| i may be wrong, but i think they're overestimating interest | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 07:37 pm EDT 10/15/24 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:21 pm EDT 10/15/24 | |
| In reply to: Are “Gypsy” sales soft? - Delvino 05:09 pm EDT 10/15/24 | |
|
|
|
| Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people eagerly awaiting this, ravenous for it even (maybe), passionate fans of Audra, of Broadway... and many of them even can and will buy tickets in advance (and many of those people probably can't afford to plan and buy in advance, but trust they'll get tickets when the time comes). But I also think the NYC and broadway-loving tourist world has had plenty of Gypsy... a show I think most people love and acknowledge as one of the great musicals ever written, but not necessarily one they're dying to revisit over and over and over for pure enjoyment or emotional experience (the way many think of, say, Grease, or Les Miz, Phantom, even Wicked). Gypsy is a tricky show, too smart to be funny emotional, too clever to be memorably FUNNY, as good as old school broadway score gets, but it's a Sondheim show in Golden-age clothing, it's got the standards, but it doesn't have the love songs, it's got the laughs and drama but it doesn't have the dancing (purposefully annoying show-kids and one sad song-and-dance from Tulsa doesn't make this a show with dance people return for), etc. The leading lady has a big emotional breakdown song but not a heart breaking song or a heart-melting song... it's brilliant but tricky. So I think the current thirst for Gypsy is not quite there. Then there's a box office power and interest in Audra, and Audra in this role. I think they moved on this too soon. Not only is it a VERY crowded season for Best Actress stars, which will sap up a lot of focused buzz and attention this production would normally get, and for how long it'll sustain the buzz and excitement ... but I think a lot of people outside of the hardcore fans are not quite as set-ablaze by the idea of Audra as Rose as we might hope/assume, or that they'd need for this to sell the way it should. I've already hit the timing of this production, and Audra's taking the role, but I think that's a big thing. There's a LOT of musicals starring female stars in juicy roles to contend for ticket buyers money, especially their advance purchasing money. While this may be, and is presumable to be, one of the main shows people would be into getting ticket to... who knows. I think if they waited even one more season they'd be in a more advantageous position. Also, they are charging too much... but they aren't alone. That seems to be Broadway now, sadly. And it's killing it. And, the biggest thing possibly... there is no word of mouth yet, and no reviews. Once there's amazing WOM (I can only assume there will be), and amazing reviews, I think it will quickly become a much hotter ticket, or at least become more sold than it is now. Unlike Groban, if a critic darling theater star doesn't get rave reviews from the theater critics who almost always sing her praises, I don't think her name and reputation can sustain a broadway mounting under the oppressive weight of 2024/25 budgets and running costs and ticket prices. I adore Audra, and I can't wait to see this, and I will. That said, I'm not sure about this casting, and I'm not thirsty for this show again or this production... I'm just as or more excited to see what Wolfe does with Gypsy as what Audra does with Rose, but FWIW I am not the kind of person who ever buys tickets in advance (perhaps the only show I did that for was Here We Are, assuming it would sell out immediately, and in a small theater). Also to be clear, no theater star can be expected to sell a Broadway run at today's costs and ticket prices... and they cannot be compared to global non-theater entertainment stars like Groban. Audra is one of VERY few theater stars who are not also TV and/or film or music recording stars, able to use their popularity and exposure in all 3 mediums to cover the bases of being bankable at the Broadway box office. Even Sutton has way way more TV exposure and fans than Audra. Maybe only Audra and Kelli remain as relatively bankable big Broadway stars known *only* for Broadway. Even Bernadette, who may be known almost exclusively for Broadway nowadays, built her career partly from TV appearances and a handful of beloved films too. Donna Murphy possibly counts too (though still much more tv/film work than Audra), Lea Solonga if we consider her a bankable theater star name... I'm not sure Idina's success in animated films has translated at all yet (if ever) to sales of tickets to see her in the couple of non-concert stage shows she's done since Frozen started, so perhaps she counts. But I dunno if she doesn't, because her being famously on the Oscars for Frozen, etc, has done a LOT for the exposure of her name and face, not just some random woman who sang Elsa. Audra doesn't have a Frozen or even a Tangled. Kristen and Patti have both done a lot of TV and/or film work, though I do think they're primarily known for Broadway, they are not exclusively known for that. Kristen's time on Pushing Daises and Glee especially count for way more in translating to broadway ticket sales than Audra's on Private Practice or certainly The Gilded Age. Anyway the point is, this isn't a reflection of her talent or her power in the Broadway community or the small pool of Broadway-first stars. Just that no one has that power anymore, under the weight of current day broadway budgets and ticket prices. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | I believe this is also true of the concert industry... - DistantDrumming 01:56 am EDT 10/17/24 |
| Next: | re: i may be wrong, but i think they're overestimating interest - IvyLeagueDropout 12:54 am EDT 10/16/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.045897 seconds.