Brooklyn Failure?- Page 2

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 6:22pm

I think I was the only one who liked the plot -_-.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 7:18pm

Low attendance doesn't make it a flop either.

I won't pretend like a know the numbers, but if it didn't recoup, it was a flop.

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 7:19pm

I think it's pretty obvious judging from the grosses and attendance Brooklyn didn't recoup.


There are also "critical flops" - and Brooklyn fits in that categorie.
Updated On: 1/19/06 at 07:19 PM

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 7:42pm

It may have not as done as well as people hoped but I think it managed to touch many people and build a very strong fan base. With this they can now do other things like tour, vegas...or other things.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 7:55pm

i think its a nice show and all, but it was just not a broadwaytype of show, i mean, i think it will do a lot better on tour or in regional theaters. usually tourists like something bigger, or more of a spectacle (avenue q and spelling be being some exceptions) and brooklyn just wasnt like that. it still was a nice show all in all.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 7:59pm

emo- I liked the plot, I just didn't like how it was written.

[OrdinaryJukebox1]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:44pm

There are shows that have done much worse, critically and financially than "Brooklyn." There are shows that have closed after one performance, or one week. Georgia Brown's follow up to her amazing performance in "Oliver!" was a show by the name of "Carmelina" that closed after, I think, 17 performances. "The Frogs," "In My Life," and I'm sure there are many others, did and will continue to do MUCH worse than "Brooklyn." Sadly, it has become a popular, mainstream thing to really dislike this show. Why, I don't know? I mean, I'm not a big fan of it. I went in with semi high hopes because I really like Eden Espinosa, and what I find hysterical is that the other cast members were the ones doing the screaming, and yet her vocals are the only ones attacked. Ah, well, she's doing a wonderful job over at the Gershwin right now.

-Vincent

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 8:48pm

Funny how people love her now that she isn't in Brooklyn.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 10:20pm

Anybody have any explanation as to why the writer was there like literally every performance? Everytime my friends went he was always there and I just find that a bit odd. Is that an unusual occurrance?

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 10:23pm

This show was his life...he gave birth to it and he got no better joy then seeing his vision live every night....if it were me I would do the same.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 10:31pm

I wonder what he is doing now

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 11:07pm

I think the show was overpriced....$100 for a 100 minute show...that's a dollar a minute.

The cast was quite talented, and worthy of a better show. The score was ok, though at points it was far too screachy (some of the notes they made Eden and Ramona hit sounded unhealthy). The book was the true disaster.

So, it failed because it just wasn't very good.

[C is for Company]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 11:16pm

Raven was a truly gorgeous song and that basically is the only one I can listen to on the cd

[emo_geek]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 2:45am

I thought everything had such soul and meaning...I mean the writer was there every nice becuase all of his soul was in the show hehe,.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 4:18am

the question should be "why did that crap ever made it to Broadway?"
-terrible set
-only 5 actors on stage(or was it 6?)
-terrible book
-dresses made out of trash?

[BtMartin25]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 8:23am

1) the storyline sucked.
2) the music wasn't great
3) sort of a rip-off of RENT
4) better shows on broadway at the time.

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 10:52am

IDK why this posted twice

Updated On: 1/20/06 at 10:52 AM

[logan0215]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 10:54am

I think the reason the writer was there everynight is he was thinking of any way possible to save this show and recoup some finances for his investors.

You can tell the set and such took money, and that must have been the main concern.

I saw the show and although semi-enjoyable, I found that if it were put in the vault for some time, taken out, and comedically 'acted-up' a little, it would become a wonderful cult/camp classic. You just can't take lines like 'With our tears, we can water roses' seriously, so it should be made in to a comedy farce (which is what I was beginning to think it was when I saw it).

I will give the score and SOME of the cast incredible props. I saw it with Horace V. Rogers as Streetsinger who I think was much better than Cleavant (Cleavant was nice at the cast party though, very genuine). Eden was fabulous, I think she did pull herself 'up by the bootstraps' acting-wise to try and save this show. Ramona was amazing (and not like that out of character!). Karen was good too. I guess my real beef would have lied with seeing Cleavant who I didn't like in the role and Lee Morgan who I saw as Taylor and just killed me with his raspy voice. He was doing a real number on his vocal chords!

There was no 'over-haul' that was going to save this show. It was trying to have heart entirely too hard and was relying on horribly cheesey dialogue and an unevenly talented cast to carry a very 'deep,' and I use that term lightly, storyline. All a little too inplausible for me.

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/20/06 at 1:46pm

I, too, went in with low expectations - and enjoyed the show, largely (let me stress LARGELY) due to the talent of the cast. But it really wasn't a great show, and the book had some unbelievably lame moments. But it was fun to watch:)