throughy Modern Millie a Flop.- Page 2

[Corine2]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 10:12pm

The biggest "Turkey" this year was Prymate.

[CastAlbumFan]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 10:17pm

No, that honor goes to OLDEST LIVING CONFEDERATE WIDOW and ENTER LAUGHING.

[Craig]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 10:17pm

I also believe Bobbi Boland..

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 10:18pm

Sorry, but by definition, according to Variety, ShowBiz and all the other trade publications, a show that doesn't recoup is classified as a flop. This isn't a judgment on the quality of the show -- it's a business term. So, yes, Sondheim has written many flops that just happen to be some of the greatest and most important shows of the last half century (by the way, "Into the Woods," did, in fact recoup its investment during its original run). It's no slight to Sondheim or the greatness of some of his masterpieces -- lots of brilliant shows never found enough of an audience to pay back their investments. And lots of truly lousy shows managed to turn a profit for one reason or another (a big star in the lead, a great ad campaign, et al) and as such are classified as "hits" -- that doesn't change the fact that they are/were awful shows.

[CastAlbumFan]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 10:24pm

Thanks for the correction! Glad to see WOODS made its money back.

I understand why unprofitable shows are considered flops. I don't like it, but I understand.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 10:55pm

Not every show that finds an audience is deserving of one. But if it is deserving, it will find an audience.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 6/27/04 at 11:50pm

....that is sometimes not large enough to keep a show open long enough for it not to be a flop.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 10:52am

Merriam-Webster defines a flop as "something that fails completely". Thoroughly Modern Millie was quite fun and won a few awards while Sondhiem's financial failures have not been artistic failures(mostly)...So...I don't think we should call any show that loses money a flop...just a failure. Aside from that, isn't it more fun to save the word flop for a show that REALLY lays an egg. Big, Dance of the Vampires, Capeman, Breakfast at Tiffany's... and on and on. It just seems a FLOP is something that REALLY takes a dive...something not a simple as a financial failure.

KC

"Why do they laugh, When they KNOW I'm crying?
Momma says everybody sins..."

[robbiej]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 11:07am

OK...OK...THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE was not a 'flop'.

How about 'non-money-making, artistically bankrupt evening in the theatre'?

[BWayBoy88]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 11:15am

I still think that from a financial stand point, it was a flop because it didnt make back its investment.

[Dawg]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 11:29am

RobbieJ makes Dawg laugh...

But seriously, go pick up a copy of Ken Mandlebaum's NOT SINCE CARRIE, which is a very well-put together record of flops. If he were writing it today, it would indeed include MILLIE. It's not saying the show sucked, it's saying they didn't make back the money they spent.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 11:36am

Actually, Not Since Carrie only includes shows that didn't recoup their investment and ran less than (I think) a hundred performances...

KC

[magruder]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 11:45am

Ken Mandelbaum uses a run of 250 performances or less to define a flop, so Millie won't qualify for the next edition of Not Since Carrie.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 1:59pm

Technically Millie is a flop since it did not recoup its initial investment, but we may need to invent a new term for a show that does run for a time and yet does not return its nut. It could lose all of the investment or only part, even a small part of it, and it is still a flop.

This list which gets longer every season includes: Shenandoah (the first show to run over 1000 performances and not pay off), the original Chicago, Tommy, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Ragtime, Sunset Boulevard, Jekyll & Hyde (the current long-run non-payoff champion at 4+ years), Sweeney Todd, and now Millie.

The 1975 Chicago, Purlie, Raisin, Coco, and Shenandoah did eventually make their money back on a post-Broadway tour.

Some flops with short runs and good reviews are called a "success d'estime", but that term is used for an arty show with fairly good reviews that fails to find an audience like Side Show or either production of Jumpers.

Is "long-run, non-investment-returning production" too long a term?

[N.B.--Wicked has not paid off nor will it for a while. The show cost 14 mil to open and even with million dollar plus weekly grosses, that will take well over a year to get into the hit column.]

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 2:04pm

I've heard the term "flop-hit" used to describe long runs that never recouped. Certain journalists used that term for all those Wildhorn shows that ran for years, but hemorrhaged $$$millions in red ink (J&H, Pimpernel)

[John4763]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 2:42pm

I remember reading when "Aspects of Love" closed that ALW kept it running past the 1 year mark so that nobody could call it a "flop".

So somebody out there defines a flop as a show that closes within one year. Updated On: 6/28/04 at 02:42 PM

[WOSQ]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 2:57pm

But Aspects of Love WAS a failure. It lost its entire investment plus money that was poured into it to keep it open long after it had ceased to break even. I think the final amount was over 8 million, a record loss at the time.

And I think it ran Feb to Dec; 10 1/2 months.

When a producer dumps lots of good money after bad, then its bad producing.

[scooter38432]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 4:43pm

MargoChanning. I love everything you have to say.
Your Sondheim bits were dead on.

[SexyMelvin]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 4:49pm

Without Sutton, the show was nothing.

[scooter38432]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 4:54pm

Agreed, SexyMelvin.

I don't think a lot of people realized how weak the material could be without the powerhouse that is Sutton Foster. (Nothing against Susan Egan, of course.)

I do adore Harriet Harris, however...
She gave me one of the biggest laughs I've ever experienced in 23 years of going to Broadway shows. (And she's sooo perfect in THE MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER, too.)

[Jon]

Posted: 6/28/04 at 5:56pm

Let me put it this way: if you put up a million dollars of your own money to produce a show, and never got a penny of it back, it wouldn't matter whether it ran two weeks or two years - you're still out a million bucks, and the show was a flop!

The musical "big" ran a year even though it was doing lousy business. The producers kept pumping more and more cash intro advertising, hoping somehow the audiences would materialize, even though the show was not even making it's weekly "nut. If they had closed right after the Tony Awards (they won none), it would have been a total loss of 8 million bucks. By continuing to keep it running till Christmas, they lost 10 million!