Hunter Foster Responds to Urinetown Mess!- Page 3

[Jon]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 12:50pm

TheatreDiva - it has NOTHING to do with program credit. They used someone else's work without permission. Putting the original choreographer's name in your program would not give you the right to use their moves.

And by the way - the choreographer who won the Jeff Award in Chicago is THE SAME PERSON who choreographed Jen Cody's production in Ohio.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 12:59pm

Hunter is an idiot for getting into this fray. What an ego!

Updated On: 11/17/06 at 12:59 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:01pm

He's standing up for his girl, however misguided his actions might be.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:09pm

Have you guys ever met John Carrafa? What a d**k!

I hope he doesn't see a dime.
Updated On: 11/17/06 at 01:09 PM

[Captainlaughyboy]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:13pm

An ego??? Carrafa is basically going after his wife saying she stole his production and Hunter has the ego? He has a right to stand up and say whatever he wants. And why is everyone assuming that the production was stolen based on Carrafa's word. No one has seen it. So, until there is proof that she did, no one can make a judgement. And it anyone was wrong, it was Carrafa for having a press conference. He could have kept this between him, the lawyers and the parties in Ohio.

[mallardo]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:14pm

Hunter is certainly right that anyone who wants to do Urinetown at their local theater anytime soon is now going to think twice about it.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:20pm

If she didn't block the show on her own, then she did steal the production.

Hunter can say whatever he wants--true.

One look at the production photos and you will see what the fuss is about--it's obvious that the original designers concept was used--remember this isn't just about blocking and dance moves--it's about set, costume and lighting design too.

I think pretty much anybody thinks twice about doing URINETOWN anyway--it's not exactly a house-filler.

I agree this might have better played out privately, but the real reason he went public is to discourage others from doing this in the future--come up with your own ideas people! Or find another line of work.

[Captainlaughyboy]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:29pm

Yet again, no one knows what she did and what she didn't. You are going by a production photo and John Carrafa. If you google images from any prodcution of Urietown that's been done in the country and you will see the same kind of photos. No one can make a judegment until it is proven. Period.

[GimmeBroadway]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:29pm

Carrafa needs the publicity. That's why this is so public...what else can you do after Good Vibrations and Dance of the Vampires? lol

[Captainlaughyboy]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:35pm

I just googled Urinetown images from around the country and they all look the same: Bobby in overalls, Little Sally sitting on Lockstock's knee, the poor waving flags and pictures of Bobby, Caldwell with bunny slippers on his hands...Come on people!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:39pm

Also, Carrafa blatantly ripped of Fiddler, Le Miz, and West Side Story (to name just three shows), so who is he to complain?

He's got some MAJOR 'splaining to do.

It all sounds like bitter grapes to me.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 1:49pm

Oh my god--we're not JUST talking about the director here!

What is it you don't understand about intellectual property?

If ANY show copied the original, then THEY stole too--maybe the reason that he's raising hell is because one of his cast members used her experience in the show to profit from his staging. It's not just about Cody here--this is about "directors" and "choreographers" who restage, and designers who copy. If you are copying someone else's work, then you are NOT directing or choreographing AT ALL.

Yes, the street artist may be able to paint a Van Gogh, but it's still not HIS painting.

Those are brief homages to other shows, Diva, and it's disingenuous for you to not differentiate. One is restaging something already created IN ITS ENTIRETY--the references to Fiddler, WSS, etc are inside jokes that not everyone is going to get--it's the difference in quoting Shakespeare in a play and doing a Shakespeare play and saying you wrote it.

[Captainlaughyboy]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 2:40pm

There is no proof that Jen, who by the way directed and not choreographed the show, did anything wrong. You are going by Carrafa's word and production photos which are of the Chicago company and not Ohio. There are no photos of Ohio. So, basically you are believing J Carrafa before Ms. Cody and Mr. Loeffler have a chance to dispute these claims. Whose to say the Carrafa saw one small aspect of the show that may be similar to his show and is making a big stink over nothing. Thanks God, Hunter spoke up because all we've heard is John Carrafa's side. Who by the way doesn't have the positive reputation the Ms. Cody Carries.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 2:49pm

If she staged it on her own, all she has to do is simply show her book to Carrafa and be done with it. My suspicion is that she was hired because of her connection to the show and her ability to recreate the original.

