Why is Merrily Closing?

[UWS10023]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 2:20pm

Does anyone know if they considered keeping it going with another cast?

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 2:24pm

Same reason why the music man closed and Sweeney Todd only went through one replacement cast. It’s difficult to cast high caliber stars after the originals. Especially since the award prospect are zero for replacements. almost anyone who wanted to see it already saw it with the original stars.

[willep]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 2:37pm

Except those of us who can’t afford $200 for rear mezz and lose the lottery every day haha

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 3:17pm

"Same reason why the music man closed and Sweeney Todd only went through one replacement cast. It’s difficult to cast high caliber stars after the originals. Especially since the award prospect are zero for replacements. almost anyone who wanted to see it already saw it with the original stars."

Which also IMO begs the question is the show any good or is it just the star cast that makes it worth seeing.

[yyys]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 3:22pm

It already made a profit. Why not end on a high note?

[Wick3]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 3:39pm

Zeppie2022 said: "Which also IMO begs the question is the show anygood or is it just the star cast that makes it worth seeing."

That's a great question. This is pretty much the same production that was in London's West End roughly 10 years ago with a different cast. They brought the 2 of the West End cast members Mark Umbers (Frank) and Damian Humbley (Charley) to Boston in 2017 and I loved it when I saw the production but it just didn't sell tickets.

Now come to Fall 2022 when they cast an A-list celebrity Daniel Radcliffe in the cast  off-Broadway at NYTW and lo and behold, it suddenly became sold out... and here we are! Personally, I think it's Radcliffe that made the show become sold out but it is still the chemistry of the the leads that made it all work.

There is enough momentum now that I think Merrily could have extended through the holiday season even if Radcliffe or Mendez or Groff are not there. It just depends on the weekly nugget and whether the producers think they can still make a profit even with a new cast.

It did recoup and it is a great way to end on a high. There's already another show slated to be at the Hudson after so the final performance will be July 7th.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 4:04pm

The cast made it high profile, but I'd like to think if it weren't up to snuff, it wouldn't have been the smashing success it was/is.  They were beautifully cast, IMO. 

You can be a star and a terrific performer.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 4:16pm

I hope we'll see a resurgence of regional productions of MERRILY now, and maybe some will feature the type of talented-but-not-famous theatre actors who might have replaced in the Broadway revival.

The casting of this revival was lightning in a bottle, and it makes complete sense that they would not replace this cast (though I'm sure generous offers were made to extend Groff & Radcliffe's contracts and perhaps to try to engage a replacement of equal name value).

Updated On: 5/24/24 at 04:16 PM

[pmensky]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 4:47pm

I wouldn’t be surprised if they had scouted possible replacements earlier in the run and just couldn’t put together a marketable trio of actors based on something as simple as availability. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/24/24 at 5:00pm

It's interest as much as availability. We see this all the time with star-driven shows: bankable stars typically do not want to replace other stars in shows, especially if they win awards, have universal acclaim, and break box office records. Trying to replace them with a lesser star can tank the box office or cause a show to overspend on advertising to fill the house. I'm sure the producers tried.

It's different when a production of a show becomes established prior to casting stars (or semi-stars), like CHICAGO or MOULIN ROUGE or WAITRESS or HADESTOWN. In those shows, the performer is a cog in a larger machine –– and they're usually not getting a Daniel Radcliffe-level name to replace. For MERRILY, everything rides on those 3 actors shoulders.

Updated On: 5/24/24 at 05:00 PM

[bear88]

Posted: 5/25/24 at 5:48am

Zeppie2022 said: "Which also IMO begs the question is the show any good or is it just the star cast that makes it worth seeing."

It’s a fair question. I think the reworked musical, which has been in its current form since 2012 with the same director, is a good show with an outstanding score that resonates with people and is smartly structured as a memory play.

That said, the cast definitely elevates the material. Who wants to follow Jonathan Groff, who feels born to play a role that never worked as well as it did until now?

 

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 5/25/24 at 8:08am

Merrily is a show that demands the camaraderie between at least the three main characters to actually work. Otherwise you get a production devoid of the sincerity that grounds the jaded facades of other aspects of the show.

[binau]

Posted: 5/26/24 at 3:55am

In my opinion the show is really working with the cast - it's not that they are simply getting people through the door (which they are also doing). I don't think this production necessarily works with just anyone (personally, I don't find much value in the filmed London version of this same production). 

This whole event does strike me as the definition of 'lightning in a bottle'.