What Was the Biggest Monetary Flop? — Page 4

This is the reason that so many shows we see now (and frankly have for decades in one way or another) are based on material that was a big hit in some other medium (movies like Lion King and Beauty and The Beast, plays like Auntie Mame and Pygmalion, and books like Wicked or The Color Purple -- that was also a hit movie) or consists of songs that were already hits on the radio (hits like Jersey Boys, Mamma Mia and Movin Out and flops like Saturday Night Fever, Good Vibrations, and Ring of Fire) or have a major star above the title (like Hugh Jackman or Nathan Lane or Matthew Broderick). It's very hard to raise $10 million and having something or someone that's already proven to be very popular with the general public makes the job much easier. This obviously is no guarantee that the resulting show will be any good, but at least it's a start.

That's why we see fewer and fewer musicals that are completely original. Such shows are hard to raise money for and harder to sell to the general public once they're finished (and frankly that was almost as true 50 years ago as it is now -- 90% of the greatest shows in history were based on a play or a book and many of them had major stars in the lead roles). Shows like Avenue Q and Spelling Bee are anomolies, but great reviews can help and by and large such shows cost far less than the typical musical (both cost only about $3.5 million, making recoupment a much easier task).

This is the reason most Sondheim shows have not been major hits -- most are based on completely original ideas and even those that weren't, like Little Night Music and Passion were based on foreign films that were largely unknown to the general public. Since his shows were not based on pre-sold commodities that were mainstream hits and often didn't use major star names, his shows have struggled over the years commercially. He only had great reviews (which he didn't always get back in the 70s), awards and his own personal name recognition to sell the shows and while some recouped and all of them helped advance the artform, none of them compare financially to the successes of Webber or Herman or Boubil & Schoenberg, whose big hits were all based on previous well-known material, and/or were spectacles, and/or had big star names and were far more accessible to your typical theatre fan than much of Sondheim's work.

Originality can be great and its important for the future of musical theatre, but the lesson seems to be that if you want to have a better chance for your show to find wide acceptance and make a lot of money, base it on a big movie or get the rights to the music catalogue of ABBA or the Four Seasons or some other million-selling group. The result may not be art, but it can make a whole lot of money.

---

Updated On: 8/21/06 at 06:43 PM

Is Spring Awakening original, or based on something?

"I feel that no thread about flops would be complete without a mention of Frank Wildhorn. His Jekyll & Hyde, Scarlett Pimpernel (all three or four versions), The Civil War and Dracula all were massive flops on Broadway (though some later recouped on the road and internationally) and collectively lost more than $30 million. That must be some sort of record for one composer. "

WHAT??!! I must ask how Jekyll and Hyde which ran at least three years can be considered as a part of these "massive flops?" That must've been a mistake. Civil War, definitely. Scarlet Pimpernel, whatever. I do not think jekyll falls into this category.

I think the music is a flop, at any rate :).

Anyone know what show has had the longest run on Broadway without recouping its initial investment? (aka "flopped")

I'll bet 42nd Street revival is close to wearing the crown.

4 1/2 years??? And it flopped? Brilliant.

---

I don't think this was a huge budget show but Caroline or Change lost a lot of money.

Caroline was capitalized at only $5.5 million and paid back a percentage of that, so it wasn't even one of the top flops of that year, let alone "ever."

Anyone Can Whistle only ran a week and Merrily We Roll Along only ran two. Both lost their entire investments, but Merrily cost more (it opened 15 years later) so I suppose it would be considered his biggest flop.

---

I would be very surprised if "Spiderman" was not the biggest monetary flop. I think we all need to remember that since 80% of shows don't recoup, it is quite easy for even a decent show to be considered a flop.

Depending on how theatre recovers, I wonder how much the Broadway Harry Potter may end up losing if you count the buyouts and buildouts. Paramour may not have lost Spider Man dollars, especially with the buyout from Potter, otherwise it could be up there

The biggest at its time was Via Galactica it lost it entire $750,000 investment. Dude had to be close behind. The investors gave them the keys to the kingdom much like those those who threw money at Michael Cimino after the Deer Hunter movie. It ultimately led to the demise of United Artists .

---

It's Spiderman, of course. Goddamn what a bomb.

Jarethan said: "HogansHero said: "Mr Roxy said: "The biggest at its time was Via Galactica it lost it entire $750,000 investment. Dude had to be close behind. The investors gave them the keys to the kingdom much like those those who threw money at Michael Cimino after the Deer Hunter movie. It ultimately led to the demise of United Artists . "

Hundreds if not thousands of shows have lost their entire investment. "Biggest" is a function of the inflation in investments such that no show beyond recent history can factor into the discussion. Interesting observation about UA. Too bad it is massively over-simplified and totally incorrect.

But thanks for playing!"

It would be interesting to know what show lost the most, adjusted for inflation, but that is not likely to happen unless some PhD candidate statistician tries to do it (and where would the data be?).

I do remember that when the mid-60s musical, Kelly, closed on opening night, it becamenotorious because at thetime, it was 'the most expensive show ever produced' (mind you, not inflation-adjusted) and was -- as I recall -- also the first musical tocloseon opening night, losing not its entire investment (which I believe was $650,000).

Adjusting that figure for inflation, I would still imagine that Spiderman and King Kong lost more, just based on their physical productions. But who knows?"

Zero energy to go dig articles, but when Spider-Man closed it was quoted that it lost the amount that it would cost to produce 2-3 new Broadway shows.

It will be a while for another musical to lose that much money, and I imagine that it will be a while until another senseless investment of that magnitude is made again.

---