We all speculated...THE BOY FROM OZ ARENA PRODUCTION 2006 WITH Hugh Jackman- Page 2

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/24/05 at 11:02pm

QUOTES

That "filth" was Sunset Blvd...which I believe not only kicked off his career--it got him cast in Oklahoma (Trevor Nunn directed both)--which got him the audition for X-Men.I think we all know the rest (and I know I've enjoyed all of it so far).


Let it be known it was BEAUTY AND THE BEAST that got him cast in "Sunset Blvd" which WAS a disaster down under, for very many reasons, but it was that lead to Sunset Blvd. otherwise no one would have noticed him and cast him in such a production that, yes, lead to the next big role...

It was Beauty and the Beast: which was a great show


QUOTE:

The argument still doesn't hold up. I saw Les Miz for the first time in 1989, when I was 15, and for the last time in 2003, when I was 29. Yes, it was around forever, but it was a great show and I loved being able to revisit it as often as I did (8 times between NY and London).


I don't care if you think the argument doesn't hold up. Me and my friends are not supposed to think in your frame of mind. If Oliver and My Fair Lady never stepped aside, we'd never have seen Jesus Christ Superstar. And if Superstar had never stepped aside, we'd never have seen Evita and Les Miserables. And Cats. And The Phantom of the Opera. And all those other 'spectacles' that STILL haven't stepped aside. Bare in mind, they've done great business AND I'M NOT TELLING THEM TO CLOSE: THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!! but keep some space for the youngin's to get in and let these big bastards, from last century, step aside (metaphorically) for the new successes. Let the new shows in. Let the old ones run on, because Les Mis can be around and My Fair Lady can still be a big success. And Phantom can be around and Oklahoma can still go on. GET WHAT I'M SAYING?


QUOTE:

Remember, it's called show BUSINESS. You can't take a show as successful as Les Miz and Phantom and just close it while the tickets are selling out every night. I remember when those shows first opened, the wait for them was ridiculous.


You know I really didn't imply that the shows would have to close. I am not an idiot. What I implied was: the shows can keep running. In this day and age, you have to expect that. But don't just let the shows keep running and take up room for everything else... so that we all have left are terrified producers who put their pride and trust in tried-and-true entities. It gets very frustrating for four people who, each, have written seven musicals between them: and nine myself.

QUOTE:

Everybody knows Jonathan Larson's story. What if he had lived? Would it not have been acceptable for him to write another musical, since he got his success with "Rent"? Of course not.


He WOULD be successful? or he wouldn't?


QUOTE:

It's the same reason I see Billy Joel concerts, even though he hasn't had a new album in 12 years--I like his music. I'll go to see new bands and try out new music any time. But if Billy and Elton are going to be Giants Stadium again, I'll be there in a second.


Yes, I know you will! And I'm not saying that Giant Stadium thing CAN'T happen. I'm saying that, around the corridor to the left, there should be a new band playing on the same night (or the same week) and three new musicals that are smash-hit successes by the youngins.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/24/05 at 11:08pm

QUOTE:

Some interesting thoughts on this thread about the show and Arena shows.

I personally don't care for them, I don't like seeing shows in 2000 seat venues either (1,500 seats is plenty) I want to be able to see the cast's faces. While 'Oz' will make money I wouldn't be at all surprised if it doesn't meet expectations (financially). The recent Australian arena tour of GREASE lost money, and other than SUPERSTAR back in 1993(?) not too many of these shows have succeeded. The first failure was back in the 80's, remember STARLIGHT EXPRESS? Then came the first GREASE tour (success), then HAPPY DAYS (the arena spectacular, not) big failure.


Happy Days was a flop? I remember that one, and even Tom Bosley had a part. I still have the old newspaper ad on my wall. Human Nature played a 50s group.. and I always walk past it and chuckle. My walls are totally *just* theatrical posters, but that one makes me laugh hysterically. I don't remember anything else about it, but I've been trying to find the CD for a while

QUOTE:

I doubt if 15,000 Aussies a night will again return to see THE BOY FROM OZ again just because Hugh Jackman is in it. They flogged this show to death in its original production.


I don't remember it being flogged. All I remember is, because it was the same time Gale did Whistle Down the Wind, it was a huge success: and if it wasn't, certainly wouldn't have begun the road to Broadway. Unless EUREKA, all of a sudden, is announcing plans to open at the Minskoff LOL


While he may get a good crowd in Sydney (where he hails from and has never been seen on stage before) in Melbourne he has been seen in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and SUNSET BLVD.The show wasn't anywhere near the success in Melbourne that it was in Sydney.The rest of the country, who knows?


