Why doesn't the West End create hit musicals anymore?

Unwilling to take risks. The hit musicals of the 80s all came from unlikely source materials (huge French novels, T.S. Eliot poetry, opera adaptations etc.) Now every single new musical that starts in the West End is an adaptation of a famous movie, a family-friendly story, a jukebox musical or a combination of any of the aforementioned. Whilst some of them manage decent runs, they're rarely truly huge, out of this world hits, because they're so predictable.

If we look at some of the musicals that have made it big on Broadway in the last decade or so:

In the Heights: Completely original story, ran for 3 years, recouped.
Next to Normal: Completely original story, ran for 2 years, recouped.
The Book of Mormon: Completely original story, has been running for 6 years, recouped.
Once: Based on relatively unknown indie movie, ran for 3 years, recouped.
Newsies: Based on cult hit movie, ran for 2 years, recouped.
Fun Home: Based on graphic novel, ran for 18 months, recouped.
Hamilton: On paper the most bizarre Broadway show possible, has been running for 2 years, one of the biggest musicals of all time, recouped.
Come From Away: Quirky retelling of a tragic event, currently making over $1 million each week.
Dear Evan Hansen: Completely original story, currently making over $1 million each week.
Natasha, Pierre & The Great Comet of 1812: Electropop adaptation of War & Peace, currently making over $1 million each week.

In NYC, the less commercial the show is on paper, the more they seem to succeed these days, although there are exceptions such as Aladdin and Kinky Boots.

Whilst I'm sure that the UK must have writers that are capable of producing work that is both unique and of a high standard, for some reason they're not being allowed to take space in West End theatres. Whilst I can understand why producers may be wary, at this point surely they can see that all of these movie adaptations such as Bend It Like Beckham, Made in Dagenham and Mrs Henderson Presents are resulting in very limited runs too.

Yes, unwilling to take risks - both creators and producers. Lack of ambition or, perhaps, fear of ambition. It extends right down to the fringe which should be all about risk-taking and experimentation and new thinking.  And yet the material we're seeing - like, most recently, Miss Atomic Bomb and 27 - is stale and hackneyed and dead on arrival.

Could it be as simple as musical theatre being more deeply imbedded in the creative culture of America than it is here? The best of America's composers and writers are working on musicals - doesn't seem to be the case here. Here competent but deeply uninspired people like Stiles and Drew or Gary Barlow are top of the heap despite (because of?) their lack of originality. These are the creatives who are supported by the theatre establishment because, I suppose, they seem safe. The results speak for themselves.

Yes, I think it's also a result of the fact that writers are being forced to think small. If you think big as a beginning writer, you're almost punishing yourself because no one will want to put it on. As I mentioned above, producers don't want to (or just can't) put on shows with more than a handful of actors. Their argument is that it's incredibly expensive to have a big cast, which is true. But just look at Off-Broadway. They put on tons of shows with big casts. Why is it that they can do it, but we can't?

The likes of Dear Evan Hansen, Hamillton, Fun Home etc started off Broadway or in regional theatre with commercial enhancement so they are able to refine the show before it's ready to go to Broadway. I think the likes of the National, Donmar etc don't really have the resources to do an original musical as it's very expensive. The biggest success was Matilda from the RSC and also Sunny Afternoon which originated at the Hampstead Theatre.

I'm relieved to hear that people in the industry are actually aware that there's a major problem and are trying to do something about it.

Remember that musical theatre is culturally American and more specifically Jewish, we have no such heritage like the Americans it isn't In our DNA, we had the British mega musicals of the 1980's, that ironically saved Broadway, before this very little, maybe a handful.

It was Gershwin that wrestled back control of the American musical in the 1990's.

Read Frank Rich's New York Times review of Crazy For You.

To quote Frank Rich directly;

"In his review in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, "When future historians try to find the exact moment at which Broadway finally rose up to grab the musical back from the British, they just may conclude that the revolution began last night. The shot was fired at the Shubert Theater, where a riotously entertaining show called Crazy for You uncorked the American musical’s classic blend of music, laughter, dancing, sentiment and showmanship with a freshness and confidence rarely seen during the Cats decade . . . Crazy for You scrapes away decades of cabaret and jazz and variety-show interpretations to reclaim the Gershwins’ standards, in all their glorious youth, for the dynamism of the stage."[1]

Miss Saigon was the end of the British mega musical, valiant attempts was made with Witches of Eastwick, Martin Guerre and Aspects of Love, however Sunset Boulevard tried but was a mess on the production side.

