teen musicals flop on broadway

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 1:57pm

is it just me or do a lot of the youth orintated shows seem to tank on broadway ?is there maybe a snobbish attitude towards theese shows

Fame diddnt even get to broadway yet is a worldwide success
Footloose got panned by loads of the critics
Good vibrations sank without a trace
All shook up closed early on
Sat Night Fever hassnt recieved the success it has worldwide

etc

The uk seems to be a lot more accepting of theese types of shows and looks at them as a fun night out with freinds etc

so why dont they work as well on broadway????

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:07pm

I think people here aren`t interested in that kinda stuff. They want musical comedies based on hit movies and BIG revivals with big name stars! That`s all we even get anyway!

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:08pm

yeah its a shame

They are the perfect shows to introduce new people in to the theatre but they are never given a chance

[adamgreer]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:25pm

The shows you listed aren't "teen shows" for the current generation of teens though.

All Shook Up and Good Vibrations were about music that teens' parents are more familar with than they were (and in some cases, grandparents).

Saturday Night Fever is based on a disco film. Do you know many teens into disco these days? Again, it appeals to their parents.

Footloose and Fame were cult classic 80's films that many teens aren't familiar with anyway.

All those shows appeal to an older crowd who wants to reminisce about their youth.

I would say that shows geared towards today's teenagers have done remarkably well on Broadway. Look at Wicked, Rent, and Aida, to name three examples.
Updated On: 6/26/06 at 02:25 PM

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:27pm

Aida was for teens?

Also teens like Altar Boyz! That`s off-broadway!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:33pm

"Footloose and Fame were cult classic 80's films that many teens aren't familiar with anyway."

Not familiar with? Really? How sad.

"Aida was for teens?"

Yeah, pretty much.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:35pm

the only thing I think teens liked about Aida Adam Pascal (Just because he was in RENT) and it was a rock musical.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:40pm

I think people here aren`t interested in that kinda stuff. They want musical comedies based on hit movies and BIG revivals with big name stars! That`s all we even get anyway!

Thats funny, it seems as if the too most adored musicals on this board are The Light In the Piazza which is not a musical based on a hit comedy movie, and Sweeney Todd which is the smallest revival I have ever seen.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:45pm

"Thats funny, it seems as if the too most adored musicals on this board are The Light In the Piazza which is not a musical based on a hit comedy movie, and Sweeney Todd which is the smallest revival I have ever seen."

Yes, but that's just on THIS board, made up of fairly devoted musical theatre fans. Most of the people buying the tickets to shows are only occasional visitors to the theater and many are simply out-of-town tourists. Their tastes are not for things like Piazza and Sweeney (as current ticket grosses pretty clearly demonstrate). They're more drawn to the big spectacles and the shows with the name draws.

[Enjolras77]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:48pm

Aida was definitely a Disney musical aimed at the teen age group. The story line was a little more grown-up and serious than kid-friendly fare like The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, but it still was toned down enough to make it family friendly. The "adult" language and situations were few and the tragic ending was softened by adding on the scenes in the museum.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:49pm

well im in footloose in london at the mo ,have done sat night fever in germany and fame in sweeden and london and they were all classed as teen musicals and the audiences we got are young people

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 2:54pm

ps i also meant teen shows in the sense they deal with teens lol

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 3:07pm

The reason that those shows flopped wasn't that they were aimed at "teens" which they clearly weren't; they were aimed at the teens' parents (not to mention that teens constitute a very small percentage of the Broadway ticket BUYERS -- far less than 10% for every show including WICKED and RENT; adult women make up over 70% of ticket buyers and a large chunk of the rest of the rest are businessmen with clients). They flopped because most of them were terrible or perhaps mediocre at best.

There have been plenty of shows over the years that had particular appeal to the teen market (and rest of the population -- which is a prerequisite for ANY show to be a hit; a very large percentage of middle-aged and older buyers better like the show or it has no chance no matter how many teenagers going for rush show up at the door). Many have done quite well (recent megahit examples such as SPELLING BEE and HAIRSPRAY come to mind; and GREASE, which is a pretty average show, has had two multi-year runs on Broadway by reaching out to a younger audience -- though frankly "younger" by Broadway standards is not teenage, but anyone under the age of 45). But most of them were good shows, unlike the examples mentioned at the beginning fo the thread.

Updated On: 6/26/06 at 03:07 PM

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 3:29pm

margo thats rubbish

thesse shows were aimed at teens would u like me to send you the advertisment for footloose and the fame production they are aimed at a young audience.You only have to listen to the scores to know that theese shows are aimed at the teen to mid 20s.
Fames advertising in london ended up 1 year been pink and green with good looking teens on(aimed at teens)and footloose what im in now again has the good looking young cast and attention grabbing slogans etc on the posters(again aimed at the teens).
Every night at the stage door its young people waiting to talk to us and even the director says its the youngsters we are trying to get in the theatre.

lol

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 5:03pm

West End, if you're going to refute Margo, I suggest using proper grammar and capitalization. :)

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 5:30pm

What's rubbish?

