Why Did Little Women Flop?

[broadwaybound0632]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 2:13am

I have the cd and love it. I always see colleges, professional theatres, ect doing the show. Why wasn't it sucessful?

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 2:16am

I found it fairly dull, and the score uninteresting. I can see why it didn't generate much enthusiasm on Broadway.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 4:04am

A root canal was more entertaining than this show. It dragged and dragged and took a story everyone loves and amazingly made you not care for any of these girls. Plus as I've said a zillion times before, Amy McAlexander gave the single most annoying performance as Amy that I think has ever been seen on the stage. I kept hoping Beth would give her Scarlet Fever and they would both die.
Updated On: 7/22/10 at 04:04 AM

[James885]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 5:50am

Bad book - aside from Jo, the March Sisters were caricatures
Lackluster score - while it did have a few good songs, most were mediocre and forgettable
Bad marketing - they targeted only mothers and daughters

I think the marketing was what really killed it on Broadway.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 7:32am

I'm falling asleep just thinking about it.

[AC126748]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 7:53am

It was torturous in the theatre.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 9:55am

Oh, Lord, yes, Amy McAlexander was just weird and annoying. This was clearly a kids' touring show, a musical Cliff Notes, that somehow got put on Broadway, lacking any kind of intelligence, sophistication, or just plain oomph a commercial musical needs.

This was also the first time I heard Sutton do one of her famous alternate versions of a big song, when she felt that she just didn't have the high notes in her. I had heard about her doing it in "Gimme Gimme." In "Astonishing," she didn't hit the high note at the end, making the song as dull as the rest of the show surrounding it.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 10:03am

It's a shame the show didn't work, because there were good performances by Foster, McGovern and McGinnis in there. We had preview tickets, and drove through a blizzard to get there, so you can imagine my disappointment in the quality of the show.

[D2]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 11:11am

I didn't see it so I can't comment on the quality of the show.

But addressing an earlier comment about the marketing of the show, I always wondered why they chose to go with a distinctly Art Deco look for a show that was set in the 1860s:

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 11:20am

I only saw the tour, and I know they made a few small changes, but I thought the show was fantastic. I went in not expecting very much with the short run on Broadway, but I loved every second of it. I thought the book was very strong compared to some of the current trash out there making millions of dollars a week, and the score is beautiful. "Some Things are Meant to Be" is particularly heartbreaking. The sets and costumes were also pretty spectacular and in some cases, breathtaking. The attic scenes were particularly beautiful with the lighting effects creating the illusion of the sun shining through the breaks in the wood. I understand that it's not for everyone, but I loved it and I thought it deserved better.

[Jon]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 11:23am

If you had a teenaged daughter, and could only go to one Broadway show, you'd choose WICKED first.

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 11:31am

The score is run-of-the-mill, not very interesting, nothing exciting averageness. I bought the cast recording and the only songs I listen to are Astonishing and Some Things Are Meant To Be.

[gypsy4]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 11:38am

why I have heard hideous things about OBC and it's production. I have to say The First National tour (making it an incredible theatrical experience) was marvelous with a tight ensemble cast I can't stand the actress playing amy on the recording but the actress on tour was fantastic. Jo's alternate was on and she blew my socks and deserved a standing ovation at the act one curtain. the score is what really makes this show solid and even though Maureen's role was slightly small when she got on stage she did her thing at 100% she blew the house down with days of plenty.

[newintown]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:01pm

She blew your socks, eh? I hope there was hazard pay involved.

[philly03]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:13pm

The score can be pretty to listen to, perhaps, but it's very boring. I do think Sutton did a very good job (as a non-Sutton fanatic), and Mauren McGovern was wonderful as well.

Personally, I thought it made Jane Eyre from 2000-1 with Marla Schaffel & James Barbour look so exciting and that score was much better, with better performances. (I remember these shows getting some comparisons, as both have similar style-d scores with the big, elegant, dramatic feel to them).


Updated On: 7/22/10 at 12:13 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:15pm

I think the show generally suffered from the THE COLOR PURPLE problem of trying to cram too much of a very familliar, much beloved, too-much-happening story into a musical book with numbers.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:23pm

It was excruciatingly boring. A recitation of the phone book would have been more exciting than this show.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:29pm

It was a bore, plain and simple, too much plot, too little character development. Sometimes shows flop because they suck.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:32pm

The show just drrrraaaaaaaaaaagggs. Some of the score is nice, the tour cast was excellent... but that's about it.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 12:37pm

I only saw the show on tour a few years ago. Overall, it wasn't as bad as I thought, but at the same time it was bland.

The show heavily targeted mothers and daughters. When I saw a show, there were barely any men in the audience (and this show was in a theater that seats a good two or three-thousand people). Why take your family (or even a date) to see this show? I'm not saying it wasn't a family-friendly show, but there were other shows out there that had that family appeal Little Women just didn't have.

In terms of the score, it was nothing special. There were a few highlights, but overall I found it to be a bit of a snooze.

The only reason I saw this was because I did student rush. I wouldn't have paid top dollar to see this show.

[mallardo]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 2:05pm

Well, I'm not the target audience for the show and I enjoyed it. I wasn't bored for a second. Sutton was wonderful as were most of the rest of the cast. The score is quite a bit above average and appropriate to the material and the much-maligned book worked just fine for me. In fact I thought it was a skillful adaptation considering what they had to work with.

I still do not understand all the negativity re this show.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 2:12pm

I hated it, it was boring and bad.

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 2:14pm

Muscle is agreeing with the masses on this one...alert the presses.

[sorano916]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 3:14pm

I didn't see Little Women. Was it worse than Pirate Queen?

[newintown]

Posted: 7/22/10 at 3:21pm

I would say yes - it was utterly dull and solemn, and seemed like a show written by and for an small-town amateur group; Pirate Queen was unintentional camp and unintentionally hilarious (at least in spots).