Why is Wedding Singer on the rocks?

[jdixon69]

Posted: 8/11/06 at 7:22pm

Many on this board seem to be either passionate fans or passionate haters of this show. But please put aside those feelings for a second and answer me this:

Based on my personal experiences, talking with friends and even reviews, it seems clear that this show gets very enthusiastic audience responses. Sure, there are exceptions, but most folks who see it genuinely seem to like it (even those who were not expecting to).

So why is the box office so low?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/11/06 at 7:25pm

Nobody (besides the people here) wants to see it.

[jv92]

Posted: 8/11/06 at 7:26pm

I don't like the show. I think it's really wasting space. However, I think that there are too many shows the appeal to its type of audience (teens, families, etc.) shows like Lion King and Wicked and so on. That might be causing it to get the shaft. Also people, particulary tourists, flock to whatever is difficult to get tickets to. Shows that are doing okay or not so well don't build huge audiences.

Posted: 8/11/06 at 8:59pm

the word just needs to be spread around more. not many people hear about the show except the typical broadway goers. i think if a lot of people would introduce all their friends to the show they would love it. theres a lot of the same people going back all the time.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/11/06 at 11:21pm

There were also enthusiastic audiences at Suzanne Somer.
TWS is just not a very good show.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 8/11/06 at 11:27pm

Word of mouth has been pretty bad, the critical reception was awful and their marketing is pretty nonexistant.

[friedrichVT]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:10am

its basically a hundred dollar musical based on a mediocre to bad 80's fluff film ....that's why.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:11am

the word just needs to be spread around more.

Like Colleen said, the word is that the show is bad. It was poorly received by critics, and when it comes down to it, what's written in the newspapers is the word that's spread around the country. And, if someone's taking a trip to New York to see a Broadway show, they're going to spend their $111.25 per ticket cautiously. It's a lot of money to just drop, and people want to enjoy their vacations. Don't even count people who live in the city. They've already dismissed it, and if they were going to see it, they've seen it and aren't going back. The people who have seen it 10+ times on this board are paying $26.25 for rush tickets, and shows don't make money on rush tickets.

Updated On: 8/12/06 at 12:11 AM

[thespian geek]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:22am

Actually, I do think a lot of it is the marketing. Ticket sales went up a decent amount the first two weeks after the Tony's, but have dropped since. I think if they were to start marketing the show more nationally, and not just stunt cast, ticket sales would definitely go up. "The Wedding Singer" is a well-liked movie and a known title, tourists will buy tickets for something they're familiar with without even looking into reviews, from my own experience. I could be wrong, though.

[friedrichVT]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:33am

you're wrong, it's a fun piece of crap.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:34am

umm, maybe cause the show is Terrible.

[MOXIEINTHECITY]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:47am

My ex used to work for a broadway advertising agency. Marketing for a Broadway show is incredibly, insanely expensive. Given that the sets and the costumes were - sorry -so cheap I can't imagine they have the money to put into real marketing. Just buying the rights to the show must have cut a huge chunk out of their budget. It comes down to two things - poor word of mouth and no $$$ for marketing.

[jdixon69]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:48am

Um, comments like "the show is terrible", "piece of crap", and "not a very good show" would seem to indicate that many of you have ignored the part where I asked you to "put aside your feelings for a second".

The show is getting raucous receptions. The show is not selling.

How could the word of mouth be bad? Are people laughing and hooting and hollering and then walking outside and changing their minds?

If it's the marketing, is it just that people are unaware of the show, or does the marketing present it in the wrong light? And plenty of other shows have overcome bad reviews, so I can't see it being that.

The point about tourists flocking to shows that are hard to get seats for is well-taken, but that can't be the whole reason.

C'mon, sage theorists, this is your chance to shine!

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:51am

you asked why the show is on the rocks.

we told you why. It's terrible. People tell other people it's terrible. People don't want to spend 100 bucks on a terrible show.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 12:52am

Actualy many radio personalities are saying to ignore the critics, they had fun at the show.

[jdixon69]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 1:04am

uh, thanks for the input, Z.

A theory: are shows aimed at people in their 30s and 40s handicapped cause those people aren't coming to Broadway as much??

