|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2016 14:01:40 GMT
Saying that, all her other shows are always amazing and that's why I look up to her as a role model for aspiring producers. She has two of the biggest talked about musicals arriving this year, Funny Girl and Dreamgirls, both of which has done extremely well at box office already and will be done to a great standard. Well done for a try on BILB but I didn't enjoy it , Dreamgirls, ... Maybe, for instant audience identification and commercial success, BILB should have been called Bend It Girl. And Betty Blue Eyes should perhaps have been Porky Girl. Mrs Henderson Presents ~ Mrs Henderson's GirlsMade in Dagenham ~ Dagenham GirlsStephen Ward ~ Not Really a Girl
wonder.land ~ rabbit-hole.girl |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 26, 2016 14:09:32 GMT
Good stuff, Jon. On the other hand, shows like "Here To Eternity" has massive nostalgia appeal, and "Desperately Seeking Susan" and "Viva Forever" had the catalogues... hmm... any advance? Viva had a strong advance but once it was apparent that it wasn't very good, it ended up closing early. |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 26, 2016 14:15:08 GMT
don't think the idea worked very well and a musical made out of it wasn't the grandest idea. She could've invested in better shows. Saying that, all her other shows are always amazing and that's why I look up to her as a role model for aspiring producers. She has two of the biggest talked about musicals arriving this year, Funny Girl and Dreamgirls, both of which has done extremely well at box office already and will be done to a great standard. Well done for a try on BILB but I didn't enjoy it Sonia is a great producer but I think sometimes she does pick 'safe projects' like Hamlet or Harry Potter which would have sold regardless but at the same times, she transfers something like The Nether which was a tough sell but she produced it because she believed it deserved a wider audience. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 26, 2016 14:19:58 GMT
don't think the idea worked very well and a musical made out of it wasn't the grandest idea. She could've invested in better shows. Saying that, all her other shows are always amazing and that's why I look up to her as a role model for aspiring producers. She has two of the biggest talked about musicals arriving this year, Funny Girl and Dreamgirls, both of which has done extremely well at box office already and will be done to a great standard. Well done for a try on BILB but I didn't enjoy it Sonia is a great producer but I think sometimes she does pick 'safe projects' like Hamlet or Harry Potter which would have sold regardless but at the same times, she transfers something like The Nether which was a tough sell but she produced it because she believed it deserved a wider audience. It's all about getting the balance I guess - for every risk you need a banker just in case it goes badly wrong. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 26, 2016 18:51:17 GMT
for every risk you need a banker just in case it goes badly wrong. Bearing in mind, though, that there are very few bankers in theatre. Even safe shows like "King & I" have lost cash in revival. True - but Hamlet and Harry Potter certainly are two! However yes, and that's why a lot of financers tend to pool their resources fairly thinly. |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2016 19:09:13 GMT
Viva had a strong advance but once it was apparent that it wasn't very good, it ended up closing early. True, it did burn its advance, didn't it. That did confirm one thing I've always thought, that a great book is the most vital element of a musical.Frankly, I don't buy that. Take Mamma Mia as counter example. A hugely successful show, but the book is paperthin and utterly ridiculous. I mean no-one sees the show just to (not) find out who Sophie's dad is. Mamma Mia is such a success because of the great ABBA songs that all have a unique sound. After the first few bars, you recognise an ABBA song, and most of the songs are familiar to us and you can hum or sing along. The Spice Girls OTOH don't have such a unique sound; actually, all they did was generic pop music similar to many other groups. |
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 26, 2016 19:30:33 GMT
True, it did burn its advance, didn't it. That did confirm one thing I've always thought, that a great book is the most vital element of a musical.Frankly, I don't buy that. Take Mamma Mia as counter example. A hugely successful show, but the book is paperthin and utterly ridiculous. I mean no-one sees the show just to (not) find out who Sophie's dad is. Mamma Mia is such a success because of the great ABBA songs that all have a unique sound. After the first few bars, you recognise an ABBA song, and most of the songs are familiar to us and you can hum or sing along. The Spice Girls OTOH don't have such a unique sound; actually, all they did was generic pop music similar to many other groups. Mamma Mia!'s book isn't the strongest but it works with the songs, likewise with Wicked and Kinky Boots, neither have strong books but it works successfully. |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2016 19:50:26 GMT
And re Mamma Mia vs. Viva Forever: Maybe I'm a bad example, but I was born in 1984, two years after ABBA had broken up, so I never even had a chance to see them live. On the other hand, I was a teenager during the Spice Girls' heydays. And yet while I can easily give you the names of dozens of ABBA songs and sing and/or hum along, I couldn't even name a single Spice Girl song (true, I'd guess that Viva Forever is one just because the show was named after it).
