If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
If he just had Fiddler and Phantom he'd be enormously successful on the$ side. Not only has he had other hits but since when does not having commercial success equate with being a hack. In fact many commercially successful people are hacks whether in the theater or elsewhere.
Prince has had his fair share of flops- but anyone who has worked on as many shows as he has will have their fair share.
Phantom on Broadway owed its out of the box success to the media storm that came from across the pond- people were being told what an amazing show it was and that tickets were going to be impossible to get, that Crawford was giving a once in a lifetime performance, and the list goes on. His guiding hand helped to ensure that it was a hit in London. If Webber had his way with another director- things may have turned out much different. I have always felt that Maria Bjornson and Hal Prince, combined with some soaring and repetitive melodies are Phantom's killer combination.
I actually think if this show is pieced together properly and sells itself on the shows included, which as stated previously make up most of the most famous and successful musicals of all time- this could be a really big hit.
This thread is most confusing. Are we talking about Hal Prince the director? Hal Prince the producer? Who? I think we can agree that he met his Waterloo at the opera, as his adventures at the MET with FAUST and NYCO with BUTTERFLY can attest. (I don't count the opera house repeats of his earlier Broadway work- different animals altogether.)