Posted: 2/5/16 at 8:38am
I agree. Both sides of the Atlantic there are good and bad and occasionally exceptional shows.
Billy Elliot was amazing, but so is Hamilton.
Ghost was yikes, but so was Spiderman.
Both have shows to be jealous of. Both have their shames.
Posted: 2/5/16 at 8:45am
But in terms of revivals, I'm not following the logic that just because Funny Girl is revived in London it can't be revived on Bway as well.
Silly.
Posted: 2/5/16 at 3:21pm
devonian.t said: "I agree. Both sides of the Atlantic there are good and bad and occasionally exceptional shows.
Billy Elliot was amazing, but so is Hamilton.
Ghost was yikes, but so was Spiderman.
Both have shows to be jealous of. Both have their shames."
Sure but Billy Elliot came to London over ten years ago, Hamilton opened on Broadway 6 months ago. Obviously it's not impossible for the West End to produce a brilliant musical, but it is clear that Broadway is doing a far better job of that in the last 20 years or so at least.
Also the vast majority of West End shows that succeed well go to Broadway and run for years. The same can not be said of the other way round. Rent only lasted a year or so in the West End. Spring Awakening flopped. Next to Normal still hasn't appeared. So in terms of musicals at least, London has much more to be jealous of.
Posted: 2/5/16 at 5:21pm
Yes. The West End do produce some great musicals (e.g., Matilda - acknowledging that it didn't exactly start in the West End, although neither did Billy Elliot). However, Broadway and New York more widely are absolutely the centre of the world for the production quality, innovative musicals. It's a great achievement and a badge that should be worn strongly and proudly. I am so proud of the creative output of this great city (nb. no patriotism at all, I'm an Australian and British citizen).
Updated On: 2/5/16 at 05:21 PM
Posted: 2/5/16 at 5:23pm
A pendulum swing like the west end do.
Posted: 2/5/16 at 5:31pm
I personally thought The Light Princess was brilliant. At least the score.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 4:30am
aaaaaa15 said: "
Also the vast majority of West End shows that succeed well go to Broadway and run for years. The same can not be said of the other way round. Rent only lasted a year or so in the West End. Spring Awakening flopped. Next to Normal still hasn't appeared. So in terms of musicals at least, London has much more to be jealous of.
"
Rent ran nearly two years and made back its money (due largely to relatively low operating costs.) And you're leaving out mega hits like Wicked and minor hits like Legally Blonde which did better in London.
Posted: 2/8/16 at 8:15am
Dear Broadway,
Muggles were restless in London, so we took away all your shows. If you want to get them back, you'll have to find the Moronic Map, which will lead you to the first of six clues, one for each of the Tony Awards that Audra McDonald has placed on her mantel.
Should you fail before sunset in three days' time, you will have no more Broadway.
Yours in this world,
J.K. Rowling
Posted: 2/8/16 at 8:15am
EricMontreal22 said: "Rent ran nearly two years and made back its money (due largely to relatively low operating costs.) And you're leaving out mega hits like Wicked and minor hits like Legally Blonde which did better in London."
It doesn't really matter whether it was 1 or 2 years when you consider the Broadway production ran for 12 years and is one of the biggest hits ever. And I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying an American musical can't be a success in London. I'm saying almost every show that has been a big success in London has transferred to Broadway and been successful whereas the other way round it's much more hit and miss, probably due to the fact that as I commented before, Broadway makes many more hit musicals than London now. Therefore surely Londoners have more to be jealous of than New Yorkers if we're talking musicals alone.
Updated On: 2/8/16 at 08:15 AM