|
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Apr 26, 2016 20:27:29 GMT
I think a lot of people went along to Viva Forever expecting it to be a musical about the Spice Girls.... so they were disappointed even before the woeful plot was started. With Mamma Mia! everyone just wants to hear the songs, so having a "plot" that gently runs along with it all is just an added bonus.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Apr 26, 2016 22:51:32 GMT
I think a lot of people went along to Viva Forever expecting it to be a musical about the Spice Girls.... so they were disappointed even before the woeful plot was started. With Mamma Mia! everyone just wants to hear the songs, so having a "plot" that gently runs along with it all is just an added bonus. Mamma has a plot that goes from A to B too,and with a good Sophie and Donna the story can work as well as sound as good as the original Its also made for hen nights and parties. Viva I think got everything wrong. The plot was so bad they forgot it before the end, and they decided not to make it about the Spice Girls - or sound like them - which is dumb if you want Spice Girls fans. i imagine they did it to stop comparisons, and to avoid the question what one Spice Girl ever sang . They then made it even worse by casting the, non band, band, with realistic newcomers to the industry, who sounded like it. You wonder if something based on the real Spice Girl story, with the actual sound, and some of the people playing the girls in the Workshops, would have done far better. |
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Apr 26, 2016 23:04:44 GMT
From what I hard from various people, in the first month or two Bend It did well, but there is no denying that in the end it was a flop. Wasn't a fan of I Can't Sing (The X Factor Musical), it could've been done so well, but didn't feel Harry Hills was the best writer for the show. Cynthia Eviro was great though! Agree the book could have been better, but the dog and Cynthia were enough to get an excellent reception from the people there. The question was why so many seats were empty. It might be because you need more great songs to make a really good musical - but here's a lot of successes with no more than I can't Sing. I wonder if that was just the connections . The X factor would turn many off. The lack of much of an X factor singing format, would turn the people who like the show off. Its got too much story if you went expecting lots of different good singers belting covers. . The attack on the show was too muted to win enough laughs, and the fans maybe were not receptive to a critique of their show. I Cant Sing as a title doesn't help perhaps either - irony floats over many- there's no play called We Can't Act, for good reasons. |
|
51 posts
|
Post by easilypleased on Apr 26, 2016 23:10:45 GMT
I agree that the book isn't really important for a musical and won't make or break it. Neither will the title, incidentally, or knowing what it's about - I have no idea what Sunset Boulevard is about (no, really I don't) but I will probably go to see it because I know it gets great reviews. I saw Kinky Boots because I trust Cindy Lauper - I haven't seen the film. I had seen the film of Mrs H and I went to see the musical - NOT because I especially liked the film but because (yes folks) I was intrigued by the nudity.
