why did millie close?- Page 2

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 6:01am

Yea Urinetown made there money back but i feel like you could be comparing Apples and Oranges. Urinetown's set were pretty cruddy and run down while Millie's where huge and stylish. I think Production cost is something that should be looked at when comparing these shows.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 7:07am

I really liked Susan Egan as Millie. But to each his own, I guess.

Posted: 6/2/06 at 9:43am

I regret that I didn't see Millie. But I thought it was a bad idea for a Broadway musical.Foster's Tony win didn't make it a good show any more than Menzel's made Wicked a good show

[Craig]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 9:53am

Susan was not the reason the show closed - the #s were dipping considerably long before she took over...

In short, the show had run its course.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 10:09am

i never saw millie on broadway but we had the same production here in the west end (with amanda holden as millie)and it diddnt do well here at all.The show really struggled to find an audience even though the west end diddnt have many new shows around then.When the show closed it went out on a national tour and was playing to 500 to 800 people a night in 2000 capacity theatres like the manchester palace.
I saw the show and whilst had a good night out i had totally forgotten any of the songs 5 mins after i left the theatre so never wanted to go back and see it.
And words in the pubs and bars in london after the show was people saying it was all glitz and dazzle but with not much else to offer.
since the national tour its not been seen since

lol

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 10:12am

Millie was a fun night at the theatre, but not a great show by any means. You really can't compare it to Urinetown; one is enjoyable fluff and the other is biting satire.

That said, I loved both just about equally. But Urinetown should've won Best Musical.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 10:21am

Soooooo wish we would get urinetown in the uk

[Jon]

Posted: 6/2/06 at 10:27am

Scenery had nothing to do with the difference in running costs between Urinetown and Millie. Once a set is built, it's built. That expense is included in the inital investment. The main element of a show's weekly running expense is SALARIES. Urinetown had a much smaller cast than Millie. Do you think "Rent" would still be running if it had a cast of 25?

[sabrelady]

Posted: 6/3/06 at 12:50am

So, where do touring companies factor in when calculating the financial return on investment?

[alterego]

Posted: 6/3/06 at 12:57am

I doubt that Sutton Foster would sell too many tickets to tourists from overseas. Her name would mean nothing to them.

Interesting to hear about Millie in London and the tour. I lost interest in the show when I learnt that Jazz Baby wasn't in it.

[Sant]

Posted: 6/3/06 at 8:48am

Because the show wasn't very good. Sutton Foster was - the show itself wasn't.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 6/3/06 at 8:58am

Her name wouldn't sell to anyone not into theatre, even in New York. I live in NY and if I go out and ask someone who she is, they'll have no clue.

Here's the formula.

MEDIOCRE SHOW + UNKNOWN STAR + CORNY TITLE = POOR SALES

[DAME]

Posted: 6/3/06 at 10:49am

It was a very mediocre show that ran longer than it desreved to.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 6/3/06 at 12:01pm

For those who've never seen it, DON'T judge it by the movie...it's a lot different (better). It's funny how they can turn stupid movies into pretty good musicals - I thought Hairspray the movie was terrible, but the show's great.

I've always had a soft spot for Millie. Yes it's fluff, but it's fun fluff put to catchy, often showstopping music (in my opinion). But oh, how I love Urinetown.