married my wife by "default"-as she admitted was the case with her marrying me.
My first fiancee broke off the engagement; I never would have. Now, I'm thrilled she did.

My wife's first "great love" similarly jilted her and after having two kids and 20 years later we still joke about being the "consolation prize" for each other.

Here's what I read in NY1:

“I had already written a really, really terrible ‘Wuthering Heights’ musical, and my brother convinced me, go somewhere else with that because everyone's dead at the end. It's just depressing, you need to have something positive,” said Santoriello. “So I looked around for another story that would be equally romantic and epic and have all those passions that I found so intriguing as a teenager. And I read ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ and I fell in love with it.”

I apologize for attributing the word "nihilistic" to you, although I think the depressiveness your brother felt was because there were elements of nihilism in the book, so much so, that you couldn't find something "positive" about it.

That's kind of how nihilism feels and there are many shades and colors of it.

Max Stirner's take on nihilism , for instance, employed the term to individuals who believed that anything that stood between that person and his or her freedom must be destroyed.

Heathcliffe, clearly, felt that many things stood between him and Catherine and he once stated that he would be willing to kill every human being on earth to possess her. Similarly, to exact his revenge upon Catherine and to achieve his aims he employed an arsenal of sociopathic weapons--forced marriage, bribery, violence... .

At any rate, you clearly found a story more redemptive and less brooding in nature, and, again, I presume, if you could have cracked the code of "Wuthering Heights", that might have been the musical opening in a few weeks rather than "A Tale of Two Cities".

That's what I meant by "default" and it is not a derogatory insinuation.

George Washington became president "by default". His dream was to attend Annapolis.

I believe the world is a better place because he "backed into" the Army.

So, my apologies. It may not seem so, but I'm quietly pulling for your show to be the
sleeper of this year. It would be a great story for everyone concerned.

I know everyone's expecting "Billy Elliot" to ride into town like "The Phantom of The Opera" did in 1988 on a wave of hysteria but that's the great thing about the street:
you never know.

While Sir Elton is pumping millions into "Lestat", "The Jersey Boys" comes in the back door.

Here's to your success.

Updated On: 8/24/08 at 02:37 PM