Why wasn't the 2009 Ragtime revival a success?

I saw it and thought it was fantastic.

---

I agree that it was a fantastic production. Although technically it was sparse, that show demands a large cast. And it had no name recognition, not even in the form of Broadway names. It also didn't help that Riedel had it out for the production for no real reason.

I don't recall what the critics said, but I don't think they were negative at all.

---

Why is a piece of trash like Mama Mia still running, but a gem like Ragtime is not? A big reason is advertising or inadequacy thereof. Ragtime is - in my opinion and shared by countless others - the BEST musical ever made on so many levels. It is a financial failure because of lack of marketing push.

Because the Simon has been cursed since Hairspray

In my opinion Ragtime is one of the best American musicals of the modern era. Is it THE BEST? Not quite, one of the best, for sure. The original, which in my opinion was considerably better than the revival was actually quite underated as well. For some reason this musical gem has never found the audience and buzz that it deserves.

Saw it twice, the second time on closing day. Best thing I've ever seen. Bringing it to Broadway was a bad idea, but I'm selfishly so grateful they did.

---

I loved both the original and the revival. Although the revival had a less impressive physical production than the original, it was far from shabby. The revival was well staged and beautifully performed. I agree with the person who said that RAGTIME is one of the best musicals of the modern era. It had a tremendous emotional impact for me and many others. I'm sad to say it, but my conclusion is that the show didn't last because it assumed that the audience would give it a degree of attention and thought that most successful Broadway shows don't require. It also effectively presented some still valid truths about change in our country that many people don't want to confront. It horrifies me to realize that the failure of musicals like RAGTIME and SCOTTSBORO BOYS makes production of future challenging, complex musicals less likely to happen.

Why is a piece of trash like Mama Mia still running, but a gem like Ragtime is not?

1. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

2. You're comparing apples to oranges. Do you believe that if someone likes Mamma Mia then they should automatically like Ragtime?

I thought the score and the original cast made the first production of Ragtime worth seeing, but was disappointed in every other aspect of the show. Personally, I feel like the staging of the revival with the cast of the original would have been an ideal production even if the book was rather inconsistent and often unbalanced and unfocused. But there was nothing about the revival of Ragtime that demanded the public's attention and the producers didn't seem to raise enough money to raise awareness of the production other than leaning on the reviews. The same thing happened to Finian's Rainbow, which opened a couple of weeks earlier.

As for Mamma Mia, I wish that bit of trash had been my idea that got produced. Entertaining audiences worldwide for nearly 15 years now is hardly doing anyone any harm. I remember loving it when I saw the original London cast just a couple of weeks after it opened and the little old Japanese lady sitting next to me, who couldn't speak a word of English, waving her arms during Dancing Queen seemed to as well. That's why Mamma Mia was produced and why it continues to run.

---

Updated On: 3/9/13 at 02:42 PM

The question could also be asked...with the original production having run for 2 years and having closed slightly less than 10 years before, what made them feel the time was right for a revival? I think we all recognize theater tickets aren't cheap and most people who don't qualify to join TDF or aren't students have to plunk down at a minimum $150-$200 for a couple of orchestra seats to a show even when buying them at TKTS or using a coupon code. Lots of folks may not opt to see a show a second time they've seen before even if they enjoyed it if there are other shows they haven't seen and want to, especially if they don't live in New York and there is a limit to the number of opportunities they have to see a show. Regardless of the quality of the revival and its cast, they might need to do a better job of analyzing their potential market. Case in point, the just closed revival of Virginia Woolf never really found an audience despite being IMO the best thing on B'way this season. I usually get to NY twice a year and since I had "just" seen the 2005 revival wasn't going to bother. I decided to go on my last night because the reviews were so uniformly good and was so glad I did. But a lot of others probably didn't. All things to consider.

Updated On: 3/9/13 at 04:25 PM

I've talked a lot about this with my friend who was heavily involved in the show, and it all came down to the advertising, or sheer lack thereof.

He used Memphis as an example:Memphis had no stars, no selling points, but it was on every taxi top, subway station, etc. Ragtime had a billboard in Times Square and that was it. First-time producers from the Kennedy Center who re-built the set for Broadway during the transfer instead of re-using the one from D.C. and spent the bare minimum on advertising.

Heartbreaking.

NIGHT MUSIC opened a month later with much more buzz, excitement, and star quality.

I don't think that helped RAGTIME.

First-time producers from the Kennedy Center who re-built the set for Broadway during the transfer instead of re-using the one from D.C. and spent the bare minimum on advertising.

I could be wrong, but aren't there union requirements regarding the creation of sets on Broadway?

---