SYLVIA to close on January 3, 2016

[quizking101]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 11:48am

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/sylvia-starring-annaleigh-ashford-and-matthew-broderick-post-closing-notice-373084

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 11:55am

no surprise there. 

[asmith0307]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 11:57am

It's only closing 3 weeks early. So not terrible (especially January they way it usually is on profits)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 12:04pm

unless there is a sea change, there will be no profit for Sylvia even in weeks that traditionally are moneymakers.

This is another example of a show that is the product of tone deaf producers. who in their right mind would think that there was a market for this show? 

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 12:13pm

Glad we saw it this time around.  Ashford should definitely be remembered around Tony time.

 

I never saw this becoming a big fat hit especially after it flopped previously but  mildly shocked that it going so quickly.  Might have fared better at NWS.

[KCW]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 12:20pm

Did anyone besides the producers of it see this suceeding? 

[newintown]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 12:29pm

I suppose very little would get produced if the money folks thought more critically/skeptically about their choices:

 

Holler If Ya Hear Me - non-theatrical material aimed at an audience that seems to have little or no interest in Broadway (or even theatre),

This Is Our Youth - revival of a small, grim, old Off-Broadway play with no real stars,

Love Letters - a tiny Off-Broadway play where the 2 actors don't move or memorize their lines,

On The Town - often-revived, never successful since the original,

The Last Ship - a grim, grey musical about a grim, foreign culture, written by a team with no theatre experience at all,

Side Show - a famous old flop that (essentially) makes cute with dark source material while pretending to be dark; what makes you think you've "fixed" it?

The Heidi Chronicles - moderately successful in its original run, but certainly no classic,

Gigi - a famous old flop; what makes you think you've "fixed" it?

Doctor Zhivago - standard Les Miz-style floperetta treatment of a public domain story (see Tale of Two Cities)

Amazing Grace - ham-handed, amateurishly written piece by total newbs that got no truly encouraging press in previous productions (see Chaplin)

Spring Awakening - gimmicky revival of a piece that was only moderately successful in its initial production (a 2-year run now is akin to a 6-month run in the 30s)

Dames At Sea - slightly over-inflated revival of an itty-bitty, miniscule spoof of movies that no one watches any more, directed by a former dancer who doesn't quite get the idea of the show,

Sylvia - slightly over-inflated revival of a moderately charming old Off-Broadway skit.

Updated On: 11/24/15 at 12:29 PM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 12:36pm

I agree with most things you commented on, newintown, except for Spring Awakening being a "gimmicky revival of a piece that was only moderately successful in its initial production (a 2-year run now is akin to a 6-month run in the 30s)."

 

It is a disservice to call this beautiful production "gimmicky," and I think it is difficult to appropriately gauge the success of the original production since it was one of the victims of the rare circumstances Broadway faced during the Recession. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 1:00pm

newintown,

what you say in your first paragraph is not correct, but it is a plausible opinion; then you feel the need to undercut its budding intelligence with subjective comments about specific shows that make you sound lame (even though, in some cases, I agree with your opinion).

A more trenchant (and more interesting) avenue would be to distinguish between shows that are produced for worthy reasons, and those that appear to have no raison d'être other than a misguided sense that folks might want to see the show so they can make money.

Oh, and by the way, you have The Last Ship very wrong: the element of the show that was identified as its failing-the book-had an impeccable theatre provenance. It was the elements by a first-timer (as a non-performer) that were singled out for quite exuberant praise.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 1:11pm

Perhaps, Hogan, perhaps. But who gets to say which producing reasons are "worthy," and which are "ignorant" or "mercenary?" You? Me? Harvey Weinstein?

 

A qualitative opinion is always merely an opinion. Including yours.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 2:15pm

newintown said: "Perhaps, Hogan, perhaps. But who gets to say which producing reasons are "worthy," and which are "ignorant" or "mercenary?" You? Me? Harvey Weinstein?

A qualitative opinion is always merely an opinion. Including yours."

Oh absolutely. But I think there is a difference between subjective dislike of a show, and whether its presence on Broadway has some intrinsic value. Yes, sometimes it is hard to avoid the overlap, but (as an example) I didn't like Holler, but I understand the value of bringing it in. I felt the same from a very different perspective about On the Town. I didn't think it was as good as it needed to be to overcome its history, but I was nonetheless happy to hear the score performed by a big fat band. I actually like one word you used multiple times-"over-inflated." I think that can describe a lot of shows that I would call unworthy.

[TerrenceIsTheMann]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 2:26pm

Agreed with HogansHero. Especially on The Last Ship and Spring Awakening-totally off.

[newintown]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 2:29pm

Oh, I see what you mean. And yes, I also see the social/moral value (perhaps) in developing a show like Holler; but per my initial comment about employing more critical or skeptical thinking, it seemed most likely that a show like that was not going to be a commercial success.

 

But as I said, if producers were as skeptical about potential commercial success as I am, very little would probably get produced. And I'm not at all saying that that would be a good thing. Which is why I'm not a producer or even an investor.

 

My "evaluations" about the unlikelihood of any of the shows on my list being financially successful weren't intended to be reflections of any personal dislike (I actually liked element of some of those shows); they were intended to show skeptical arguments against their financial feasibility in the first place. But those arguments can be made about any show, including those that turn out to be hits ("Sesame Street for grown-ups?".

Updated On: 11/24/15 at 02:29 PM

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 2:35pm

Doctor Zhivago was published in 1957. It's not 'public domain'!

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 3:35pm

"This is another example of a show that is the product of tone deaf producers. who in their right mind would think that there was a market for this show?"

 

Their whole marketing strategy seemed to revolve around dog owners. I have a dog. That didn't make the play any better.

 

@newintown I wish they had actually "fixed" Side Show as there is compelling music in the show. That said, I preferred listening to the original album to watching the "revisal." I wouldn't call Doctor Zhivago a "floperetta" and I think it deserved a longer run. Was it the greatest show? No. But it wasn't an abysmal failure. I think Spring Awakening is just not for me but I wouldn't call this revival "gimmicky."

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/24/15 at 4:34pm

@newintown, to refine this just a little more: I think sometimes shows are produced because they are viewed as something that ought to be seen on the world's biggest stage (whether because of subject matter, author, genre or some combination of the above). And sometimes/usually there is a "vast eternal plan" (to quote something with some currency) behind these efforts. As has been rehearsed in other threads, things in the theatre don't really happen in game-changing moments, but rather in baby steps. And while Holler, as an example, did not pull in some huge new audience, I think it could be argued that it took an incremental step. It's a standard principle of advertising certain products that you are not targeting a sale out of the box, but just an awareness. I think it is sometimes the same with producing. 

Now this all has a flip side too: there are shows that are produced just because someone thinks they have an angle to mint money. There are several shows on your list that fall in this category. And I think we can generally differentiate between why we are seeing Love Letters, and why we are seeing The Humans or Hand to God etc. And I pray we can all distinguish between Holler If Ya Hear Me and Dames at Sea, and on multiple levels....