Why did Tuck Everlasting bomb so bad?

[Dave13]

I never had the chance to see the Broadway production. However, I just saw a local production of the show. Our local productions are usually done very well. I went back and watched Tuck Everlasting’s show clips, and I believe our local production stays true to the broadway show.

While I don’t believe there was any memorable songs, I thought the show was very moving. It felt that most of the audience walking out was teary eyed.

Certainly the show wasn’t a blockbuster, but I am shocked it didn’t last as long as Anastasia or similar shows.

Why did it fail so bad? I am surprised it didn’t even tour.  

[Bwayfan292]

Hamilton.

[bwayphreak234]

It was really just NOT good. At all.

[Dave13]

bwayphreak234 said: "It was really just NOT good. At all."

Ouch.  Maybe our local production improved it.  I did notice it cut one song when she is deciding to drink the water. 

[Susanswerphone]

bwayphreak234 said: "It was really just NOT good. At all."

Precisely so. Hamilton had nothing to do with it.

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Because the way it was presented onstage, it was about a 100 year old man seducing a 10 year old.

Plus it was f*cking garbage.

[dramamama611]

I found it eye roll inducing.

[Dancingthrulife2]

I found it hard to stay awake during the show, despite the spectacles it had on stage. It lacked dramatic momentum and I just didn’t find it emotionally truthful until the ballet at the end. I do appreciate the effort though, even if It doesn’t amount to much.

[JBroadway]

Well I for one really loved it. It was easily among my favorite new musicals to play Broadway in the last few years. I thought it was beautifully staged, well-performed, and emotionally resonant. I cried buckets during the ballet sequence at the end. I found a lot of the music to be really lovely, and I was especially impressed with the lyrics, which I found deep, insightful and clever. The comic relief was silly but I actually found myself laughing quite a bit during the scenes with Fred Applegate and the grandmother.

The romance/age thing was definitely cringy, but that was straight out of the source material. And I think the fact that choosing to be with Jessie is portrayed as the wrong path for her helps a little. 

[JBroadway]

Double

[PatrickDC]

I enjoyed it. I didn’t think it would last more than a season, but was surprised it closed a month after opening. The producers likely gambled on lots of young ladies attending who loved the book as little girls. I had young woman on either side of me who chatted about the book before curtain and at intermission. I also thought it was produced for less of a long Broadway run and more to refine it for local and regional productions. Local directors need new vehicles for that one aspiring young actress they all have in their communities.

[Jordan Catalano]

The film found the perfect way to handle the age issue and this definitely should have followed that.

[adamgreer]

Not even Carolee Carmello could salvage anything from this show.

[VintageSnarker]

I honestly don't know. It's not that the show was good or bad. I just never understand why some shows shutter so quickly and others hang on besides how deep the producers' pockets are. I guess the audience just wasn't there for it. I don't know how frequently the book is still read in schools but I don't think it was marketed for fans of the book (and it is tonally different) so I'm not quite sure who they thought was going to go see it.

As for the quality of the show, I thought the lighting was very pretty. All of the actors were great, particularly Sarah Charles Lewis, Andrew Keenan-Bolger, and Michael Wartella. Terrence Mann was good but the character was a bit too odd. The costumes were nice but I didn't think they played to Gregg Barnes' strengths. And aside from the carnival number, the more ballet-like or at least lyrical Casey Nicholaw choreography was out of place. I remember that as the season of random ensemble members dancing in scenes they should not have been in. Also, I vaguely remember a final dance sequence that seemed to go on forever. There are a handful of songs I really liked and that still make me smile when they come up on shuffle. But those pleasant memories obscure all the filler that was in the show. That fishing sequence? It wasn't the greatest show but there are plenty of not-great shows that make it much longer. They just decided to cut their losses, I guess.

Is it better to be a Doctor Zhivago or Tuck Everlasting and pack up early? Or is it better to be an Escape From Margaritaville or Spongebob Squarepants and hang on in spite of low grosses?

[Dallas Theatre Fan]

VintageSnarker said: "
Is it better to be a Doctor Zhivago or Tuck Everlasting and pack up early? Or is it better to be an Escape From Margaritaville or Spongebob Squarepants and hang on in spite of low grosses?"

Tuck Everlasting only got above $400,000 once in its run and it was its last week even a five year old can tell that's bad.  I think the producers were smart with their money and just cut their losses or the Shubert's in-acted the stop clause.  

 

[blaxx]

Because Broadway is not the final destination for all shows. Producers and creatives still have the mind set that Broadway is the ultimate goal, and if it wasn't on Broadway, it didn't happen. 

 

[scarlet721]

when i saw the show, i just wasn't engaged by it.  i didn't really care about the characters and found the young tuck's relationship with winnie a bit odd.  unlike others, i didn't feel there was anything sexual between them, but it was definitely stalkerish.

and the 15 minute ballet of winnie's life at the end of the show didn't mesh with the rest of the show. 

[musikman]

The show was maybe passable for a community theatre, but for broadway it was just really lame, misguided, and blander than white bread. It had maybe one decent song, but everything else just felt so amateurish. Terrific cast, though.

The ballet was nice, but it was like watching a heavy metal band dropped into a Mozart opera. Completely out of place.

[robskynyc]

dramamama611 said: "I found it eye roll inducing."

ditto.

[quizking101]

Another factor, if not the nail in the coffin, was that it was practically shut out of Tony nominations that year, only picking up a nod for costume design.

Usually, for a musical, that's pretty bad.

[Fosse76]

Dallas Theatre Fan said: "Tuck Everlasting only got above $400,000 once in its run and it was its last week even a five year old can tell that's bad. I think the producers were smart with their money and just cut their losses or the Shubert's in-acted the stop clause."

They would not have enacted the stop-clause unless they had a show ready to go in but the producers wanted to keep their show running, even if at a loss (looking at you, Spongebob). I believe Matilda was the last show for which the Shuberts enacted the stop-clause (or so the rumor goes).

 

[SomethingPeculiar]

The production also just felt too big. Even with this writing (which needed stronger musical theatre book writers), it might have been better with like 10 people in the cast at the Booth or Helen Hayes. And maybe a different director to shape it.

[raddersons]

It was a weak show in a season of pretty good musicals. Bright Star, Waitress, Hamilton, The Color Purple and She Loves Me were all definitely stronger. Some would argue others (American Pyscho, Shuffle Along) were also stronger.

At the end of the day, it's because it didn't sell tickets. People didn't like it.

[Clyde15]

I think one problem artistically was that it felt over directed. Beautiful small moments were ruined by having the entire cast on stage. I wish someone else had directed.

[Kad]

It was the worst kind of bad: boring.