What was wrong with HIGH FIDELITY?

I know it's been discussed, but I'm listening to the cast album now, and I LOVE the music, the actors seem to fit the roles well, it stays true to the movie and book...so what was the problem exactly?

I never saw the Broadway production, though I heard it was way too small for the size of the theatre. The small production in Chicago was delightful, however.

---

The theater was definitely far too large for this production. It might have done well in something mid-sized but the Imperial is enormous.

Also - it didn't help that there were no "big names" - except for the title "High Fidelity" to ride on the success of the novel and film.

I think it could've done well (or at least better) if:
- there was a "big name" lead in the cast - even as a featured role. For example, Jack Black (from the film cast). This "stunt-casting" is a trend now on Broadway and it does help sales.
- It had a big name producer or a movie company backing the production. For example, John Cusack (lead in the film) or Touchstone Pictures (film company). This is similar to Whoopi Goldberg and Oprah respectively producing Sister Act and The Color Purple, as well as Universal as a producer for Wicked. The stars draw some of their followers to the show and the huge movie companies have tons of $$.
- Nick Hornby himself had had a part in the making of the show - perhaps as a book writer. Again, he has fans and with his name attached they might be more interested in coming.
- It was made today, in 2011, instead of 2005. Back then Facebook was still pretty small, and there was no Twitter and all the social media outlets, so it was harder to get the word out there. All the buzz out there in cyberspace is cheap and easy and, when retweeted and shared and such, becomes free marketing from one consumer to another. I personally also don't think they had a very strong marketing campaign either.
-

Did nothing to translate the magic of the novel/film to the stage.

I saw no magic in the film at all. The film bored me to tears, but I love the score to the musical.

I don't know if changing the location from London to NYC had any effect, but there was definitely some bad casting in there.

Aren't the film and the musical set in Chicago?

---

Mister Matt, the book is set in London and the movie was set in Chicago. The musical is set in NYC, Brooklyn to be exact.

I adore the movie, one of my top 5. I felt like it captured it well through the cast recording, but like I said, I haven't seen the show.

Jenn Collella was really hard and severe looking. Like casting Rachelle Rak as Thoroughly Modern Millie.

---

I saw it on Broadway.....and barely remember it.

None of what everyone's mentioned (marketing wise, theatre wise) would have mattered if the show was actually good. Which it wasn't. Some of the songs are ok (I'd have loved the opening number if it wasn't 4 minutes too long), but really, apart from the set (Which was incredible), the show was a long, tired, unmemorable bore. Considering just how lively the cast recording is, you have to have seen it to appreciate what a dull night at the theatre it actually was.

---

The show was better in Boston. (Yes, I saw it there, both versions 1.0 and 2.0, and in NY). They changed the show for the better in Boston, and then undid much of the good work they did just in time for Broadway.

It was never a master piece, but with better marketing, a smaller theatre (the funny part is that the Colonial in Boston is huge too, but it didn't feel as uncomfortably large), and without the changes that hurt the show in NY, I think that it could have had a longer life than it had.

---

I hated that book when I read it. I remember the first few pages being very well written and interesting, but it quickly became bland and boring. Oh, and was there a bit where they have sex in a car?

Admittedly, I don't remember a lot of the show when I saw it on Broadway, but I remember I really enjoyed it, despite the flaws. I liked most of casting, except for Jay Klaitz, who I think manages to suck the soul out of any scene he's ever in. And the set was pretty cool too.

I think if the show had popped up in late spring, even early summer, it could have taken advantage of the late teen and older crowd who didn't have a lot of "rock" options on Broadway back then.

---

Bruce! Bruce Kimmel!!! Did you find anything at all worthwhile when you saw High Fidelity? Me, I really loved the sets. When I saw it. In person. Live. In the theater. Bruce? What say you?

---

I remember this being around the same time as "The Wedding Singer" and thinking these shows were exactly the same thing. Musicals made from movies way too soon after the film. Both were forgettable.