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 1:04am

My ex used to work for a broadway advertising agency. Marketing for a Broadway show is incredibly, insanely expensive. Given that the sets and the costumes were - sorry -so cheap I can't imagine they have the money to put into real marketing. Just buying the rights to the show must have cut a huge chunk out of their budget. It comes down to two things - poor word of mouth and no $$$ for marketing.

Yes, marketing for a show is expensive. But marketing is EVERYTHING. You have no idea what you're talking about, Moxie. Those sets and costumes are damn expensive. Money for the initial rights to the film to write the libretto for the musical comes from a completely different place than marketing funds, as they are bought before the creative process even begins. The writer of the screenplay in addition makes money off of the show's success along with the creative team throughout the run.

[Parks]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 1:08am

All of my friends who have seen it (that's like 2 or 3) have loved it. They say it was one of their most amazing theatre experiences--simply because of the amazing energy the ensemble brings to the show.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 1:10am

Your thread title presumes that The Wedding Singer is on the rocks, which I do not presume.

Assuming that I had a producer of this show before me, with an open ear, who REALLY WANTED suggestions, I would give a couple.

#1. Get rid of the filthy dirty jokes that are as bad as what you'd hear from truck drivers, or worse. The audience may laugh but they are not funny, they are disgusting and cut down your audience. Get a SMART GOOD writer to help you excise the filthy part but keep humor in it with innuendo or better jokes. Then schools could book trips for their students, other people could recommend the show for theatre tours for suburbia and older folks and well-heeled audiences.

For example, the idea that the grandmother was a slut and had a lot of men is sick. It may be funny by innuendo, but not by flat out saying it.

You only have to do this in a few places. You will increase your audience.

#2. Hire Matthew Morrison for the male lead if you can get him. Pair him with Kelli O'Hara or anyone else he wants for the female lead. He can carry a show like that. He has the humor, youth, vitality and voice. And you won't have to sub him for any of his dancing.

My 2c,
NDP Updated On: 8/12/06 at 01:10 AM

[overthemoon419]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 2:32pm

The bit with the grandmother and her many men is taken from the movie, although the character in the movie was an adorable elderly woman taking singing lessons from Robbie (and he lived in his brother's basement).

I like Matthew Morrison. I think he's so very, very wrong for Robbie Hart. Stephen Lynch is exquisite.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 2:37pm

Why wrong? It's a comedy and he's very comedic. He also has the flexible body of a mime and can add a dimension of physical comedy that Steve Lynch does not possess.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 2:53pm

While you mull that over, overthemoon419, let me provide a visual of what the talented Mr. Morrison would be able to do in that role.

During the dumpster scene, one of my favorite scenes in the show, Mr. Morrison could use his natural athleticism to leave one of his feet visible, pointing vertically upside down, or raise one that way as the song begins.

The foot could then begin to respond to Laura as she sings that "Come out of the dumpster" song like a puppet. The man played soccer, he can do anything with his feet. The audience would eat it up because they love puppets and would love the creativity (not to mention the physical prowess) of it.

Take that, producers.

Lynch doesn't have that much physicality--a real theatre person can tell, and Lynch isn't a dancer. He's been lucky to have been as well received as he has been in the role and to get the Tony nom. I'm not putting Lynch down, he gives what he has, but others, and Mr. Morrison in particular, have more to give.
Updated On: 8/12/06 at 02:53 PM

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 2:54pm

...What do Matthew Morrisson and Kelli O'Hara have to do with anything? He's too good looking for the part anyway. The character is supposed to be a loser everyman, not a generic "I just stepped out of the pages of Tiger Beat" type.

Stephen Lynch is about as close as you can get to Adam Sandler without actually getting Adam Sandler. I used to confuse them before he ever did The Wedding Singer. Get a more traditional lead, clean up the play... it sounds to me that you're simply asking for a new show.

Which is a suggestion I can get behind.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 2:58pm

Mr. Morrison could "geek it up" for the beginning of the show, I assure you, then become a leading man.

I happen to think the costumes and choreography in the show are very good.

The story line is very simple, which is fine for a musical.

[Producer2]

Posted: 8/12/06 at 2:59pm

in the movie he lived in his sister's basement