Perhaps, but cinema falls more under acting which is what Britain has been great at since the days of Shakespeare. How many leading parts in American movies and TV-series are played by Brits? Britain is also great at new plays - much more so than Broadway I'd say. I sometimes have a sense that British authors would rather sit down and write a play when they have something to say than try to compose a musical, as Americans would do. Stuff like Evan Hansen for example - the sense of alienation in a world awash in social media, a teenager struggling with social anxiety, etc., sounds like material for a play to me rather than a musical.

ALW was a very rare talent when it came to coming up with amazing melodies and had courage to take risks with insane ideas like dancing cats and rollerskating trains. These days most British musicals are adaptations of mediocre movies nobody has really been waiting to re-visit and there are hardly any songs that stick out. The success of Dreamgirls, which was selling like hot cakes before it even opened, shows there's demand for musicals, but they need GOOD MUSIC.

I may sound like an old fart here, but I think music in general has degenerated in the last 20-30 years, ever since the advent of "House" and "Techno", which is basically just computer-generated cr*p. Until then songs stuck out through catchy and instantly memorable melodies. You'd hear a new track and it would stick in your brain and after a few turns, you'd have memorized half the song already. But personally I find most of modern pop music instantly forgettable, lots of noisy beats and very little in terms of melodies (no matter if it's upbeat stuff like Rihanna, Beyonce and their ilk, or the present endless deluge of hipster boys with guiters who spend an entire album whining about luuurve). What this has to do with musicals? Well, I think as long as there was a worldwide demand for great melodies, composers would be focused on coming up with melodies, find great tunes that stick in the brain. These days with music in general being cr*p so often, there seems to be far less effort to create really good melodies, that stick with you and pack an emotional punch.

I wanted to love Evan Hansen so badly, as I am also struggling with social anxiety, but I'm afraid the songs just don't do much for me, it's all bland and at times noisy guitar pop. When he goes on about trees falling in the woods forever and ever in "Waving through a window", I just want to shout "Oh get on with it". Right now I'm utterly in love with "Groundhog Day" as I find Tim Minchin has not only written good melodies but also very good lyrics (another thing I found lacking in EH) and "Night will come" makes me tear up every time. Anyway, I've disgressed to Broadway now, but generally I just think that there's a lack of really good songs and melodies on both sides of the pond, but an awful lot of fairly generic stuff. I found myself getting excited about "Bat out of Hell" simply because I loved the idea of seeing great rock tunes on stage.

What can be done about it? I don't know. Beyond smaller immediate measures like better funding for new productions, more risk by producers to try unusual things instead of playing it safe, I think there would need to be a big change in music in general and a return to the importance of good melodies and smart lyrics.

And I thought I knew a little bit about theatre history.  Please tell me who the Producers were who wanted LESS money?  Please point to the shows that guaranteed an easy return.


You are showing your political leanings that colour how you see everything. I would add that like many in society you have no understanding why PROFIT is ESSENTIAL in EVERY business.

I'm not sure its Toryspeak to point out the necessity for profit. Its general knowledge.

I think it goes both ways: Yes, profit is important for producers, nobody denies that. If a producer loses money on shows two or three times in a row, he will not produce again. If he makes a hefty profit, he can invest more money in new productions. Cameron Mackintosh got so insanely rich on the massive profits of the 80s blockbusters that he could later invest money in riskier things like Betty Blue Eyes or Half a Sixpence. ALW can write whatever he likes and sink money with stuff like Love Never Dies thanks to earlier profits and invest in something like The Other Palace (if that will yield hits down the line we cannot tell yet)

But: There has been an undeniable trend towards "playing it safe" by milking franchises or relying on the name of big pop stars and/or famous movies. Take something like The Bodyguard for example: A successful movie, so a "tried and tested" story that seemed to work and the back catalogue of one of the greatest singers of the last decades with hits like "I will always love you", "I wanna dance with somebody" and so on. Which seems a much much safer bet for producers than, say, give a young composer a chance who has written a brand-new story with fresh music about a contemporary issue. That doesn't mean that The Bodyguard was necessarily bad, it was mildly entertaining to be sure, but it also sounds like something that was decided in boardrooms rather than came out of an artists' inspiration. Much like the awful by-the-numbers Rocky which I saw in Hamburg and which burned quickly on Broadway.

And as snutte's earlier list shows: Taking risks IS still rewarded. The most successful shows on Broadway recently were shows that had original topics and sounded bonkers on papers, like a musical about two young Mormons in Africa, telling the story of Alexander Hamilton in modern rap and hip hop or taking a minor part from War and Peace and turning it into a bizarre party piece where the audience is part of the action. That's the part that I currently find lacking in London. Why can't "we" come up with something fresh like that anymore?