If any of us had the magic recipe to avoid a flop we wouldn't be posting on this board, but for what it's worth my money is on the quality of the songs, a star name (or at least star quality), humour (OK, so that is the book) and ENERGY!! Kinky Boots has these in spades, Mrs H on the other hand is overall meh on them all. That's why one nearly fills a 1500 seat theatre every show, the other struggles to sell maybe 600 seats.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 27, 2016 0:58:30 GMT
True - but Hamlet and Harry Potter certainly are two! However yes, and that's why a lot of financers tend to pool their resources fairly thinly. Something like Hamlet must be really easy to raise money for, I think Sonia Friedman mentioned that Much Ado About Nothing was essentially a present for her investors since it would easily recoup and make money. Potter I imagine it'd be a show where all three producers would invest their own money although I wouldn't be surprised if Warner Bros has put up most of the cash in exchange for film rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 10:43:50 GMT
I agree that the book isn't really important for a musical and won't make or break it. I think quite the opposite. I hate it when a production is so pleased with some aspect of itself that it figures no effort is required when it comes to a story, and especially when it operates on the basis that fans of the music will lap up any old crap so long as they know the words. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2016 20:29:44 GMT
Would show boat now be identified as one of these? Such a shame it didn't do well
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 20, 2016 6:18:22 GMT
By Broadway standards, the "flops" in the West End are true survivors that manage to run for several months. When I saw Show Boat earlier this month, I thought to myself tat this simply would not be running on Broadway with an empty theatre like this, and yet it continues to run despite early notices. On Broadway it would have closed shop immediately. The turnover in the WE is by far slower than it is in New York, which immediately makes the shows less "floppish".
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 20, 2016 12:48:52 GMT
I can see both sides of the argument. Sometimes it's good to give something a chance, let word of mouth develop and so on. Broadway is sometimes too hasty in axing shows that hardly got a fighting chance (something I also see on television where shows are often pulled after only a few episodes while British TV lets things run and waits for word to spread and quirky shows can develop a cult following).
On the other hand, I wonder how many shows have, after a few months of weak sales, suddenly developed into bestsellers? Do you have an example, monkey?
Personally I would have wished for both Made in Dagenham and Mrs Henderson Presents to run longer since I enjoyed them both. But I somehow can't believe that there would have been a sudden surge of demand for tickets (unless they got some tabloid c-list celebrity to take off her clothes as Maureen perhaps...)
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on May 20, 2016 12:56:17 GMT
Not for or against either, actually. I actually prefer the West End method. The turnover on Broadway is just so high that it is virtually impossible for anyone to see everything they are interested in unless they live in NYC.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 20, 2016 13:02:19 GMT
I can see both sides of the argument. Sometimes it's good to give something a chance, let word of mouth develop and so on. Broadway is sometimes too hasty in axing shows that hardly got a fighting chance (something I also see on television where shows are often pulled after only a few episodes while British TV lets things run and waits for word to spread and quirky shows can develop a cult following). On the other hand, I wonder how many shows have, after a few months of weak sales, suddenly developed into bestsellers? Do you have an example, monkey? Personally I would have wished for both Made in Dagenham and Mrs Henderson Presents to run longer since I enjoyed them both. But I somehow can't believe that there would have been a sudden surge of demand for tickets (unless they got some tabloid c-list celebrity to take off her clothes as Maureen perhaps...) A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder had weak sales but the Tony nominations and win turned things around. At the end of the day, it's a business and it's no good keeping something afloat and losing more money in the hope things will get better |
|
|
|
Post by vickster51 on May 20, 2016 14:07:57 GMT
I always find it interesting that the flop debate, on the whole, is only really about musicals, which makes sense seeing as plays have short, finite runs. Therefore people know they don't have long to see it so maybe make the effort to book, while musicals maybe are seen as more long-term and running for longer so they'll get round to it eventually.
I also wonder whether people are more willing to take a risk on seeing something a bit different if it's a play, while if they want a musical, people tend to play it safe and go to the big names, which have a proven track record, or simply prefer to revisit their favourite musical.
|
|
7,050 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 20, 2016 14:54:52 GMT
A play can still close in under a couple of weeks, vickster, or have a run cut short and lose a fortune. You may be on to something about risk, though. Hmmm, nice point. Hand to God comes to mind of a play that closed early. The Mentalists also closed a month early due to poor sales. Many plays with a few exceptions can't extend due to prior commitments of the actors or the theatre owner has already booked the next play. |
|
