Big in New York, Flop in London (and vice versa?)- Page 3

[Princeton2]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 4:07pm

There was talk, and im pretty sure it was reported in the UK press that Poppins was so high it met pretty much the initial production costs.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 4:09pm

No one spank me for this...but "We Will Rock You" has never played on Broadway, has it?

And hopefully it never will.

[legallysam]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 4:19pm

Actually, i have read the whole thread, and a lot of posters have been unsure about whether shows have recouped or not and have still posted their opinions. The thread is so much more interesting that way, but obviously if we're following you're rules blaxx...

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 4:28pm

"blaxx, the oringinal post didn't state fincancial flop, they used flop in the general sense, which could be a mulitude of factors (critical response, ticket sales, general opinion)."

Legallysam, blaxx is right. A flop is technically a show that has not recouped its investment. The original poster actually didn't specify his definition of a flop, so you can't really say he is using it in the general sense; therefore, you would use blaxx's definition.

Sure, the thread becomes more interesting if you throw in a bunch of other qualifiers (critical response, general opinion), but the correct definition of a flop is what blaxx has described. It all comes down to whether the show has generated enough interest to pull in its initial investment.


This is why people continue to be unsure of what a flop is.

Updated On: 9/25/09 at 04:28 PM

[legallysam]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 4:37pm

Millie i know the correct deffinition of a flop, I wasn't disputing this fact, however i feel that the constant referral to the deffinition can take away from a fun thread. A thread like this doesn't need constant deffinitions of hits and flops, just let people express their opinions.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 4:38pm

Okay, but the original poster asked which shows flopped in New York and were a hit in London, and vice versa. Going by the correct definition, people won't be stating opinions.

ETA: Heck, even going by the incorrect definition, it isn't a matter of opinion. Stating whether a show was a critical hit is not an opinion either. It either got good reviews or it didn't.

Updated On: 9/25/09 at 04:38 PM

[markypoo]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 5:38pm

Canterbury Tales - long-run in London; flop on B'way.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 9/25/09 at 11:30pm

Sunset Boulevard (London turned a profit, Broadway never did)

NO, SUNSET did not turn a profit in London. Show has never turned a profit anywhere.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/26/09 at 1:46pm

"a lot of posters have been unsure about whether shows have recouped or not"

Exactly Sam!

Producers of London productions do not necessarily have to publish the accounts of their individual productions, just their overall business interests. Therefore if we follow the strict commercial definition we can't even have the discussion!!

We can only make commercial assumptions about London productions using the length of their run as a subjective guide. Even insider gossip is inconclusive as two posters in this thread have already proved.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/26/09 at 7:12pm

"Producers of London productions do not necessarily have to publish the accounts of their individual productions, just their overall business interests. Therefore if we follow the strict commercial definition we can't even have the discussion!!"

Hmm, funny, because I have been finding some of these answers through a simple Google search.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 5:55am

"Hmm, funny, because I have been finding some of these answers through a simple Google search."

And that comment proves only how simple you are.

Were the sources of your google search reliable? Were they the audited published accounts pertaining to all the individual productions discussed and only those productions? I think not, because as I have already stated they are not necessarily available for public consumption.

Do not presume to take my comments out of context: read (and quote) the whole of my post. I've already pre-empted your anally-retentive response therein.

As a fully qualified finance professional who manages investment funds that could fund a whole Broadway season and who gets headhunted for his jobs even in a recession, I have good reason to know what I am talking about.

I cannot believe how self-righteous, conceited and arrogant some people are, particularly when they don't even bother to substantiate their posts.

Pathetic!



Updated On: 9/27/09 at 05:55 AM

[alterego]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 8:31am

The 1971 Broadway Revival of NO,NO, NANETTE died a death when it opened at London's Drury Lane in 1973 (with an English cast headed up by the afoementioned Dame Anna Neagle). Interestingly enough the original 1924 production was a huge hit in London before it went to Broadway.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 12:38pm

Scipps, I am aware not all productions publish their accounts; however, I search off of Google and exhaust my search options until I can find something. I look at New York Times, Playbill.com, and other reliable publications. If they don't publish anything, then they don't.

