Why didn't Seussical work on Broadway?

[SomeDude]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 8:29am

It turned out to be a major flop even with the great score. What problems did audiences have with it?

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 8:41am

lots of potential reasons...
it did have a decent short run: 198 performances and 34 previews

1. Possibly parents didn't want to pay for tickets to take small children to an expensive show
2. Possibly adults didn't want to go to a kid show because Dr Seuss is known as a child book
3. Stunt casting didn't work
4. Luke warm reviews
5. Opened in November right at the beginning of the winter.
6. Poor word of mouth and lack of interest

Too many contributing factors.

I enjoyed it and still listen to the CD on occasion.

[SomeDude]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 8:47am

I think Rosie O'Donnel may have been a factor in the show's demise. I mean who wants to see that kind of person as The cat in the Hat.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 9:11am

"That kind of person"?

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 9:21am

I hope you meant loud and obnoxious.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 9:30am

I think the issue is what you mean by "work". If you mean, lost money, I'd reply by saying, it didn't find its audience. Otherwise, I thought it was fun and enjoyed it immensely.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 9:35am

I went to see the show specifically to see Rosie O'Donnell and walked out during intermission. I just didn't care for the show at all.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 10:18am

2. Possibly adults didn't want to go to a kid show because Dr Seuss is known as a child book

Dr. Seuss is not a book, he was an author.

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 11:20am

Also note that, like many former flops, the show we know today as Seussical was not the same show that played Broadway. The licensed version, and the one-act TYA version even more so, reflect the changes made to the material to strengthen and tighten it since its failed Broadway run.

[thommg]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 11:21am

The addition of Rosie O'Donnell to the cast added weeks to the show. She did not open it, David Shiner opened the show as The Cat In The Hat. The problem with the show was mostly bad direction and too many story tangents. It never really grabbed your attention for any one storyline. Granted, there was a lot of good in it but I was bored by the second act and that shouldn't have happened. The OBC is decieving because the score is fine. The book was not.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 11:29am

The show's grosses were never higher than when O'Donnell played the Cat, save for a week or two when Aaron Carter was in the show. O'Donnell extended the shelf life of the show well beyond what it normally would have been. She was playing a variation of herself (shocker!), but audiences seemed to enjoy her.

The show had an absolutely disastrous out of town tryout in Boston, which Riedel picked up on and reported about mercilessly. By the time it reached NY, it was already labeled as "in trouble", a label they were never able to shake.

Shiner was sent off on a "Weissler vacation" and (not shockingly) never returned. After O'Donnell left, Cathy Rigby was brought in, and she was actually wonderful. Unfortunately, she couldn't keep the show going and it closed in May.

It's too bad, because the show has a lovely score, and is actually quite good (especially with the revisions from the tour). Besides Rigby, Kevin Chamberlin and Michele Pawk (herself the "victim" of Weissler vacation rumors- Barry openly admitted in a NY Times article that he was desperately trying to get Brooke Shields to come in as Mayzie) were both wonderful. Janine LaManna was exceptional, and frankly, robbed of a Tony nomination.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 1:16pm

I saw it on Broadway and a regional production. Bored almost every second I was watching the Broadway show but loved the regional production. It's almost like the Broadway show was a try-out for the phenomenal success the work has had since. It now has a heart and a thru-line. It seems the sum of the parts for the Broadway show were just not working. It is pretty juvenile subject matter even when compared to Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. It was really a tough sell for an adult demo and really a snooze fest for kids.

What the show does in other venues is magical and Lynn Arhens is nothing short of a genius. I'm glad Seussical got a chance to be on Broadway so it could grow legs to run far from it.

I wouldn't mind a Shakespeare in the Park revival some day. I'm certain that would be a wonderful experience for families.

*EDIT!

Also the production I saw had teenagers in all the roles. The Broadway production was mostly adults and I have to say that may have made it BETTER. It was really hard to watch a grown man be the elephant. It was like one of those adult diaper people. It is charming with a young cast. Updated On: 2/25/14 at 01:16 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 2:48pm

Janine LaManna was exceptional, and frankly, robbed of a Tony nomination.

Absolutely. I thought she and Mary Stout from Jane Eyre should have been nominated over Mary Testa and Polly Bergen that year.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 4:17pm

I disagree that it plays better with a young cast. I saw the tour with Rigby and a regional youth production and I thought it played better with adults performing for children vs. children performing for their parents.

[Starship]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 4:18pm

because it wasn't circus themed.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 6:23pm

I saw SEUSSICAL several times during tis "disastrous" out of town tryout in Boston. The show had a fantastic first half of Act one. The opening number set the fun tone and mood and introduced the audience to the main characters. Then Horton finds the dust speck with the Whos on it, and vows to protect them. Then we see little Who, Jojo, getting into all sorts of trouble in school (yes, we actually SEE why Jojo was considered a troublemaker). Then Jojo's parents decide to send him to military school. Then the story of Jojo and Horton are connected in the song "Alone in the Universe".
And then everything fell apart. After spending nearly 30 minutes setting up the Jojo and Horton storyline, Jojo completely disappears and suddenly the two birds appear, leaving the audience wondering, "Why did we care so much about the kid and the elephant if they were just going to ditch that story?" We did not see Jojo again until Act 2, and by then most people had forgotten about him.
So the show closed a week early in Boston so they could work on fixing the things that were wrong. And guess which part they "fixed"? They fixed the first 30 minutes of it (which did NOT need fixing) and left much of the rest of the show alone. In other words, they fixed the part of the show that WORKED, and left intact the part of the show that did NOT work. Result: By the time it got to Broadway the whole thing was just awful. I liked some of the changes they made to the tour, but when they made Jojo a "step-in" character, that was a HUGE mistake. There was no threat or danger to Jojo if we knew that he could step out of the story to return to the real world.
It is too bad because somewhere in there is a workable show, but they need to go back to the stuff that worked in Boston, and bring that material back.

Updated On: 2/25/14 at 06:23 PM

[Wynbish]

Posted: 2/25/14 at 9:13pm

Seriously, what "kind of person"?

[theatregeek6]

Posted: 2/26/14 at 2:15pm

Saw it with Bryan Batt (understudy for Shiner) and loved it. Pawk, LaManna and Chamberlin were great. Had Andrew Keenan-Bolger as Jo-Jo and even a young(er) Ann Harada in the cast. Loved the score, book was like ok (glad they killed the military bit in the newer version)

I understand why Rosie was brought in - but there HAD to be a better way.

Updated On: 2/27/14 at 02:15 PM

[Rinaldo]

Posted: 2/26/14 at 6:13pm

Allowing for the fact that it's been revised post-Broadway, I also think that it's one of those shows whose content and attitude didn't quite fit what NY audiences expect, but plays like gangbusters for a regional or community theater, especially one that can recruit a cast of adults, talented teenagers, and children.

[SomeDude]

Posted: 2/26/14 at 7:52pm

But even now, the character of Jojo is still very flawed. He really has nothing to do in the Junior versions of the show. Yeah there is a good show in there somewhere but it still needs to get it's **** together.