What Went Wrong with HONEYMOON IN VEGAS?

[Cfried]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 11:31pm

I know many people on this board aren't a fan, but I can't quite understand why Honeymoon in Vegas flopped the way it did...

It came direct from a fantastic run at Paper Mill, earned a rave and Critic's Pick from Brantley (and received strong reviews overall if I remember correctly), starred Tony Danza, and was based on a (fairly?) successful property. I was inspired by the 9 to 5 thread to post this and hear others' thoughts. 

Updated On: 9/3/17 at 11:31 PM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/2/17 at 11:57pm

It's no secret on here that Honeymoon in Vegas remains one of my favorite shows ever. It was a true treat that I still believe deserved a better audience. To your question, though, a few things:

1) Geographically speaking, the Nederlander Theatre doesn't help any show. I believe Honeymoon was initially supposed to go into the Atkinson on 47th, which would've been a wonderful spot. Unfortunately, being south of 42nd Street simply does not get foot traffic near your marquee.

2) The show opened in January, which was a truly horrible choice to make. Unless you're opening with Hamilton-level buzz, distancing your show 4+ months away from Tony nominations season doesn't help one bit, and you have to be prepared with super deep pockets to get through the dark winter months.

3) It didn't have the "name" that a Broadway show needs these days. From what I saw at least, Tony Danza's name in 2015 elicited a lot of "aww yeah, I love that guy"s, but not enough "aww yeah, I'll buy a ticket for that."

Those are, I think, three fundamental reasons that led to its closing. Another one might include the fact that it was a "fluffy" show during a season of otherwise "important" theatre (for me, though, that was a plus). But, as Brantley's Critic Pick will forever attest, it was a truly wonderful show that just wasn't produced in the right way at the right time.

[BroadwayMan5]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:02am

I didn't see the show so I can't speak to its quality but I think that January opening was killer for them. I don't know why the producers did that. Unless you're a self-starting show, opening way outside of awards or holiday season is dumb.

[ethan231h]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:39am

To me the show just felt so so SO tacky. It really wasnt funny and the their was no performance to really go crazy about. The music was fun, I'll give it that! The only part of the show I really loved was the NY scenes...maybe cause I'm a new yorker...not sure! It actually sorta does surprise me about how it failed cause I feel like tourists could've gobbled this down like easy...strange yes. I think ultimately they shouldve stayed with the Brooks on 47th, or maybe even shouldve tried for the Marquis and it would've made it a few more months. But in all honesty...it was just so tacky and not directed well, but of course that doesn't necessarily mean thats why it didn't do well.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:46am

Saw the show and loved it. Was shocked that it didn't do better.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:51am

Didn't really need to be a musical. The plot is pretty simple and you can figure out where it's going, which I think is why a lot of movie musical adaptions don't work. At least something like Groundhog Day didn't just copy exactly what was on the screen. I also hated he design and direction. The first 30-40 mins of the show were great, but then I felt like it was filler song after filler song. 

[ethan231h]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:55am

RippedMan said: "Didn't really need to be a musical. The plot is pretty simple and you can figure out where it's going, which I think is why a lot of movie musical adaptions don't work. At least something like Groundhog Day didn't just copy exactly what was on the screen. I also hated he design and direction. The first 30-40 mins of the show were great, but then I felt like it was filler song after filler song."

exactly. 

[binau]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:58am

They invented Truvada and it became irrelevant. 

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:16am

Honestly you could tell that someone was worried about the show. There was no reason that show had to preview for two months other than wanting to be able to ride through the holiday season on the reviews and pull-quotes from the Papermill production. And even then the show limped through the holidays pulling numbers that most other shows would be worried to get during the January/February lull and should have been the death knell for any show to be pulling in during that time (even On the Town was able to break the $1,000,000 mark during Christmas week of 2014, while Honeymoon couldn't even crack $400,000 that week).

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:36am

I wondered about the taste issue. I love Jason Robert Brown's "serious" work, but with the exception of the brilliant "Surabaya-Santa" from SONGS FOR A NEW WORLD, when he writes funny--HONEYMOON or "The Schmuel Song"--I tend to cringe. Tony Danza's song about his overly tanned wife is like that: I'm chuckling along until he compares her lovingly to "saddle bags". Yeech!

But that may just be me and maybe I haven't see enough of Brown's musicals staged.

What I would like to know is what they did instead of the giant ring of parachuting Elvis impersonators. The file was pretty much structured around that visual image, but I don't see it happening on stage. 

Updated On: 9/3/17 at 01:36 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:41am

It was a third-rate property nobody wanted to see onstage, especially at Broadway prices, and it wasn't very funny for a broad musical comedy. But I liked it. It was a real old-fashioned evening. Very good and melodic score by JRB, and a fabulous cast. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 2:09am

^^^So what about the Elvis impersonators?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 2:15am

They did the Elvis bit. 

