Hamilton bias- Page 2

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 9:01am

ChildofEarth said: "I have a feeling the Tony Awards are going to show just how tired people are of the onslaught of Hamilton this year."

If Hamilton doesn't win in all its Tony categories, I don't think that implies "people are tired of onslaught". The acting categories, for instance, seem to be overly saturated with Hamilton nominees. That situation might divide/balance the votes enough for another actor to capture the category.

That doesn't mean people are tired of the show, though. The fact that those categories are Hamilton-heavy might indicate the opposite.

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 9:04am

Riedel has been bitter about Hamilton from the start to be fair, he's tried his best to make things look bad for the show at various points. 

[NJ_BroadwayGirl]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 9:07am

John Adams said: "If Hamilton doesn't win in all its Tony categories, I don't think that implies "people are tired of onslaught". The acting categories, for instance, seem to be overly saturated with Hamilton nominees. That situation might divide/balance the votes enough for another actor to capture the category.

That doesn't mean people are tired of the show, though. The fact that those categories are Hamilton-heavy might indicate the opposite."

 

I agree with this. I think Hamilton was rightfully nominated in so many categories because those elements of the show are among the best this season, but it doesn't mean they will be deemed the best. Ones that come to mind here are set design and choreography. 

And Reidel has had an axe to grind for a while now. 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 9:12am

John Adams said: "ChildofEarth said: "I have a feeling the Tony Awards are going to show just how tired people are of the onslaught of Hamilton this year."

If Hamilton doesn't win in all its Tony categories, I don't think that implies "people are tired of onslaught". The acting categories, for instance, seem to be overly saturated with Hamilton nominees. That situation might divide/balance the votes enough for another actor to capture the category.

That doesn't mean people are tired of the show, though. The fact that those categories are Hamilton-heavy might indicate the opposite.

 

"

Yes, this is true.  It's not like the noms were made 6 months ago.  There is only a month between noms and voting.  If there was any backlash to its super-popularity, it would have happened with the noms.  I also agree that nothing can be proven by the results, either.  Splitting the vote, individual standouts from other shows.....so many things could account for any categories it doesn't win.   I could see it happening in a number of cases....and nothing would be a shame, or spite or anything else.  Its the way the votes fall.   I fully expect Hamilton's women to get shut out.  Not because they aren't wonderful but because I think there were other amazing performances.  I'll actually be disappointed if Erivo doesn't walk away with a statue.  

 

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 9:35am

"I only think those in the industry that are tired of it are people that are incredibly jealous of its success.  (and I don't throw around the "jealously card" often.)"

 

I realize that you backed off this opinion, saying that you didn't "even know if there is any community/professional resentment" (which makes me wonder why you said it to begin with), but no, industry people are not jealous of the successes of Hamilton - or any other successful show. Even Wicked

 

That would be silly, childish and petty. Whether a Broadway professional personally likes a show or loathes it, they know that such juggernauts are great for the business in general. It's good for everyone, and that's nothing to be jealous over.

 

As others have said, if you're suffering from Hamilton fatigue, it's easy enough to avoid. Turn the page or change the channel.

 

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 9:50am

The only reason I mentioned it was because of the post saying the Tonys might have shown a bias against the show.  That would imply the community/professionals. 

 

I certainly don't know of any professional resentment....not that I am in any way in the know there.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 10:05am

LMM is pretty beloved in the community, as is the rest of the cast and the show itself.

If Hamilton loses in categories in which it is nominated, it will be because this has been a very good year for musicals on Broadway and Hamilton- while, I think, the best musical and production of the season- isn't necessarily the best in every category. I personally would vote for Shuffle Along's choreography, for example.

Riedel should not be taken as the gospel truth on any topic, and especially not Hamilton- a show he has openly expressed a desire to take down a peg.

As for the media onslaught: deal with it. Hamilton is that very rare musical nowadays that has managed to actually slip into the mainstream. "Story of Tonight" has gotten a cover that plays on the radio. The album debuted at #12 on Billboard. The show helped keep Hamilton on our currency. Of course theatre sites will want to capitalize on that because it means more traffic. People want to read about it and engage about it. Soon, they won't. And the articles will dwindle. But for now, deal with it. It's a show that is actually culturally relevant.  

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 10:49am

Kad said: "Riedel should not be taken as the gospel truth on any topic, and especially not Hamilton- a show he has openly expressed a desire to take down a peg."

So many people on here need to wrap their heads around this—particularly the first clause.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 10:49am

dramamama611 said: "I fully expect Hamilton's women to get shut out.  Not because they aren't wonderful but because I think there were other amazing performances.  I'll actually be disappointed if Erivo doesn't walk away with a statue."

