Although I am not a fan of Grease, and did not see the 2007 revival, I have always wondered why the revival never recouped and closed when it did. Looking at its grosses it played to nearly sell out crowds for its first 6 months and then hovered around 80% for the next 6 months, and then hovered around 57% potential gross for its final 6 months with a few weeks dipping into the forties. Yes the shows grosses were on a downward spiral, but it only announced its January closing in December with only 3 weeks of weeks of grosses below 50% gross. Yes the show was on its way out the door upon closing, but considering how commercial the production was, stemming from a reality show, I would think the producers would try and get every last nickel they could out of the production.
More importantly in my mind though was how did the production never turn a profit? It had a cast of no names until Taylor Hicks joined the production 9 months into the run, and even then he couldn't of been asking for that much money. The only reasoning I can think of was the production played the Brooks which is a relatively small house for a non-chamber musical, causing a gross potential to production cost ratio. Any insight would be much appreciated!
...Was it? It ran only a year and a half. With a cast of over two dozen, on top of other expenses, I can't really imagine how it would manage to recoup in that time.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
You're right.. I checked. BroadwayWorld reported that it had recouped its budget and it had a $17 million advance sale by the time it opened on Broadway. Pretty good for a not-so-good revival.
"By the time GREASE opened on Broadway, advance tickets sales had reached $17 million. The production recouped its entire investment during its 52nd playing week."
"...Was it? It ran only a year and a half. With a cast of over two dozen, on top of other expenses, I can't really imagine how it would manage to recoup in that time."
Without the reality show we would not have Laura Osnes who proved she is beyond a one hit wonder that can do BOTH revivals and new material with ease
""...Was it? It ran only a year and a half. With a cast of over two dozen, on top of other expenses, I can't really imagine how it would manage to recoup in that time."
Without the reality show we would not have Laura Osnes who proved she is beyond a one hit wonder that can do BOTH revivals and new material with ease"
With the kind of talent she has displayed there is no doubt in my mind that she would still have a very great career, with or without the reality show. It may have pushed her forward a bit faster, but she still would have done quite well without it.
I agree about Osnes' talent, but I also know equally talented women (and men) who got tired of waiting and ended up on cruise ships, or teaching voice or selling real estate.
I'm certainly not saying that would have happened to Osnes; I'm just saying there's no way to know how a career would have unfolded without the early reinforcement of winning the lead role in GREASE.
It's lovely to think talent and drive are always rewarded, but such is not the case. Nonetheless, Osnes definitely has the goods and could well have become a success without winning a TV show.