Why Aren't These Shows Revived?- Page 5
Why Aren't These Shows Revived?
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#100
Posted: 7/7/05 at 3:56pmLittle Me was revived in 1998-99 with Martin Short and Faith Prince. And pretty much bombed..
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#101
Posted: 7/7/05 at 4:01pm
The last two revivals of Little Me were unsuccessful -- the last one produced by Roundabout in 1998 starring Martin Short (who won the Tony) and Faith Prince finished out its limited three month engagement, but didn't extend and a 1980s revival with James Coco flopped after running only a month. Even the original production with Sid Caesar back in the 60s only ran 8 months. I doubt it'll ever be revived again on Broadway.
Cinderella never played on Broadway -- it was a 1960s tv movie with Lesley Ann Warren and was later adapted into a stage property that has been done regionally -- never in New York. Not sure whether it would be viable on Broadway or not.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#102
Posted: 7/7/05 at 4:08pmI really enjoyed the last revival of LITTLE ME. I thought it was done very well and of course Martin Short and Faith Prince were priceless.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#103
Posted: 7/7/05 at 5:18pmDoesn't anyone like the idea of "110 in the Shade"? I remember it as charming, old fashioned, and as having a lovely score. It was overshadowed by "Hello, Dolly!" and "Funny Girl," which opened in the same season. I think NY State theater revived it not too long ago for a limited run with Karen Ziemba, but no Broadway revival.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#104
Posted: 7/7/05 at 5:21pm
The reality is -- almost every show that could possibly be a commercial success has been revived. Some multiple times.
The only exceptions I can think of (that have had no revival at all) are SOUTH PACIFIC and perhaps FUNNY GIRL (with the right lead).
It would be fun to see shows like 110 IN THE SHADE and ON THE TWENTIETH CENTURY but they're simply isn't enough of an audience for those shows without a major star or a not for profit like The Roundabout behind it.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#105
Posted: 7/7/05 at 5:26pm
I would like to see SFANW on Broadway.
Well, If Once on this Island would be revived it could get the proper jusitice it diserves! Well.. I hope they type cast correctly...
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#106
Posted: 7/7/05 at 5:31pmyup--as I said previously, there's gotta be a movie or TV star to drag in the crowds for these...even if he/she is a bit over the hill, or not mega-star power (eg, Christina Applegate). The tourists who make up 65% of the audience require this, or some sort of "spectacle" a la Phantom or Cats. I'll bet that's why The Producers, for example, will not run as long as these: it's a uniquely American show which does not make sense to most Asian sensibilities. it's rooted in a paricular brand of American show business. Asise from Nathan Lane, is the show a huge hit in London? I can't seem to recall. I know that the CA version with Martin Short and Jason Alexander was not a sell-out.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#107
Posted: 7/7/05 at 5:34pmAnyone know about R&H's Pipe Dream? I have never heard the music to it, but I know when it first came out it bombed, but now maybe it could do better... :/
Leading Actor Joined: 5/16/03
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#108
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:00pm"Pipe Dream" was a show that even Rodgers and Hammerstein didn't have a deep conviction to write. I think "South Pacific" is the only show in their canon that could stand a revival. I like the "110 in the Shade" idea!
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#109
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:04pmThe Steinbeck estate won't let PIPE DREAM be revived. Encores! has inquired several times.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#110
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:04pmcool--you think you and I can put it together?
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#111
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:06pmGet Nicole Kidman attached and you'll have a 10 million dollar revival of 110 IN THE SHADE up and running by Christmas.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#112
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:15pmI was thinking Jennifer Anniston; she can do plain and homely country girl, right? And then Nathan Lane as the sheriff, and Matthew Broderick as the rainman. Paul Newman as the father...
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#113
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:42pmCorrection to above: The Boy from Oz was EVENTUALLY a big hit. For the first few months, it was up on TKTS all the time.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#114
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:46pmBut it barely made back its investment, right?