Wow, you don't expect Renée Elise to win featured actress? Phillipa is a no brainer.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 10:54am

Yeah, dramamama, I find I often agree with you on here but I'm surprised to see you think Goldsberry will be shut out.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 10:59am

OK...maybe "fully expect" might have been a bit strong, and yes, I agree, Goldsberry has the better chance between the two.

[NJ_BroadwayGirl]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 11:07am

An article on this very topic just came out in Variety. It looks at both sides of the coin like we have here: http://variety.com/2016/legit/news/hamilton-success-may-help-other-broadway-shows-1201765664/

[Broadway Forever2]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 11:12am

Riedel has a strong bias against Hamilton. I really won't take anything he says about it seriously. If there was a fatigue it would have affected the nominations... Also LMM is loved in the theater community. It's not going to win every category but I doubt it will be because of the resentment or fatigue among tony voters. 

And again Hamilton being big is only good for Broadway. For a lot of people it will be their gateway show to get interested in Broadway and theatre. Sure there are some people that just care about Hamilton, but who cares? If people are tired of Hamilton they should just ignore it. 

Updated On: 5/5/16 at 11:12 AM

[NJ_BroadwayGirl]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 11:21am

I will say I hadn't thought that much about the touring house piece of things until I read the Variety article but it's great what having Hamilton on the schedule will do for those theatres. People who wouldn't normally buy a subscription will do so now, not only injecting money into other shows but also attendance and interest. That's certainly a plus. 

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 11:30am

The Variety piece brought up another great point, are visitors to New York shelling out insane amounts of money on a pair of Hamilton tickets and not seeing anything else?

The Australian newspapers ran a piece on someone who payed over $1400USD for two tickets to sit in the  second last row and she was saying that was the only thing she saw, cause her theatre budget went on one show!

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 11:33am

It's true, but how many people see more than one show when they go to New York? Only people that are avid theatre fans anyway I would say. Studies show that most people only go to the theatre about once a year.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:05pm

I have talked to people who have come into town thinking they can get tickets to a hit show that is sold in advance. When they realized they couldn't get tickets they didn't see another show. I have suggested shows to them and the response was "No, we really wanted to see...".

I think it is great when Broadway gets into the national news/spotlight, but it seems to always be about just one show. There also always seems to have to be an angle also. "rent" was fueled by Larson's deat. "The book of Mormon" had the South Park creators behind it. "Wicked" and "Lion King" had built in draws. I could be wrong but there came a point where "Hamilton" overshadowed everything that there was no way for other shows to get any more attention. Every week it seems that the show is making some kimd of news. It was even swept into the changes of people on currency. 

In my opinion this has been a womderfully diverse season. Possibly, in one without "Hamilton" we would have heard more about the blood in "Ameican Psycho" and is it "too much for Broadway". But all eyes are on "Hamilton". But as mentioned here a few times, if you are tired of it, ignore the coversge and conversations".

Yeah, I am a bit over it. but it is now what it is. I don't read every thread or comment on it but I like to check in from time to time. Like now! Jmo

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:07pm

aaaaaa15 said: "
I never think its a bad thing when mainstream attention is focused on Broadway for once. It will be a long time before it happens again.

"

Yes it's a good thing - kind of - but in this case, it's reinforcing to mainstream America that Broadway is too expensive and they can't afford it. I don't know statistics if visitors to NYC only go see one show a year or more than one...but it's sad when most people (whether they see one or more) can't afford or find tickets to see this one. Most non regular theater goers are just going to say that Broadway is out of the reach.

Not everyone can plan trips two years in advance and not everyone can pay the money that Hamilton is asking. I am not faulting Hamilton - if people are willing to pay...hey, they do what they can.  But I don't think it helps to see someone like Sarah Jessica Parker (who I am CERTAINLY NOT BLAMING OR FAULTING PERSONALLY but she just happened to be on some interview show yesterday) saying she took her twin girls to see this and she has seen it so many times herself. It's reinforcing that only the rich and elite or people who know someone can see this - or get tickets to it when they want...which is kind of true. So when regular folks want tickets, they are not available. A few cheap lottery tickets don't even make a dent.

It's just kind of sad that the show that is created "for the people" that are usually not drawn to Broadway is not easily seen by those people.

 

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:08pm

I agree with what you say about past big Broadway shows having an angle to work with. Do you think Hamilton has one? I don't which is what makes what has happened with it so remarkable to me. In fact, on paper it is the opposite of commercially appealing. Hip-hop founding fathers sounds weird and embarrassing. I'm amazed that its got as far as it has by what is mostly word of mouth. 