Yes. I have the recording of the Starlight Express btw. It's very *interesting*

[alterego]

Posted: 10/24/05 at 11:22pm

When I say flogged I should have said, outstays its welcome.The Melbourne season of Oz started strongly but in the last four months the show was playing at about 50% capacity. Like all shows here the producers tend to be greedy and expect too long a run. Let's face it we are a small country with a small theatre going public.

I remember going to a matinee of HAPPY DAYS at Rod Laver Arena with about 4,000 seats occupied of a potential 12,000. Awful just awful.

[stage_door76]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 1:36am

back to the todd mckenney thing...

i know! i'd be looking for a very tall building

poor bugger. still, at least he has the australian verision of dancing with the stars to keep him occupied, or so i've heard...

[alterego]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 1:40am

Quite a few people (re: T Mc K) are talking about karma. Hmmm.

[Urban]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 2:07am

Sunset Boulavard was a disaster the day they decided to hire that bitch Debra Byrne.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 2:16am

Let it be known: it was a very accomplished show and (visually) one of the most pleasing. But all the crap that happened just leaves a bitterness in my throat that only tells me it was, yes, filth. But good that Hugh got something out of it: even though I think it was Beauty and the Beast that lead to Sunset: and etc. Just like it was Les Mis that lead Anthony to Phantom, and then to Jekyll (and then turning around and doing something incredibly noble for his kids, by giving up what could have made him the greatest star on Broadway, by staying at home).

Which is really inspiring

In general I only have bad memories of Sunset.

Posted: 10/25/05 at 4:42am

I wonder if any of the original Australian cast will be reprising their roles? I'd like to see Chrissie Amphlette back playing Judy and she does have an autobiography to push now.

[Urban]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 4:44am

Feris, I actually think you are lucky you got the chance to be a part of a show in the first place, even if sadly all the political behind-the-scenes bullsh!t killed it for you. I feel for you because Melbourne deserved a brilliant wonderful version of that show, not Godzilla on her period pretending to be Norma Desmond.

I'd of given my right ball to see SB, because I can imagine how visually pleasing it would've been. Only if there was some quirk in space and time that could've had Debbie Byrnes replaced with Betty Buckley... then it would've been great.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 5:19am

I live for the theatre and all that stuff. I know this could sound dumb, but I don't give the show a second thought. It was absolutely amazing, visually, and the cast gave it their all: and it really gave the illusion of being a magical evening. And I was fooled by it, because I was younger, and so forgot about the crap that was happening backstage. It made me think that, hey, maybe ol' Debbie is a faded star from Young Talent Time. The crap that she was going through came through in the character somehow, and it was like escapism. You got lost in the show.

But that show is really faint in my mind, probably the most faintest, and it's blacked out by what the media said about it at the time: and all the crap that stirred around it. I don't whether to believe anything about anything that happened, including Debra, but there was so much crap that it jst killed it for me. I wish that, one day, they could bring the show back the way it deserves to be done: and also consider Whistle and The Beautiful Game while they're at it

[JenD512]

Posted: 10/25/05 at 1:46pm

Let it be known it was BEAUTY AND THE BEAST that got him cast in "Sunset Blvd" which WAS a disaster down under, for very many reasons, but it was that lead to Sunset Blvd. otherwise no one would have noticed him and cast him in such a production that, yes, lead to the next big role...

Yes, I read the Playbill bio too, I know Beauty & the Beast came first. I was pointing out that Trevor Nunn directed both--in fact, I thought I read in an interview somewhere that because Sunset closed early, he was able to go London and audition for Oklahoma.

It was Beauty and the Beast: which was a great show

I agree...but it's been on Broadway for more than 10 years now. Shouldn't they be "stepping aside" to make room for another musical....ok, not going there.

If Oliver and My Fair Lady never stepped aside, we'd never have seen Jesus Christ Superstar. And if Superstar had never stepped aside, we'd never have seen Evita and Les Miserables. And Cats. And The Phantom of the Opera. And all those other 'spectacles' that STILL haven't stepped aside. Bare in mind, they've done great business AND I'M NOT TELLING THEM TO CLOSE: THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID!!

Don't they close when they "step aside"?

True, shows run longer than they did 50 years ago. But these shows never went away--they're revived all the time. I don't think there's a statute of limitations on how long as show is supposed to be relevant.