The producers chose to hire her at what is almost certainly a lower fee than Carrafa would charge and still get the same show. Saving money is what they do.

This is SO not about Jen and Hunter--this is about how directors and designers work.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 3:57pm

As I've said before, the two "creators" who are sueing most likely do not own the rights to their work. Simply put, if the lighting design looks identical, that doesn't mean it is. If the sets are identical, it doesn't mean they are. The problem is, the producers of the Broadway production (who are based in Chicago) own those rights, and they certainly don't need to clear it with the people they hired to allow another company to re-use them. In other words, unless the producer objects, this really is a non-issue.

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 4:03pm

Legally, you may be right--ethically and artistically, you're not.

[showinoff]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 4:21pm

This is getting so out of hand. Let's face it folks...Cody is not to blame here. She was obviously hired to do this show because she was in the OBC. The problem, as I see it, comes down to the theatre. They knew what they were doing, and should have credited the original sources.

I applaud Foster for standing up for his wife while she was being attacked, for the fact that he is her husband and that is what he is supposed to do. He makes important statements, and some that will never hold water. But the idea that he came forward to support her is noble.

It is a shame that this has gone so far, but it really appears as sour grapes on the side of the original broadway artistic team. Well, some of them anyway.

So the question is should they accept the award? Most likely not. Especially in hindsite. Sum it all up with G.I JOE. " Now you know, and knowing is half the battle"

[lildogs]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 4:37pm

Sounds good to me, showinoff...

My problem isn't with Cody or Foster or anyone else in this specific instance--it's the larger question of what a director/choreo/designer does.

I guess I don't understand WHY any theatre artist would want to outright copy someone else's designs or work, especially with a relatively unknown show.

I always thought the fun in directing, designing, etc. was coming up with your own ideas that fit your particular production. Feel free to be inspired by someone else, but leave it at inspiration.

[Tom1071]

Posted: 11/17/06 at 4:40pm

It appears to me that simply acknowledging them in the programs would not have been enough for them. Clearly they are looking for financial compensation. So pissy!

[mustard]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:01pm

This thread has me scratching my head. Just a few weeks ago I remember a Chorus Line thread where everyone was sniffing that all productions should use the original dance moves, or it sucks. I was in a fantastic production at the Woodland Opera House that was all new choreography. It didn't suck at all. The same choreographer did a great Forum that we added tons of dance to. All the other Forum casts (it was done three times in town that year) came and smack talked us for not doing it the way it's always done, and guess who won the awards that year? Us. Their productions weren't even nominated.

However, most shows tend to look the same. There's usually a "way" that things are done, and if you don't do them the expected way, people give you grief. I don't understand why such a stink is being made.

Oh yeah, I think the original Urinetown guys ripped off The Fantasticks, too (in addition to the others already mentioned). I'd like to see a list of all the things THEY copied from other shows. Grrr. I don't know. This is really stupid.

All Josephs look the same.
All West Side Stories look the same.
Surely it's to be expected that all Urinetowns will look the same.

[leefowler]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 2:47pm

To anyone out there who wants to rip off John Carrafa's choreography for Good Vibrations...Be warned!

[GimmeBroadway]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 3:03pm

LMAO!!!

[Zikes]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 3:50pm

http://www.carouseldinnertheatre.com/gallery.htm

Does anyone else think these production shots look a little too similar to the movie?? Maybe that's what this theatre does??

-Zikes.

[mustard]

Posted: 11/18/06 at 4:22pm

Yeah. And when I saw it in Sacramento... it looked exactly the same.

[HOUFlip04]

Posted: 11/19/06 at 3:10am

Zikes - Singing In The Rain is a MOVIE MUSICAL! It was a movie first before it became a stage musical. The original production on Broadway flopped because it decided to be original and not be like the movie. So since then, they've changed the script to be pretty much exactly like the movie and all productions have been that way. From that, you can tell that most theatre audiences want to see the movie on stage - so that's what most theatres do when they do a production of Singing In The Rain.