Oak Speaks out on great comet controversy- Page 5

[hmph]

Posted: 10/4/17 at 11:41pm

Speed said: "Why should an actor be fired for not selling tickets? Was it in his contract? Furthermore, weekly grosses were near $1 million while he was in the show. The problem was that they had no advanced sales in the fall. Not Oak's fault though and he was scheduled to leave in a few weeks anyway."

This has been discussed pretty much ad nauseum. Them's the breaks when you're in show business, ~$900k gross was mainly due to Ingrid, weekly costs were high, etc.

I'm still wondering why the cast/creatives, especially people who have been with the show from the beginning, were pretty much ignored in all this for people like Rafael Casal and now Oak. Seems to me like Oak's not as much interested in a real discussion as he is in covering for his lack of ticket sales. Azudi's comments come to mind when I think of real perspective and thoughtful responses.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 10/4/17 at 11:43pm

Speed, your post drips with entitlement.  Why should they keep him if he's the star and he's not selling tickets?  They don't owe him anything.  There clearly wasn't any racism afoot other than the fake racism happening in Oak's head.  The 1 million coming in every week was being brought in by Ingrid Michaelson who had a shockingly huge following.  The lack of advance was after Michaelson left.  Oak was a nobody who didn't sell tickets.  Plain and simple.  Patinkin was going to boost ticket sales and help the show last into the fall where another star would step in, this was something that Oak could not do.  Stop calling people racist in this thread for speaking the truth.

By the way, I'm a black (and Asian) person myself who has pushed for diversity in the past, if that helps my argument at all.  This situation was not about diversity, it was about a diva with a fragile ego and a struggling musical.

[theater_tech]

Posted: 10/4/17 at 11:44pm

The Comet gang are reunited tonight to see Ghost Quartet, so there’s something they can talk about.

[HennySlay]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:05am

Mary Page Nance who was a swing and then replaced Anj Tanj as the Opera Dancer posted a photo with Nick Choksi that she captioned “Just #cultivatingdiveristy with many comet friends at dress rehearsal for Ghost Quartet. Cause that’s what we do and that’s what we did. The whole time. Just saying.” So they are definitely talking about it. 

[willep]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:06am

Mary Page Nance just posted a photo on her Instagram story from tonight (Ghost Quartet dress rehearsal) in which she makes a reference to Oak's comments.

 

Edit: Henny beat me to it.

Updated On: 10/5/17 at 12:06 AM

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:08am

HennySlay said: "Just #cultivatingdiveristy with many comet friends at dress rehearsal for Ghost Quartet. Cause that’s what we do and that’s what we did. The whole time. Just saying."

Amazing.

Updated On: 10/5/17 at 12:08 AM

[Itonlytakesajourney]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:23am

Speed said: "Lots of racism in this thread.

 

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:42am

hmph said: "Speed said: "Why should an actor be fired for not selling tickets? Was it in his contract? Furthermore, weekly grosses were near $1 million while he was in the show. The problem was that they had no advanced sales in the fall. Not Oak's fault though and he was scheduled to leave in a few weeks anyway."

This has been discussed pretty much ad nauseum. Them's the breaks when you're in show business, ~$900k gross was mainly due to Ingrid, weekly costs were high,etc.

I'm still wondering why the cast/creatives, especially people who have been with the show from the beginning, were pretty much ignored in all this for people like Rafael Casal and now Oak. Seems to me like Oak's not as much interested in a real discussion as he is in covering for his lack of ticket sales. Azudi's comments come to mind when I think of real perspective and thoughtful responses."

Them's the breaks??  That is not the way show business works unless it was in his contract that ticket sales had to go up.  Pierre is not a starring role like Dolly or Mame.  It's pretty much an ensemble show.  Why point the finger at Oak?  Because he replaced Groban?  He was hired to play a role, not to increase advanced sales.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:45am

Speed said: "hmph said: "Them's the breaks?? That is not the way show business works"

Yes, it is.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:47am

GeorgeandDot said: "Speed, your post drips with entitlement. Why should they keep him if he's the star and he's not selling tickets? They don't owe him anything. There clearly wasn't any racism afoot other than the fake racism happening in Oak's head. The 1 million coming in every week was being brought in by Ingrid Michaelson who had a shockingly huge following. The lack of advance was after Michaelson left. Oak was a nobody who didn't sell tickets. Plain and simple. Patinkin was going to boost ticket sales and help the show last into the fall where another star would step in, this was something that Oak could not do. Stop calling people racist in this thread for speaking the truth.

