Groundhog Day the Musical - Old Vic

Love this more every day. Also love the Old Vic day seat policy that meant we only had to queue till 8! I arrived at 7.45 and was 8th in the queue, there were no seats left for the evening performance but i got centre back stalls for the matinee if anyone is interested.
Smiled the whole way through and for several hours afterwards! Please let the theatre god bring this and Andy Karl back soon!! Also, they were filming it this afternoon! Now just hoping for a cast recording... (and in an ideal world for them to release the filmed version but that will never happen)
Ps. huge thanks to theatremonkey for dayseat info - i don't have twitter but feel free to add the above to your website if it could be useful!

Not sure if it's been talked about that much on here, but just been reading Michael Reidel's article from the New York Post it seems that a Shubert Theatre has been lined up for the Broadway transfer. And it sounds as if he is banking on the Gerald Schoenfeld (because the last Off-West End musical to transfer there went SO well!) to head in after The Humans closes in April, just in time to bag some Tony noms. So hopefully this could be bagging Oliviers and Tonys in the same year!

If that's the case, then I'd assume that'll be when a cast recording is released, but no idea if it would be with the UK cast or the US cast (assuming the entire company, bar Karl and maybe Peer won't transfer with it). I hope it wouldn't be delayed for longer than then.

Both The Color Puple (at the Jacobs) and The Humans (at the Schoenfeld) are only booking until December, so I guess it depends which one doesn't extend. Or maybe neither will close early and it turns out Groundhog Day will be going somewhere else.

Do not get any hopes up for TV. More than likely this was simply for archival purposes and a visual record for them to look at over the next few months.

Reading through a lot of these answers to the three questions posed, I've come to the conclusion that I'm nowhere near as clever as many of you on here... I managed to get number one correct. It occurred to me that "Playing Nancy" was a bit of a standalone song, performed by a lesser character, a proper ballad as such, and oddly placed as the Act Two opener, but that was it really. I'm struggling with why anyone would think the ending could be sexist. I was just happy that a rather unlikely couple found each other in a most unlikely place. And, because the sun came out, I hoped they would grow together. I'm not into "happy endings" as such, but my heart is always warmed when a couple meets and decides to make a go of a life together. (Usually in real life but in stories, plays, musicals, films too.) Boy meets girl, boy meets boy, girl meets girl... And all such other possibilities.

I'm sure the producers know they've scored a hit by now, so it would be interesting to know what they want to know from an audience. I have applied, but feel maybe I shouldn't have now, reading all the other responses. I can't be the only person who didn't think that carefully about it all. I just know I loved it for lots and lots of reasons...

I totally agree with this. It's such a poignant line and I don't for a minute think that it is Minchin's actual opinion.   It's such a good song and it feels so relevant in the context of the recent debates that people have been having about the burkini debacle and media coverage of female sport.

Caiaphas - I doubt the producers want 24 people who give them a detailed critique of the underlying themes of the show. They want to know how the masses respond to it and the masses just want to have a nice time! I've been wondering whether some of the messages in this are too subtle, particularly for an American audience who, based on the reactions I've witnessed on Broadway, seem to be used to being clobbered around the head with text instead of settling for subtext. They tend to like their humour to be explicit.

Just because Broadway audiences are more commonly given shows with broader humour doesn't mean the audiences themselves can't handle more subtle story-telling.

Yeah, I agree with this. I wasn't trying to say I thought Broadway audiences are dumb. Just that US shows (and I'm thinking more broadly here of US tv as well) tend to go for more overt storytelling. So I wondered whether that's something they might bear in mind when thinking about changes for Broadway - Especially in light of the discussions we've been having about how many people over here think 'Playing Nancy' works as part of the show. I think Tim Minchin has a very British sense of humour and I just wonder whether the producers will be questioning to what extent certain elements will translate to an American audience.

As people have said, it already contains a lot of broad humour anyway.  I think it probably works on a number of different levels. I definitely recall the people next to me laughing at completely different places to me throughout.  And it's not for me to say which of us was laughing in the 'right' place.  If people take different things from the same show and enjoy it equally, I'd say it's a real hit.  I guess the point of the focus groups the producers are doing is to see what different people are taking from it, to make sure it appeals to that wide range of people. 

Perhaps it's to do with Andy Karl who'd they'd be a fool to replace. Also Matilda is set in England and Groundhog Day is set in America. I personally found quite a bit of the humour too overt for me.

Sadly yes. The plan was always to use the Old Vic as a tester for it to go straight to Broadway. I think it would be a crime against the West End if it doesn't head there after Broadway, and even then Andy Karl wouldn't come back to London and the Old Vic ensemble might move onto different things by then.

I just hope it doesn't do an American Psycho and transfer from Off-West End to Broadway for it to close early and (as far as I'm aware) not to transfer back to London again. But still, AP had a different reception than GhD.