What revivals were flops but then later revivals become hits?

There must be some other examples of this but it's striking how successful RAGTIME is now compared to the previous revival. This can only be a good thing because it means that even if there are revival flops people can always point to Ragtime as an example of why they could try again (so for example maybe someone will finally do the Audra Follies). The same way people can always point to Maybe Happy Ending to say that the 'little show that could' can turn things around.

Besides Ragtime, what other examples are there?

I'm not sure if the Terry Johnson-helmed revival of La Cage aux Folles recouped, but it at least ran longer than the prior one from Jerry Zaks.

HAIR was revived in 1977, though that production lasted only about a month. Its 2009 revival, by contrast, ran for more than a year.

The Wiz was revived in 1983 and closed after just 13 performances. The revival last year—though a limited engagement—was well attended and financially successful.

Looking back at revivals prior to the late 1980s, most were essentially replicas of their original Broadway productions, and many had short runs that weren't profitable. The idea of a major, long-running, non-replica revival seems to have taken hold with Jerry Zaks’s 1992 revival of Guys and Dolls.

fashionguru_23 said: "There is the age-old question of defining a flop and a hit. I would strongly disagree that Ragtime was a flop, but to each their own.

Merrily We Roll Along, to a certain point Follies (the 2012 revival was the first Sondheim show to gross over a million dollars in one week), the 1990's revival of She Loves Me ran longer that the original production by 52 performances."

I mean if a revival is a flop (so 2009/2010 Ragtime vs now, although I am assuming to Ermengarde's point that they continue to do good business into the new year).

I'm pretty sure the 1989 revival of Sweeney Todd was a flop, but the 2005 and 2023 productions both made money.

The first Ragtime revival, if memory serves, got great reviews. But it was a financial flop: bad timing economically and perhaps too close to the original's run.

fashionguru_23 said: "blaxx said: "fashionguru_23 said: "There is the age-old question of defining a flop and a hit. I would strongly disagree that Ragtime was a flop, but to each their own."

You must have never invested money on anything if you think this is unclear.

Tell someone who have lost millions in an investment that you disagree their business flopped but at least they had a good time.

"

On a financial level, something like Ragtime and Lolita, My Love are both flops. On an artistic or critical level they are not the same thing.

Too bad you can't get back your money for Rebecca or Nerds"

The financial aspect is the only measurable one, with cold hard facts. There is no error in calling a multi million dollar loss a flop, regardless of how good or if well critically received.

Timon3 said: "Surprised no one has got the old Razzle Dazzle yet!"

I think the OP is asking for examples where the first revival of a title was financially unsuccessful, but a subsequent revival recouped. So, shows like Chicago and Merrily, which failed in their original productions but succeeded in their first revival, are in a different category - something worth discussing for sure, but not answers to the question posed in this thread.

Zeppie2022 said: "The original Chicago recouped its investment which is means it did not fail plusthe show got 10 Tony nominations. The only failure was it did not win even one Tony award with 10 nominations thanks to "Chorus Line"."

Thanks for clearing that up. I took Timon's post to intimate that Chicago was an answer to the OP's question, and I didn't take the time to look it up.

And I admit, I'm not even sure how to gauge if the past two Sunday in the Park revivals were successful or not... The 2008 was a limited engagement,so does that count? (Another Sondheim show, Company's first revival was also a Roundabout limited engagement that almost transferred but... didn't) And the 2017 Gylenhaal revival was also a limited run that obviously sold well during that limited time but...

(I guess this is where answers to the original question get complicated.)

EricMontreal22 said: "And I admit, I'm not even sure how to gauge if the past two Sunday in the Park revivals were successful or not... The 2008 was a limited engagement,so does that count? (Another Sondheim show, Company's first revival was also a Roundabout limited engagement that almost transferred but... didn't) And the 2017 Gylenhaal revival was also a limited run that obviously sold well during that limited time but...

(I guess this is where answers to the original question get complicated.)"

The 2017 Sunday in the Park with George revival recouped after just 56 performances or 7 weeks. WOW. And that was only in 2017.......I'm guessing today it would take months.

I do remember at the time it had the highest grossing weeks of any Sondheim musical ever on Broadway (the Bernadette Follies actually previously had the record for highest week, but that was a much larger theatre and the success was short lived).

https://playbill.com/article/sunday-in-the-park-with-george-starring-jake-gyllenhaal-will-be-preserved-on-a-cast-recording

Scanning the Sunday (2008) grosses, we can be certain the 2017 revival was more financially successful so it KIND of counts in a roundabout way, even though it probably isn't fair to compare a not-for-profit to a A-list star commercial broadway.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/SUNDAY-IN-THE-PARK-WITH-GEORGE