Why Jesus Christ Superstar Failed - Page 4

[erinrebecca]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 3:10pm

Just a heads up to anyone who is in the city and is a Kushnier fan. He'll be on tonight as Judas. This may be your last time to see him in the role, so come on out!

[Sinfonia2001]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 3:45pm

Jesus Christ Superstar failed??? how so? Are you saying this because it's not lasting more than 6 months on broadway or what? I seriously dont know why its seen as a failure.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 3:48pm

Because I loved it too much

See also: Why The Great American Trailer Park Musical, 9 to 5, Legally Blonde, and Cry-Baby are no longer with us.

We are in fact allowed to question my taste at this point.

Updated On: 6/22/12 at 03:48 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 3:50pm

Sinfonia, I think it's considered a failure because it's not going to recoup its investment.

[Sinfonia2001]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 3:54pm

Ah, thanks Phyllis. Makes sense. I didnt know/ that. Thats too bad. I loved that production,

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 4:08pm

yes, since you can't really quantify popular opinion as to successful or not, the only true way to determine the success of a show is weather it breaks even at any time during its run.

Some shows recoups with as little as a 9 month to a year run, many more need to run into that 2nd year. Some shows (Memphis) it takes longer. The estimate is that Spider-man will need anywhere from 4 to 8 years before it recoups and therefore can be considered a hit.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 4:22pm

Does anyone really know what Spiderman ended up costing and if the 4-8 year projection is even still valid?

As far as JCS goes, I can see where it could have been onsidered a hit in Canada at Stratford! However on Broadway it was rather lackluster with really lousey direction and casting choices. Yes, there were some standouts: Simon, Pilot eg.). I hope to see them on Broadway again soon!

[ChildrenwillListen]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 4:44pm

They're performance at the Tony's gave me a migraine

[WestEndAndy]

Posted: 6/22/12 at 6:28pm

For me JCS is a deeply tacky, deeply tasteless and deeply dated mess of a show, more rock concert than musical. But then I might be untypical, as the only show of Webber's that I have ever quite liked was Aspects of Boredom. And I think that was mostly the orchestration by David Caddick, the real genius behind Phantom and the rest.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 7:16am

For me JCS is a deeply tacky, deeply tasteless and deeply dated mess of a show, more rock concert than musical. But then I might be untypical, as the only show of Webber's that I have ever quite liked was Aspects of Boredom. And I think that was mostly the orchestration by David Caddick, the real genius behind Phantom and the rest.

You mean David Cullen. Caddick was the musical director for the shows in ALW's heyday, not the orchestrator.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 8:09am

The punctuation/grammatical errors in THIS post gave me a migraine:

"They're performance at the Tony's gave me a migraine"


Obviously children don't listen.

Updated On: 6/23/12 at 08:09 AM

[kanevixen]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 8:38am

I'd have to agree with you, Snafu. I thought the production was fair enough. Far better than the revival a few years back with Glenn Carter and Tony Vincent. (Although, I do prefer those performances to the current ones, those of Paul Nolan and Josh Young.)

I wouldn't think the casting of Tom Hewitt (a Tony award nominee) as a failure. If anything, I thought it gave the production a bit of a "name" so to speak that it so desperately needed.

And as just a side note, I thought the advertising was just BORING!! The name of the show in white letters on a black background was not exciting. (Could this be the missing bling?) But there was nothing in that advertisement that screamed, "You must see this show!"

[Springley]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 8:52am

I saw Jeremy Kushnier as Judas and Tom Hewitt's understudy last night, and they both did an incredible job. Seeing both Josh Young and Jeremy near the front of the orchestra, I actually did prefer Jeremy's voice and acting, and although it seems that the hard score is giving them both a little trouble, Jeremy does more vocally with a little more ease. And Pilate's understudy had a great voice and good acting, albeit a little stiff at times.

Maybe it was because I was somewhat unfamiliar with JCS before this production, but I loved it. The cast really does give their all, and I love the more 'serious' tone they took with it. I'm very sad there won't be a recording with Paul Nolan (and his near perfect placement).