I just don't think either of the leads were very interesting. That's not to discredit the actors, but I just don't think it's a show where you're rooting for anyone or anything. It's subpar. And I'm actually surprised it hasn't done better regionally. I guess because there was no tour there just isn't much interest? There are parts of the show that are great, and Nancy Opel's number was insanely brilliant. 

[newintown]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 9:47am

1: Inept book by someone with practically no theatre experience, and who couldn't see his screenplay in a new light. The mother character started strong, but couldn't follow through. The islander characters were racially offensive cartoons. The lead, as written and performed, was so annoying and unattractive, Danza's character, problematic as he was, seemed a better choice for the girl to go with.

2: a score with some good songs, but more that felt like filler and two that were just in tone-deaf bad taste (the skin cancer number and that cringeworthy "Fricki-Fricki".

A one-two punch that knocked the project out.

[nsguy45]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:12am

Tony Danza, on Sirius with Seth Rudetsky, blamed the off the beaten path theatre location and the harsh winter for the show's demise.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:20am

It's a funny thing. People have had no trouble finding the Nederlander Theatre when there's something playing in it that they want to see. Like Lena Horne or Million Dollar Quartet for a year, Newsies for two years,  or Rent for 13 years. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:25am

newintown said: "A one-two punch that knocked the project out."

Yep, and there were seeming sucker punches that set that up, including a director without a strong track record on Broadway and songs that, to me, felt forced like they were written by someone better suited (in the nomenclature of another recent thread) to art than commerce (and who. like the director, lacked a strong track record on the main stem).

 

[raddersons]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 11:28am

After sitting thru such a slog of a first act, and then having to see Tony Danza tap dance... I actually said "really?" out loud in the theater. Who wants to sit through this?

Friki-Friki number was so absurdly offensive and stereotypical.

Brynn O'Malley was the only entertaining part of the show.

This show getting NYTimes Critics Pick made me wonder if Brantley and Isherwood were getting paid off somehow.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 12:52pm

I think the "theatre location" excuse is similar to talking about "names" that sell tickets. There are stars that sell tickets, but only in certain shows. Put Cher in "Mame" and people will find "out of the way" and "undesirable" theatres. However, prime locations on 45th house flops all the time. I'm sure you can research and see that a certain theatre might have recouped more in it's history, but I doubt it's based entirely on it's location. 

 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:05pm

Since it hasn't been mentioned here yet, if you look at the old thread on this show that grew to ~100 pages long or so, probably the most frequently cited reason that people mentioned for hating it was the egregious misogyny that is at the essence of the story and therefore couldn't have been overcome with a few script tweaks.

[stevie3]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:57pm

The Show was Pure Genius !!! Bway Concierge was almost 100 percent on what he wrote. Probably one of the Best OVERALL musicals ever put on a Broadway Stage

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 12:51am

RippedMan said: "They did the Elvis bit...."

I'm sorry to be a nudge, RM, but I am relying on your customary kindness.

They did WHAT with the Elvis bit?

In the film, 40 Elvis impersonators parachute out of an airplane and make a circle in free fall before landing (on the Strip?--it's been awhile).

I've long wondered whether they tried to recreate that effect on stage (and if so, how?) or substituted something else?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 1:04am

Gaveston, from what I recall (wow, it was over two years ago now!), there was a full-fledged set that looked like the inside of a plane. Throughout the scene, Elvis after Elvis "jumped" out of the plane (meaning the back of the set, facing backstage) before Jack realized he had to "do something" and "leapt" out himself. Jack's jump was the only one visually depicted on stage, though, as the actor got pulled up on a harness and all, doing leaps and spins in the air. It was the show's biggest technical number and got lots of applause every time I saw it, as schmaltzy as it was!

Then, in the finale on the Strip, they had little prop Elvises flying across the top of the stage on a wire (it was cheap, but very funny) before Jack crashed in from the top of the stage.

[BwayDreamer00]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:41pm

Hey!!! I was the 9 to 5 thread!! 

 

Honeymoon in Vegas was a super funny, campy, gem of a show and extremely entertaining. But they took a huge risk by opening it in the dead of winter at a large theater (Nederlander). And with high running costs and with tourists thinking "it's so cold! Let's stay safe and go see Wicked!" Also from what I remember the marketing wasn't that stellar. Some ads on YouTube and its own website but not much else. 

[MadonnaMusical]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 5:38pm

I loved this musical but had a feeling it would flop based on the lack of buzz combined with the January risky opening... it's just such a long time to go before tourist season starts again and tony nominations come out. 

Another thing I noticed about the show and the word of mouth going around was that it lacked razzle-dazzle. Most people expect over-the-top extravagance when they think of Las Vegas, and yet the show's sets and costumes looked so small and cheap. The cast was relatively small so the casino scenes felt weirdly small also... 

the book and score to me are wonderful and all the performances were wonderful. I think a great big budget revival of this was a star could do very well in a few years. I'd also transform the lobby and theatre into a casino... give people something to talk about.