Mixed reviews in- is Moulin Rouge a Big Far Hit?

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 8:03am

Wonder if these ticket prices - along with not the greatest reviews- will translate into a big hit- a la Wicked?- or be just a moderate draw and last not nearly as long as we might have thought.

Updated On: 7/26/19 at 08:03 AM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 8:53am

It is hard to tell. I thought something like "Matilda" would run longer on Broadway, Brantley loved it . I thought this would get all around better reviews since it sounded like it was very well received in Boston. I really don't know how much reviews mean anymore in NY outside of the NY Times which was positive.

[LarryD2]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 8:54am

The only outlet that matters in terms of ticket sales is the New York Times, and it got a rave from Ben Brantley. The other, less positive reviews will likely have no tangible effect on the box office.

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:00am

Could be like Wicked- where critics did not universally love it- but audiences did. I guess if word of mouth was very strong and positive- it will defy the mixed critical reception. But, Wicked was a family show- and appealed to a sider swath of the population.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:08am

The New York Times review doesn’t mean much in the digital age- you can access this by looking at the shows Brantley has loved over the past few seasons and how many performances they ended up playing.

I maintain that the operating costs of MOULIN ROUGE will be its downfall. The word of mouth from people I know who have seen it is positive but not rapturous. And people do seemed peeved by the outrageously high ticket prices. This could run three years on Broadway and still not turn a profit.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:18am

My biggest fear is that audiences will start to find the show dated in a couple of years, due to the heavy mid 2000/2010 soundtrack that may seem cheesy in the mid 2020s. I bet they’d swap in new songs before closing though, and advertise it as new material. Damn. That’s a good idea.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:26am

Why would audiences care if the songs in MOULIN ROUGE are dated?  They are there purely for nostalgia.  Most of the songs in the film were easily a decade or more older.

[V2David]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:29am

Well, that is basically what they have already done. They have mixed in some new "classics" with some of the old classics in the movie to give it some fresh life. Some of the songs work splendidly, some not as much. But I'm sure it will get a younger generation more interested in the show (not just those who love the movie).

I'm still surprised there wasn't more changes made from Boston. Not that I didn't have a great time in Boston (and will be seeing it again in NY). But I feel like somewhere in Moulin Rouge is a great, great show (at least to me). The show as is, is a lot of fun. But it had the potential to be so much more...

Having said that, I'm happy we are getting some good reviews. Hope others who like this type of show get to experience it. Just make sure if you are spending good $$$, you are getting good seats. This is a show you want to be closer to the action so you can feel like you are part of the experience.


 

Updated On: 7/26/19 at 09:29 AM

[Wick3]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:42am

Amongst my friends, they enjoyed the spectacle and glad they saw the show but still preferred the movie (we're in our mid-30s and fondly remember the movie coming out when we were in our late teens.)

Are any of them eager to go back to the box office and buy tickets at these high prices to see the show again? No.  However, I'm sure there will be folks who will watch this show again and again and good for them!

I do think the show will recoup. I don't know the weekly nut nor do I know the initial capitalization costs. However, from the grosses this past month, this show seems to be headed to an average of $2 million gross for an 8-performance week. If operating costs are $1 million per week, then the weekly profit would be around $1 million each week. Obviously I'm estimating here but I think the show can certainly recoup its initial investment if it keeps its grosses between $1.5 million and $2 million for the next year (also presuming weekly nut is less than $1 million.) 

[Kad]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 9:43am

It’s worth pointing out that Moulin Rouge, the film, was far from universally acclaimed itself. It averages 76% on Rotten tomatoes and 66/100 on Metacritic, and was consistently knocked for putting spectacle above deeper emotions and for throwing too much into the mix. In fact, to this day you’ll find people love it or loathe it in equal measure.

Speculating on its demise when out of the gate it’s doing numbers all producers dream of is silly.

Updated On: 7/26/19 at 09:43 AM

[IHeartNY2]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 10:11am

Kad, thank u for always being the voice of reason. I’ll add this thread to my nonsense pile. Didn’t know we had so many psychics and accountants on here.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 10:12am

As someone else said, it all comes down to the operating cost. It's probably close to a million a week, with all that music licensing, heavy automation, etc. The Times was a rave, and none of the other reviews matter. It's going to take a good while to recoup those costs.

I do wonder if they'll pull a Harry Potter and instead of a traditional U.S. tour, do a handful of sit-down engagements first (LA, Chicago, Toronto, London, Australia, a one-act version in Vegas) if the environmental design of the set is really a selling point. That adds an air of exclusivity, too: "you can't see this show everywhere, travel to get the full experience!"

Updated On: 7/26/19 at 10:12 AM

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 10:14am

I have seen it. Glad I did, but doubt I will see it again with the ridiculous prices. There is nothing that draws me back to see it again. It’s a fun 2 hrs but there are plenty of other shows that I prefer to see.