I loved "Rent." And I think that show did open the door for smaller off-Bway shows like "Avenue Q" and "Spelling Bee" to come to Broadway. Doesn't mean I think that Rent should step aside to make room for someone else. It's a great show...I haven't seen it in a few years, but there's a new generation of fans who are just as exciting about seeing it (as well as the movie) as I was 9 years ago.

You mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats, Les Miz, and Phantom...but the creative people involved are still making musicals today. Should they step aside to give someone else a shot?

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 1:35am

You're completely missing the point to what I'm saying. Let those shows continue to thrive, but allow the youngins' a chance as well. Let the new shows enter, along the corridor, instead of permanently living with the successses of the 80s. By all means, they can stick around for as long as they like (I'm not saying they should pack up their bags and leave) but there are still a lot of new musicals out there waiting to be done: and everything COULD co-exist

but, sadly, it doesn't.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 2:42am

Urban, you needed to see Maria Mercede's, if see was cast instead of Deb, that show would have run for years...

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 3:00am

Maria wasn't a star though. Debra was

Then again, there's that argument that Lloyd Webber's shows are the stars themselves...

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 3:14am

I think Maria, has always been under rated , the girl has done Chess, Nine, Cats, Chicago, Sunset and i am sure many others i am missing.

Should she have been the star over deb?, yes..Having seen sunset nearly every monday night during it's run ( don't you love free tix's )

You got a hell of a different show when deb was out, even if it was possible Hugh was better too.

[Urban]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 9:36am

I have heard a tonne of good stuff about Maria (yet unfortunately never had the opportunity to watch (or at least hear) her. She is one of those people I want to see or listen to alot. (Like I want to hear Judi Conneilli live alot, but since I have two recordings of shows she was in - Chicago & Into The Woods, at least I know she fracking rocks).

[jollipops]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 9:13pm

Rockfenris, I would just like to say, I completely appreciate what you are saying re: younginsl, I know how you feel. As an aussie myself I would just like to contribute a couple of things.

My concern is that it seems that the climate here in Australia is completely unable to support new productions. I mean, how many shows have closed here before they opened? Jekyll and Hyde, Hair, Godspell all come to mind. These all never happened due to a lack of interest.

Now, Australia should be proud of a big production of 'Boy From Oz', because it is all we get to see. Broadway has it all, I wish I lived there and could go and see any of a heap of shows to choose from any time I like, but unfortunately, I am currently having to wait for Australian producers to debate for 10 years, then finally make a decision to bring a big production over here. I mean, I totally respect you guys on here bagging someone out every time they start a 'Wicked' thread, because you are all sick of it. But, there are a stack of people out here that are all DYING for an announcement to be made about an Australian production of this, and Hairspray, and Avenue Q and a million other shows we never get to see.

I don't like The Boy From Oz, but I will probably see it because it's the only chance we get. Personally I would probably go and see 'The Sound Of Music' starring the entire cast of TV Soap 'Neighbours' if it was on because I don't have another option.

However, I would LOVE to see some new productions launch here. Unfortunately though, I think we need to concede that people like you and I are very few. If Jekyll and Hyde can't sell, how can a production by an unknown composer, with unknown music, unknown story etc succeed?

I don't think the producers are to blame here, it's the public that need to wake up. Maybe 'The Boy From Oz' will bring some more people back to the theatre, who knows?

[stage_door76]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 10:52pm

here, here!

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/26/05 at 11:12pm

Jollipops, i agree with every thing you said, but just one point: If Jekyll and Hyde can't sell, that was not the problem with that show, the producers failed to find the money.
The set was already in the theatre, the crew was waiting to go, the cast was ready, tickets had been on sale for months.

Then the day before thre first tech, the show was no more, for those lucky enough to see a run thru, the show would have been a hit.

But Australian producers over the 10 years got greedy, hoping every show that came along would be a "Phantom" and run for 8 years, we need to go back to the way it, the run of the show would be 12/16 weeks in each capital city and a return visit if need be.

That way we would never miss shows like "Kiss of the spider woman", "City of angels", "Wicked" and the list goes on and on..

[jollipops]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 12:50am

Agreed.

But I can't help thinking that the reason why producers can't find the money is because there isn't enough money in the industry...

Who's fault is that? We know the quality of the shows are great. The advertising is fantastic. Who else is there to blame but the audience? Also, if the producers had the sets, crew and cast, doesn't that suggest that they DID have the money? And they didn't go ahead due to poor sales? I was personally devastated, i had my tickets for the first weekend...

I do absoulutely agree with you on the limited run theory. They should always set up for a 12-16 week run. But if it sells out, they definately have the right to extend it... that's not really hurting anyone.

Thanks for the input!

