Underrated means undervalued. It can relate to a show that was successful but which eluded greater success unjustifiably or it can relate to an absolute flop that we loved, and anything in between that one feels was undervalued.
The confusion - or the source of the supposed confusion - is not about "underrated" but about "most underrated"
The conjunction of a superlative with an abasement begs the ambiguous question of how to measure the relative degree of a perceived injustice.
What "most underrated" means and whether it can apply to successful shows - even very successful ones - that really, really, no I mean REALLY - NO LIE! - should have been much, much!, MUCH! - and when I say much I mean so very much - more successful or only to very, very, VERY! unsuccessful shows that should have been at least moderately successful, or better than JUST moderately successful, is a semantic and epistemological question which may well be beyond caring (and yet I am bored at work and so am going on and on about it....).
Accordingly, I suggest that "most undervalued" be whatever anyone wants it to be.
If someone wants to nominate 1776 or She Loves Me notwithstanding their renown and if others prefer to champion Juno, Chess, Mack and Mabel, Chu Chem or Via Galactica (for example, I am neither endorsing nor condemning any such particular candidate at present) because they were so unfairly unappreciated, then so be it. If others choose famous shows that didn't recoup, and or were robbed of tony or tonys, or didn't last nearly as long as Phantom or Cats (what has?) when it opened the same season as some megahit piece of crap and was so much better, but which nonetheless haS had many revivals and is talked about on bww relentlessly, that's also an option.
All kinds of answers are responsive to the question.
Updated On: 3/12/13 at 12:59 PM