 

Updated On: 7/26/19 at 10:14 AM

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 10:19am

Kad said: "It’s worth pointing out that Moulin Rouge, the film, was far from universally acclaimed itself. It averages 76% on Rotten tomatoes and 66/100 on Metacritic, and was consistently knocked for putting spectacle above deeper emotions and for throwing too much into the mix. In fact, to this day you’ll find people love it or loathe it in equal measure.

Speculating on its demise when out of the gate it’s doing numbers all producers dream of is silly."

The difference of course being Kad that the costs of seeing a film are such that a film can find an audience over time.  Its pretty hard for a musical with a $300 ticket point to build a 'cult audience' --  typically musicals work the reverse -- they are front loaded in terms of audience interest and it wains.  A true mega stage hit happens when people want to see a musical again and again -- LES MIZ, PHANTOM, WICKED all fit in this category. While we can't surmise the weekly box office grosses, we can guess if this is a show that is going to capture people's heart the way the shows I just mentioned did. I personally don't believe it will.  So I'd be surprised if it maintained a $2 million dollar box office take for over a year.

[Mr. Wormwood]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 11:46am

I think it will be a big hit, regardless of reviews. I don't think it'll be at a Wicked level or anything like that but I think it'll have a nice, long run. Maybe similar to previous tenant, Kinky Boots?

[Kad]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 1:48pm

I think you’re overestimating the impact of repeat ticket buyers, but I can’t find stats on that.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/26/19 at 2:54pm

I was thinking about that, too.   Would love to see stats on that...but my guess is VERY few shows flourish based on repeat business. (But what the heck do I know?)

 

I don't think they have much of anything to worry about...but, naturally, time will tell.  Days of living for the good reviews to see if you'll run are LONG go.   I'm not saying they don't sway things, but not terribly drastically.

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 12:09pm

For what it’s worth (probably not much) I loved the show when I saw it a week ago and the next day I purchased four seats to see it again with friends in late August. I also told many friends to go see it and three of them bought two tickets each. So my one ticket and response to what I saw essentially lead to the purchase of ten more tickets, all of which were purchased in the three days that followed me seeing the show. Six of those ten seats are premium orchestra at $400/seat.

And I was comped a ticket for my first viewing...

Again, not worth anything in terms of measuring success, but it also made me think that not many people I know these days are going off of adverts and reviews, but rather word of mouth. That could just be my friend group though.

[victoriafr]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 12:16pm

I think the Tonys are what will make or break it for this show. If it wins a bunch of Tonys, I think that and the ton of positive word of mouth it's getting will really make it a hit.

[ScottK]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 1:02pm

Tonys?!

The noms wont be announced til May 2020, the awards til June 2020. That will have VERY little difference to the show unless it struggles until then. At this point, it is doing GANGBUSTERS biz--of course, all that was pre-reviews/opening.  

Let's face it--Good reviews mean relatively nothing, re: Matilda, etc etc etc--its word of mouth--and the poster above showed how his ONE tix led to a TEN tix sale!!! (and even Beetlejuice is doing "ok" based on word of mouth--not reviews--and yes, the Tonys did help BJ).

Perhaps TV commercials/online ads could do the job of Tonys exposure--but I still think itll be fine (and they could always reduce tix prices/offer discounts).

and, im assuming the nut is higher than 1 million

[Pippin]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 1:10pm

Why are people citing Matilda as a failure? It had an almost 4 year run on broadway. That’s a very healthy, respectable run, especially considering there were quite a few other musicals shooting to win the family demographic for that time.....

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 1:22pm

"Why are people citing Matilda as a failure? It had an almost 4 year run on broadway. That’s a very healthy, respectable run, especially considering there were quite a few other musicals shooting to win the family demographic for that time..."

It recouped which means it was a success and to me a 4 year run is pretty good especially when so many shows barely make it a year. I think with the really good reviews (especially NY Times), people expected it to run 5-10 years.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 1:26pm

Pippin, are you referring to the poster above you? I think they mentioned Matlida to talk about the success of word of mouth, implying the reviews weren't great.  (I don't remember if they were or not.)

[Pippin]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 1:54pm

Yes. I was referring to the person above me.

I think right now people are used to super long runs for super blockbuster shows (mormon, Aladdin, Beautiful), but long runs like that are recent phenomena.

No one should look at Matilda and say word of mouth didn’t work for that show. If it REALLY didn’t have word of mouth, that show would have had a year run at most, IMO.

Sometimes shows can walk that line of being successful without lasting a decade on broadway. “Waitress” immediately comes to mind.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/27/19 at 2:07pm

dramamama611 said: "Pippin, are you referring to the poster above you? I think they mentioned Matlida to talk about the success of word of mouth, implying the reviews weren't great. (I don't remember if they were or not.)"

Matilda received near universal raves across the board from the critics. I don't think there was one publication of note that gave it even a mixed review, and certainly none that could be considered negative.