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 1:03am

I was to work on that production of "Jekyll and Hyde". It was not poor ticket sales that killed it, the theatre was waiting to be paid, some of the crew had been there over 2 weeks, bumping the show in..The producers kept saying the money is coming, the money is coming and then nothing..there was no way to open that show with no money to stage it and run it till they found some...

I was lucky enough to sit in on the run thru in rehearsal room.

Updated On: 10/27/05 at 01:03 AM

[jollipops]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 1:14am

Ok, am really jealous now... I wish i could have seen a run through...

I guess if you were involved with it you would know best, but I am glad it was brought up because I always thought that the producers closed it because they were waiting on more funding (from sponsorship AND ticket sales). I always thought it was a group of producers that wanted to mount a big production but were relying on advance sales to fund it. Of course, sponsorship is another area, but then you aren't gonna get sponsors if you don't get bums on seats.

Sorry to go off topic here, I am just really interested.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:10am

Well, I definitely agree

I say it from personal experience mostly… I wrote this show that would have starred Nik Janev: who was Meat Loaf on Starstruck (the Channel Nine show – if anyone knows about it). He’s a big, awesome talent: and larger than life: and (hell, I’ll say it) larger than Meat Loaf. It was an amazing show I had planned for a very long time, but no one in the city would invest in it. Bare in mind that we had the best production elements (I think) for, like, in ten years: and it was something that would have been crazily magical. We were going to do it out-doors, on the cheap (but in an eerie way: kind’a like Blair Witch onstage): but no one STILL was interested…

I, personally, ended up being the producer myself. I coughed out so much money my pocket has still got holes in it: and I have migraines thinking about it. Firstly, well, I said to all the producers: “just because you think everything has to be ‘tried-and-true’ doesn’t mean it’s going to stop me.” I became my own producer. But THEN: I couldn’t even get a director LOL. So I became the director. I couldn’t get a musical director. So I became the musical director. I couldn’t get a choreographer, stage manager, set designer, costume designer, make up and wardrobe: so I became all those too. I was just about to become the cast and orchestra (with Nik still in the lead: and he is still very passionate about the show) when my friends took me aside and said “This isn’t going to work. You’re wasting your time.” A new musical, it seems, is IMPOSSIBLE to produce!

I’ve grown up on theatre. I was raized on Andrew Lloyd Webber, Sondheim, Jim Steinman, Rodgers and Hammerstein… is there anything WRONG with wanting to be someone like them? The same goes with my friends. It’s very difficult when you’re surrounded by this majority who don’t give a damn, who couldn’t comprehend what you have to offer. And like the masters I treat everything I write as something DIFFERENT to everything else. So, for example, Little Night Music is entirely in 3/4. Pacific Overtures has an all-Kabuki cast. And Merrily we Roll Along is backwards, Sweeney has cannibals etc. etc. I won’t describe what’s different about my shows, there is a site on the web though, but I am conscious of, if something must be done (and it takes a lot of time) it has to be the best you can possibly give. Eureka wasn’t the best they could possibly give. It was half-baked. Boy From Oz wasn’t the best, because they changed it. Like the great shows, I’m conscious of revolution (and evolution) and really want to tell the best stories possible. However, the business-side are really REALLY afraid…

So, I definitely agree

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:25am

You know what i feel your pain, we as a country would give more money to sports stars cause they are the be all and end all of this town..
I find it hard to understand how some one can pay $ 100 bucks to see the footy every weekend , but say lets see a live show and you would have thought i said watch me as i give birth to this muppet...

Arts australia no longer fund like they used too, there's maybe 3 or 4 full time producers left in this country, some of the smaller theatre's :ie the universal in melbourne, are now apartments.

And when producers do need money they bring back "Grease"

[jo]

Posted: 10/27/05 at 5:47am

Shouldn't people be glad then that Hugh Jackman is bringing back his TONY-acclaimed role home? It is unrealistic to expect that he would be able to spend as much time as he did on Broadway for this show - perhaps that is why an arena version is what is practicable. You can't expect a show to be produced on expectations that it would lose money, given a very short run.

I think perhaps what the Aussies will see is the sense of joy that Hugh brought into the role, not just a slightly different production of the original THE BOY FROM OZ seen in Australia. I, for one, am looking forward to this new version ( hopefully I can make it to Sydney or Melbourne) which I expect to be a little different from what I had seen at the Imperial many times. If you had been at the closing show of TBFO on Broadway, what was celebrated was the great sense of joie de vivre! It seemed like we all went to a party! I don't see why that exhilarating feeling cannot be recreated in the arena production of this show.