Billy Elliot the Musical - The Movie???

[kport]

' Billy has never been a big money maker in the US'

I did a 'back of the envelope' calculation of the gross whilst at Boston; my calcs produces a gross that exceeded Broadway in its heyday and the VPT. I am sure Boston was a good run: Detroit may be different.

In the fragile world of entertainment, any gross that exceeds expenditure is 'big money'. The latest gestation of the US Tour seems to have got this in focus; these are troubling times, after all. We should praise the latest tour for doing so well. Others might have given up a year ago.

[rob_hanson1979]

Oh I agree! The show is a moneymaker, and the tour seems to be doing quite well!
I was basing that mostly on the fact that the Broadway version closed after 3 years, whereas the London version is still running.

[kport]

Oh I agree! The show is a moneymaker, and the tour seems to be doing quite well!
I was basing that mostly on the fact that the Broadway version closed after 3 years, whereas the London version is still running.

As one who loves NYC, I expect to be jumped on for this, but:

London is a far larger tourist city that NYC. People visiting London as tourists seek out West End plays. BETM feature large at all terminals at Heathrow. It is one of one of five or six 'must see' things.

Attend VPT (particularly a matinee) and is is rife with Koreans, Japanese and other nice visitors from the Far East. They love BETM!

[Wowzell]

London is a far larger tourist city that NYC.

Is it? I'd say they were about equal. They both have their different aspects that attract tourists, but in terms of fame within the 'theatre world' I'd say that Broadway was far more famous than the West End. Broadway's the 'place to be' for budding actors and theatre-lovers alike.

I'd say the reason it wasn't as successful on Broadway is because it's a fantastically British show, made by British people, for British people, about British people, and a very British struggle.

Just my opinion though; I haven't experienced first-hand the 'reactions' - for want of a better word - of audience members for any US productions.

[Sinatra]

I would love to be able to own fantastic film versions of two musicals that I love: Les Mis and of course Billy Elliot the Musical. You know what this means though right? They'll remake Grease... I'm calling it right now. Everything is being remade these days so it wouldn't be that much of a surprise. As for Billy Elliot being fantastically British, I couldn't agree more. The opportunity to make its message universal would be realized with a great film. Expressing yourself, following your dreams and working hard for them, staying true to yourself despite naysayers and your surroundings... I can only imagine that the world would fall in love with Billy Elliot and it would mean a resurrection of interest in the musical here. Think of the possibilities...

[Todd]

I'd say the reason it wasn't as successful on Broadway is because it's a fantastically British show, made by British people, for British people, about British people, and a very British struggle.

I wonder also if it was due to there not being a "name" actor or actress in the Billy Elliot Broadway cast? It seems like the U.S. is quite celebrity-driven and will turn out to see a show if a famous face is involved. Once the initial Tony Award buzz wore off, it could be that people were attracted more to shows with Daniel Radcliffe, Brooke Shields, Matthew Broderick, etc. ("The Book of Mormon" being an exception).

Any of our British readers here care to comment ? Do you feel like famous performers make a big difference in a London West End show, or is it more the show itself that sells tickets ?

[Sinatra]

Big names are definitely a big box-office draw. Could a revival of "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying?" succeed without the name recognition of Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe? I don't think so. With "Wicked" it helped early having Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth as the leads, and this is where the "British" part comes in, it helped early on. The Wizard of Oz is a story that most of us recognize from our childhood! The movie is one of the greatest and most important films ever made. With Billy, you get a relatively new story set in north-eastern England based on an actual historical event. Only those who lived through the miner's strikes could really relate to it, while most everyone can immediately attach to the imaginative, fantasy land that Oz is. I should also note that Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth made the songs in "Wicked" (like Defying Gravity and For Good) actual Billboard hits. While we can agree that the music in Billy is awesome, it does not have an actual "hit." Enough of that rant! Seeing everybody's enthusiasm has me convinced that the idea of a film is brilliant and should be done! I work at a movie theater... I'd go and see it ASAP!!!

[Wowzell]

I wonder also if it was due to there not being a "name" actor or actress in the Billy Elliot Broadway cast?

I hadn't thought of that, but it is undoubtedly a factor. While I was in New York I actually did go and see How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying (even though I utterly detest Daniel Radcliffe as a performer, it has to be said!), but I'm not sure why. The fact that Daniel Radcliffe was in it must have been a subconscious draw for me, as I'd never even heard of the musical before!

It's interesting that you mention The Book of Mormon, because that has been a strangely big hit on Broadway and I don't know why. It's not a very 'American' sense-of-humour, in my opinion - Matt Stone and Trey Parker are just big funny Brits at heart - so I have literally no idea about that one.

Only those who lived through the miner's strikes could really relate to it

I'm unsure about whether you mean only people that lived through the strike could relate to that aspect of the show, or whether only they could relate to the whole show. If the latter - I definitely wasn't around during that time (I've been blessed with the wonder of youth! ) and I feel I relate to the show very much so.

[rob_hanson1979]

I think having big names in Broadway shows is a relatively new thing. Sure Hollywood stars have often performed on broadway, but these days it seems like shows rely on having that name to sell tickets. I don't think that was always the case.
Plus Broadway has always been pretty good about having it's own stars. And those stars would eventually be sought out by Hollywood. Even Sutton Foster has her own TV show now.
I spent 2 days in NYC last week, saw 2 shows, and saw 8 celebrities, 6 of which were in shows. It was cool to see them of course, so I'm not knocking the celebrity involvement. I just think it would be nice if shows didn't rely on a celebrity to make or break their show.

[MegaBillyfan]

As a tourist in London (each time I`m there) I don´t know the famous British musical actors or actresses - I see musicals or plays when the story seems interesting, and most of the times I decide to see a show when I have any knowledge about it: in most cases when I`ve read a novel or seen the film. Here in Austria we don´t know very much about British musicals and the famous actors of the West End. Only in certain cases there are some informations about some celebreties playing on Broadway or in the West End (even in Austrian television Hollywood stars are mentioned when they perform on Broadway - but it`s expensive to get there!!!). Films as "Lion King" or "Shrek" are helpful for tourists to decide to see a show - and "Billy Elliot" was of course a reason for me to see the musical (Thank heaven!)!