And as I pointed out, HAIRSPRAY and SPELLING BEE are both aimed at younger audiences and have featured young people in their advertising (and on stage) and both are hits because they are very good shows, popular with both teens and adults, and received great reviews.

Can't speak for the UK, but here FOOTLOOSE was marketed primarily to 30- and 40-somethings who were fans of the hit 80s movie as well as anyone younger since much of the cast was young-ish (25 year olds playing teens). The print advertising all revolved around the theme of "Remember the 80s???" (which no teen would have been able to remember and featured the titles of the various songs from the soundtrack that were top ten hits that 40 year olds would know. The radio ads all featured lame covers of "Let's Hear It For The Boy" and other songs from the movie that only play on oldies stations these days -- whose main audience are people in their 30s and 40s and certainly not teens. While it ran a year and a half here, it never did great business and closed in the red.

FAME (which never even made it to Broadway here, only Off-Broadway, and lost its entire investment) was an embarassment to the "professional" theatre and had extremely little positive buzz on this side of the Atlantic -- from teens or adults. I can remember that the majority of teens who discussed those shows at all on the theatre boards back then had mostly awful things to say about them and advised their peers not to waste their money (and people apparently took their advice -- it barely ran 6 months in a 499 seat theatre and was typically more than half empty for most performances).

Perhaps it was different in London.

[lifeisacabaret]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 5:38pm

It most definitely was different in London- it ran for 10 years, in addition to many UK tours. Footloose, currently on its second UK incarnation, is doing very well in the west end.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/26/06 at 9:09pm

all i know is it seems odd how shows like fame and footloose seem to do well around the world and not on broadway.
Fame is not a bad show its a young fun show with its heart in the right place.No major spectacle(ala wicked) no big name launch(ala well nearly every show in new york)just a simple fun show.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 12:28am

I loved Fame. The dancing and singing was really good. Was it a good show? Maybe not, but it was a great show and an inspiration for any young actor after a dream. Still im staying out of the debate about teen musicals, because i've no idea what gerneration these show are supposed to be for.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 3:15am

"Footloose" had a "boy band" ad campaign at one point. That would be marketing to teens.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 4:50am

Footloose in the uk has also used the promotion gimmick of putting in 2 reality show winners for a week from a show called strictly dance fever a show aimed at teens.
When i was in new york as well i sat adverts for footloose and it def did not look like it was aimed at 40 year olds

[NBC]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 3:14pm

I have heard that Footloose the musical did have a fan base of people in their teens, the fans who did the rush line over and over again. (I myself don't remember the advertising, except that the poster was not attractive!) But it didn't find a wide enough audience to keep it running.

As someone who grew up listening to the soundtrack of Footloose, and having seen the movie multiple times on cable (which you consider to be free when your parents are paying for it!), I didn't feel the need to pay the price of a theater ticket to hear those songs and see that particular story played out again. Same with Saturday Night Fever, though I didn't own that soundtrack until much later when I was feeling nostalgic. (And I do mean soundtracks, I don't own the cast recordings to either show.)

Nowadays I tend to see more shows - knowing about lotteries and play by play helps! - and the reason Good Vibrations didn't succeed was because it was just plain bad, and not, in my opinion, a good way to introduce anyone to either Broadway or the Beach Boys. And while I actually enjoyed All Shook Up, I don't think it was aimed at teens...all I could think of was how I wanted to bring my parents to see it. (Sadly it closed before that could happen.)

I do wonder why musicals based on somewhat cheesy, if enjoyable, American movies do so well in the UK...I hear it is very hard to get a ticket to Dirty Dancing, the Musical!

Posted: 6/27/06 at 4:43pm

I think if anything had ALL SHOOK UP been marketed to teens in a bigger way, it would have done better. I mean it didnt have the promontation machince that shows like HAIRSPRAY and WICKED have, plus they didnt use stunt casting (and I'm not saying HAIRSPRAY or WICKED's stunt casting was bad, because I liked it.) but ALL SHOOK UP & GV and FOOTLOOSE didnt use some of today's modern money makers only because the producers felt the shows would sell on memories alone, and sadly it didnt last.

Althought out of the three- I say ALL SHOOK UP was the more sucessful.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 6/27/06 at 4:54pm

"Footloose" (700+ performances) ran longer than "All Shook Up", so did "Saturday Night Fever" (500+).

Posted: 6/27/06 at 4:56pm

I stand corrected. Sorry. Thanks for the info, jimnysf