Revival vs.Original

[broadway guy]

Can Anyone think of a show that had/has a revival that was better/more succesful than the original show? If you can,why do You Think the revival was more succesful

[ghostlight2]

Chicago, of course - just to get it out of the way.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Cabaret - 1998 revival. Like Chicago (1996), the darker, grittier concepts seemed to work better.

Did 2005's Sweeney Todd fare better than the original 1979?

[NoName3]

Pal Joey - the 1952 revival outran the original 1940 production

[Wynbish]

The original Sweeney Todd ran for about 200 more performances.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Fair enough, wasn't sure

[Inigomontoya]

What about Assassins?

[NoName3]

Livent's Show Boat outran all previous Broadway productions but I'd hesitate to say it was more successful, or better, than Ziegfeld's production, which was an enormous hit and ran over 500 performances in an age when runs were generally much shorter than today.

[bdn223]

A lot of critics loved the Ragtime revival more than the original although it lost more money than the original production

[NoName3]

1974 Candide. So different from the original that comparisons are useless.

[Jon]

Assassins' original production was a limited Off-Broadway run in a tiny theatre. Not exactly hard to be "more successful" with a revival.

[South Fl Marc]

Mornings At Seven

The original ran 44 performances, the brilliant revival in the early 80's ran over 500.

[massofmen]

this might collect some ire but the 1992 revival of GUYS AND DOLLS.

[frontrowcentre2]

The 1971 revival of NO NO NANETTE was far more successful than the original. It was the first of the modern era revised revivals of vintage musicals, and was a big box office hit. Far more successful than the season's other "nostalgic" musical, FOLLIES.

It led to the 1973 revival of IRENE, which had a long run but lost money, and the 1975 revival of GOOD NEWS which shuttered within a few weeks.

One other revival that deserves mention: the 1983 ON YOUR TOES.

[newintown]

It would be a great help to define "better" and "more successful." Are you talking about subjective quality? Do you mean "making more money?" If so, do you just mean flat dollar amount, or are you adjusting for inflation? For instance, the original No No Nanette was a huge hit and made a lot of money in 1925 dollars - if you're going to claim that the revival made more, I'd like to see the inflation-adjusted calculation.

But if you're just talking about subjective quality - I've never seen a revival of a show that was "better" then the original production (if I saw the original production).

[Overkill]

Of course, I didn't see the original GUYS AND DOLLS, but the '92 revival is the one I hold all other productions up to. Everything about it was just perfect, imo. I could say the same about FORUM in '96. Once again though, I wasn't even alive when the original made it's way, and all we have are pictures and the cast recording...

[Mister Matt]

Though it wasn't as successful, I thought the revival of 42nd Street was superior to the original.