Updated On: 6/23/12 at 08:52 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 8:55am

The more serious tone? More serious than what? JCS has always been 'serious'. (Well, any productions I've seen.)

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 12:34pm

The Stratford production generated a good deal of buzz when it opened last summer. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice attended early performance and had high praise for the production, which may have helped foster interest in taking it to Broadway.

What no one considered is that Broadway wasn't exactly crying out for a revival of SUPERSTAR. The 1971 production was not really smash hit, just a modest success running a mere 711 performances. (Given the popularity of the album and the media attention focused on the show, it was expected to run much longer.)It was not a critical success but it was a financial success.

The 1977 revival was a flop in all departments, closing within 3 months, while the flop 2000 Broadway revival was completely superfluous.

I think it's the material. What may work well as a record album, has a difficult time playing in stage. I believe the same is true of TOMMY (which, according to rumors, is going to run at Stratford next summer.)

Also, remember that when SUPERSTAR was first introduced traditional bible-belt "Christians" found it sacrilegious. The condemnation from parents and Church leaders only made the material more appealing to rebellious youth. (A friend of mine who attended a "Christian" high school in the early 1970's told me students were forbidden to play the record in the student lounge.) Over the years it has lost that element of forbidden danger. It's not a well-written show, and time has only magnified its flaws and diminished its achievements.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 2:15pm

I see this popping up a lot nowadays, this thing that current productions of shows are somehow more "serious," "deeper," "darker," therefore, better.

And you know it's baloney when they say that about shows such as Les Mis, Superstar, and Saigon. I'm with Dramamama, how much more SERIOUS can Les Mis or Superstar get? Pretentious, yeah, serious? Trust me, they are serious enough, LOL.

Updated On: 6/23/12 at 02:15 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 2:32pm

The design was certainly not "more serious". It was Rome by way of Vegas, with additional anachronistic groping of whatever period looked cool.

[JamesBroadwayWiner]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 4:13pm

It really is unfortunate that Broadway productions these days seem to have to get "stars" to be successful...

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 4:41pm

JamesBroadwayWiner - i think that also goes back to the pricing issue. People are nervous to spend $130+ to see a show they've never heard of, starring people they've never heard of. Can't say I blame them.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 4:42pm

JamesBroadwayWiner - i think that also goes back to the pricing issue. People are nervous to spend $130+ to see a show they've never heard of, starring people they've never heard of. Can't say I blame them.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 5:29pm

I saw the show in Stratford and I hated it. The cast was great (Josh Young can wail out some high notes) but overall the music made me wanna plug my ears. Personally, I don't see what made them want to take this to Broadway.
This is just all my opinion obviously.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 6:46pm

I still can't get over the fact how little effort there was put into promoting the show and really building up hype prior to its arrival on Broadway. I completely forgot it was starting preview until a thread popped on March 1st. The same thing happened with Bonnie and Clyde. No hype or buzz. That's not the only reason why the show struggled, but I certainly think it is one of them.

[Bwaydide92]

Posted: 6/23/12 at 7:00pm

I hope the real reason it failed is because people are no longer that fascinated with ALW. EVITA seems to be slipping without Ricky Martin and I wouldn't be surprised if it closed soon after his departure (unless they find another star). ALW just needs to go.

[nicnyc]

Posted: 7/23/12 at 4:43am

I was lucky enough to see Kushnier play Judas - can't help but think it would have gotten more buzz & better reviews if he had done the role full-time (despite Josh Young's Tony nom; And the marketing of having Josh Young go on every TV show and sing a dismal rendition of Superstar with three girls doing choreography behind them really didn't help... I saw that & actually wished I hadn't bought tickets - but really enjoyed it once I got there - I think I got really lucky seeing Kushnier

[Zingingtobway]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:54am

I personally think it failed because the wrong production of it was brought to NYC. No offense to the talent on stage but it lacked luster to say the least.

I remember a few years ago there was a huge buzz about a production that had a Gospel Twist on the show that debuted at the Alliance Theater with a Powerful cast of talent and funky new soul/rock arrangements. I wish that one would have made it to NYC. I think it would have had a better run and because it was a new take on it people would have came out to see it. That's just my 2 cents. I love theater...