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:14pm

I agree Kathy, it is a shame. But as you say, there's little that can be done. I feel that the show itself is doing everything it can ($10 lottery, bringing school groups in for $10), but if they made their face value prices any cheaper the scalpers would be earning far more money than the producers. I am glad that the producers have finally decided to share the wealth with the cast however.

Personally, I'm happy to give a substantial amount of money to a show like this (NOT the premium prices), so it will encourage more shows like this to happen in the future. I wouldn't pay as much as I have paid for Hamilton to see a movie adaptation or a jukebox musical, but I don't feel that I've wasted a cent on seeing Hamilton. It's a shame that the general public don't realize that they need to research this show well in advance as if you do so, it is possible to get relatively reasonable tickets, as long as you have some form of income. 

Updated On: 5/5/16 at 12:14 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:23pm

"But I am also sick of Hamilton."

Likewise, to the 100th power. Actually, I was sick of it during it. 


" It was almost refreshing to see the Drama Desk nominations without Hamilton eligible. "

I felt exactly the same way, minus the qualifier, "almost." It was the sweetest sensation of gladsomeness, like the joy you feel when the first buds of spring appear.


"I have said all along that the attention on Hamilton would be positive for all of Broadway and I hope that's true. Is it true?"

 

I don't think so. Case in point: if the rumored $995 ticket price comes to pass. 

 

"Or do the non-Broadway fans interested in Hamilton only care about Hamilton?" 

 

I don't think it likely that they'll now turn their attention to She Loves Me or the original cast recordings of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn or Ben Franklin in Paris.

[starcatchers]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:34pm

ghostlight2 said: ""I only think those in the industry that are tired of it are people that are incredibly jealous of its success.  (and I don't throw around the "jealously card" often.)"

 

I realize that you backed off this opinion, saying that you didn't "even know if there is any community/professional resentment" (which makes me wonder why you said it to begin with), but no, industry people are not jealous of the successes of Hamilton - or any other successful show. Even Wicked

 

That would be silly, childish and petty. Whether a Broadway professional personally likes a show or loathes it, they know that such juggernauts are great for the business in general. It's good for everyone, and that's nothing to be jealous over.

 

As others have said, if you're suffering from Hamilton fatigue, it's easy enough to avoid. Turn the page or change the channel.

 

 

 

"

 

Thank you. Thank. You. 

Personally? I loved Hamilton. I saw it twice at the Public, and I've seen it twice on Broadway. I just feel that it's been a pretty incredible season in general, and it's a little disheartening to think that other shows will probably not get the attention they would in a different season. 

[gypsy101]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:35pm

uncageg said: "There also always seems to have to be an angle also. "rent" was fueled by Larson's deat. "The book of Mormon" had the South Park creators behind it. "Wicked" and "Lion King" had built in draws."

Do you think there's an angle with Hamilton's popularity?

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:38pm

Not to discredit any of the new musicals this season, but I'm glad there was no Fun Home type of show or another so universally loved. A show like that would have been completely overpowered by Hamilton and it absolutely deserved its moment in the spotlight. I also wonder if one of the reasons Lin held off until this year was to allow for Fun Home to have that moment, as I remember Jeanine Tesori tweeted Lin thanking him after Fun Home announced recoupment, which is unlikely to have happened without the Tony win. In the end, it worked out better for both as Hamilton has not only managed to maintain its hype, its managed to increase it enormously over the past twelve months. 

This is the tweet from Jeanine that I'm referring to:

https://twitter.com/JeanineTesori/status/676188523293245440

Updated On: 5/5/16 at 12:38 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/5/16 at 12:48pm

" "Wicked" and "Lion King" had built in draws."

Lion King, sure - but Wicked? What was its draw? That it has a peripheral connection to The Wizard of Oz? Surely not the dark book that has little in common with the light-hearted spectacle. On paper, Wicked's success seems as unlikely as you think Hamilton's is. On that subject: 

"In fact, on paper it is the opposite of commercially appealing. Hip-hop founding fathers sounds weird and embarrassing. I'm amazed that its got as far as it has by what is mostly word of mouth."

"mostly word of mouth"? You say this in a thread that is bemoaning the ubiquity of Hamilton press? LMM is a very sincere person, but he's also shrewd and media savvy.

"Yes it's a good thing - kind of - but in this case, it's reinforcing to mainstream America that Broadway is too expensive and they can't afford it."

It's a good thing for theater, period. Broadway is not the final word in theater. Mainstream America can see Hamilton in their home towns on tour, and they will. Many will go on to see other shows, and yes, many will come to Broadway and off-Broadway as a direct result of the Hamilton hype. I don't think it will have the longevity of Chicago, but eventually, it is similar in that it will become more affordable, and people will still want to see it years down the line.

 

Updated On: 5/5/16 at 12:48 PM