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#115
Posted: 7/7/05 at 6:59pmIf I remember correctly, The Boy from Oz finally broke even about a week before it closed, so it's profit for the entire run was whatever they made above running costs for the last few performances. Thanks to Jackman, it became a hot ticket for the last few months of the run, nearly selling out most weeks.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#116
Posted: 7/7/05 at 7:02pmMargo--I am guessing that this was because of word-of-mouth buzz? Do you think? The show became "hotter" as it went along.
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#117
Posted: 7/7/05 at 7:10pmYep. The word of mouth for Hugh (though not necessarily the show itself) was very strong and built over the course of the run, with many calling it one of the finest performances they'd ever seen by a male performer.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/7/04
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#118
Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:33am
There is talk of the revival of Mame starring Christine Baranski (at the Kennedy Center Feb 18 - Mar 26, 2006) heading to Broadway, but who knows?
I saw a really great production of Mame at the Walnut Street Theater in Philadelphia years ago...although seeing Angela Lansbury in the original Broadway production is indelibly stamped on my consciousness as one of the greatest events of my youth. So Mame could be done...or RUINED by sticking somebody in it with a huge name like Lucille Ball. UGH. That movie is unwatchable. I have never been able to sit through more than about 3 minutes of it.
I think revivals are extremely important. However, it would be really nice if the funding could find its way to NEW works and support writers and composers who are LIVING. Wicked is based on a novel, but just about everything else was a movie first. Urinetown was original. Spelling Bee was conceived for the stage (I believe)...although I find the score completely unmemorable (not so The Marvin Trilogy). Avenue Q is a one-joke, gimmicky--albeit amusing--parody of a children's show that has been running for over 30 years. Movin' Out is new, but the music isn't. Where are the innovators? Maybe we wouldn't pine for revivals if we had the promise of something new.
I recently bought the CD of Promises, Promises, and remembered every word from when I was a kid. The music and arrangements are wonderful. But I agree with those who said it may come off as rather sexist. I even felt that way listening to the lyrics.
I saw the revival of Bye, Bye Birdie with Tommy Tune and Ann Reinking, and it was delightful. One of the reasons it worked is that they did not--and rightly so--"update" it. (In fact, at one point, Tommy Tune's Albert said something pretty blatantly sexist to Ann Reinking's Rosie, and he turned to the audience and said something like "What do you want, folks, it's 1959!" It put the whole show in perspective. Besides, if it's done right,that show is silly and fun so you don't analyze or question it. I agree that it could be revived in the same way that How to Succeed was pulled off.
I'm very curious about Two Gentlemen of Verona at the Delacorte. I listened to that 2-record vinyl OBC recording and stared at those photos in the gatefold sleeve hypnotically.
Maybe the new musical about Versace's killer will be fun.
(I'm trying to be ironic here. Please don't anyone start reaming me out for being insensitive. It's just a joke.)
http://www.roches.com/television/ss83kod.html
**********
"If any relationship involves a flow chart, get out of it...FAST!"
~ Best12Bars
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#119
Posted: 7/8/05 at 1:09am
Just to touch upon Cinderella - it wouldn't work on Broadway. The book (and score, for that matter) is way too flimsy, and its so overdone at the regional level that people wouldn't pay $100 a ticket when they can go spend considerably less closer to home.
That's another aspect of whether or not a revival will work - regional theater. Unless a production is so good, overdone shows aren't going to last on Broadway (Little Shop comes to mind)
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#120
Posted: 7/8/05 at 8:49am
...with many calling it one of the finest performances they'd ever seen by a male performer...
The man had absolutely nothing to do and was continually upstaged by the supporting cast until he shook his booty in Act Two. Less than underwhelming.
Jerusha Bromley
Walpole, Mass.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/27/05
re: Why Aren't These Shows Revived?#121
Posted: 7/8/05 at 8:50am
...with many calling it one of the finest performances they'd ever seen by a male performer...
The man had absolutely nothing to play and was continually upstaged by the supporting cast until he shook his booty in Act Two. Less than underwhelming.
Jerusha Bromley
Walpole, Mass.
Updated On: 7/8/05 at 08:50 AM
Videos