"As a fully qualified finance professional who manages investment funds that could fund a whole Broadway season and who gets headhunted for his jobs even in a recession, I have good reason to know what I am talking about."

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I guess that makes you the smartest person and most reliable source here.

And I am sorry I am self-righteous, conceited and arrogant - it takes one to know one!

Updated On: 9/27/09 at 12:38 PM

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 3:26pm

As a fully qualified finance professional who manages investment funds that could fund a whole Broadway season and who gets headhunted for his jobs even in a recession, I have good reason to know what I am talking about.

I cannot believe how self-righteous, conceited and arrogant some people are, particularly when they don't even bother to substantiate their posts.

Bwahaha, that has to be the most self-righteous, conceited and arrogant post I've read in a while. You win an award for being so funny.

[legallysam]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 3:52pm

How hilarious! Scripps makes quite an interesting post stating that it is in fact quite impossible sometimes to do this whole Hit and Flop thing when it comes to London shows, backs his point up with knowledge of what he is talking about and you lot come back with a rather primary response of "takes one to know one".

How very small minded.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/27/09 at 7:34pm

I know legallysam. It's a funny, funny world. I am glad he was able to give us "knowledge of what he is talking about." (what?)

Oh well. I guess I was wrong and Scripps was right. He is the fully qualified finance professional, after all. He must always know what he is talking about, unlike the rest of us peons.

Scripps's account of his job situation is totally irrelevant to this entire discussion by the way. I don't care if he is Warren Buffett.

For the record, legallysam, I understand that not all shows publish their accounts of recouping or not, making it impossible to determine if a show is a flop or a hit based on financial records. My issue was with your statement about the original poster using flop in the general sense. A flop, in the general sense, is based on finances. Not critical response like you indicated. If you don't make a return on investment, your show has flopped.

I understand that because sometimes London shows do not publish such information, it becomes impossible to have such flop vs. hit discussions and that we have to rely on information, such as the length of the run and critical response. But all that comes out of it are assumptions. I did touch upon this in an earlier post:

"And I am going by blaxx's definition of a flop, which is the correct one.

Though I know sometimes people have described shows in terms of being a critical success or failure (for example, a show that ran for two years with rave reviews, yet failed to recoup its investment is a critical hit, yet still a flop)."

In terms of specific shows, I have neither disputed anyone's statements unless I provided them a link from a reliable source that would indicate otherwise. For example, someone said that Millie was a flop in London. Going along with the setup of this thread, that would imply that Millie was a hit in the U.S. I provided them with a link and direct quote indicating that Millie was not a hit in the U.S. Yes, it had a lengthy run, but it only was able to return about 80% of its investment. That is a flop.

But once again, as you mentioned, we cannot find this information in all cases. So, for the sake of discussion, you can only rely on other qualifiers to discuss how successful it was. But these are merely assumptions.

Updated On: 9/27/09 at 07:34 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 9/28/09 at 3:00pm

Muppets: My job is entirely relevant because it qualifies me to talk about UK financial reporting standards and their particular application to theatre - something that niether of you, by the evidence of your posts, understand the first thing about.

Admittedly I deliberately posted in a manner that I knew would wind you up and which I'm delighted to see you've both wasted several minutes of your petty-minded lives responding to.

What a couple of losers!



You have both spoilt this entire thread for everyone else by your unnecessary, attention-seeking, bullying pedantics.

People wanted to talk about musicals and their perceptions on different sides of the Atlantic without having to read or research their (often non-existent) accounts first.

I would have loved to talk about No No Nannatte with Alterego or Songbook with Michael Bennett but instead their posts are drowned out by your self-righteous, poorly presented, unjustified, contradictory and ambiguous drivel.

What a couple of selfish, repugnant idiots!


Updated On: 9/28/09 at 03:00 PM

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 9/28/09 at 3:23pm

.

Updated On: 9/28/09 at 03:23 PM