By the way, I'm a black (and Asian) person myself who has pushed for diversity in the past, if that helps my argument at all. This situation was not about diversity, it was about a diva with a fragile ego and a struggling musical."

Entitled to what?  I'm an outsider here.  If being the "star" and not selling tickets gets you fired, why wasn't Andy Karl fired?  Why haven't Patti Lupone or Christine Ebersole been fired?  Doesn't matter if Ingrid or Oak were selling tickets, the show was at least breaking even and Oak was leaving soon anyway.  How can you blame him for poor advance?  His presence should've sold tickets to future performances that he was not going to be in??? That makes no sense:

[hmph]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:54am

Speed said: "hmph said: "Speed said: "Why should an actor be fired for not selling tickets? Was it in his contract? Furthermore, weekly grosses were near $1 million while he was in the show. The problem was that they had no advanced sales in the fall. Not Oak's fault though and he was scheduled to leave in a few weeks anyway."

This has been discussed pretty much ad nauseum. Them's the breaks when you're in show business, ~$900k gross was mainly due to Ingrid, weekly costs were high,etc.

I'm still wondering why the cast/creatives, especially people who have been with the show from the beginning, were pretty much ignored in all this for people like Rafael Casal and now Oak. Seems to me like Oak's not as much interested in a real discussion as he is in covering for his lack of ticket sales. Azudi's comments come to mind when I think of real perspective and thoughtful responses."

Them's the breaks?? That is not the way show business works unless it was in his contract that ticket sales had to go up. Pierre is not a starring role like Dolly or Mame. It's pretty much an ensemble show. Why point the finger at Oak? Because he replaced Groban? He was hired to play a role, not to increase advanced sales."

Uhh, have you been following this at all? He was hired to replace the guy who sold tickets, and he couldn't do the same. The show's not going to stay open without $$$, as evidenced by its 9/3 closing. It's not the first time an actor has been replaced and it won't be the last. Them's the breaks. 

It sucks for the actor, but ask anyone and they'll tell you how it is. Celia Mei Rubin specifically mentioned that in a Facebook post back when the scandal first started up. If Mandy effing Patinkin shows an interest in playing a role in a production that desperately needs money, well, Oak's just not going to be a priority.

Just wish Oak had done this with a bit more grace and foresight, and that he had told Casal to cool it. The narrative including the perspective of people who hadn't just been replaced would have been nice too.

[hmph]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 12:59am

Speed said: "Doesn't matter if Ingrid or Oak were selling tickets, the show was at least breaking even and Oak was leaving soon anyway. How can you blame him for poor advance? His presence should've sold tickets to future performances that he was not going to be in??? That makes no sense:"

Holy ****, where to start. He was announced in February and wasn't selling tickets for his July-September run (that's what they mean by poor advance), on top of being unprepared for his first week and forcing the production to push his debut back. They announced Ingrid for July-August to basically save Oak's run, and she got them to a point where they weren't making Groban money but were at least making some money. However, her run ended 8/13, meaning they would have three weeks of disastrous Oak sales that Dave said weren't sustainable. Considering that, if Mandy effing Patinkin walks in and says he'll do Pierre, well, he's just going to be Pierre. That's a no brainer.

Have you really not been following this story?

Speed said: "If being the "star" and not selling tickets gets you fired, why wasn't Andy Karl fired?  Why haven't Patti Lupone or Christine Ebersole been fired?"

I really can't believe that Oak fans believe he's in the same stratosphere as Andy Karl, let alone Patti Lupone or Christine Ebersole. Really? Kind of helps explain Oak's comments though...

Updated On: 10/5/17 at 12:59 AM

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:00am

You make it sound like he was entitled to the part.  No one is entitled to their part.  The producers can fire them whenever they like.  They had a big name star who was available so they dumped the nobody who wasn't selling tickets.  That's what happened.  Groundhog Day didn't replace Karl because they didn't have a Tony and Emmy winner waiting in the wings.  He was all they had. 

Anyways, your argument is shallow and based in emotion, not fact.  They were letting him out of his contact to boost the advance and try to save the show.  He decided to make it a race issue and all about himself.

Basically Oak deserved to get fired the second he showed up to rehearsals unprepared.  He was lucky to make it so far.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:12am

hmph said: "Speed said: "Doesn't matter if Ingrid or Oak were selling tickets, the show was at least breaking even and Oak was leaving soon anyway. How can you blame him for poor advance? His presence should've sold tickets to future performances that he was not going to be in??? That makes no sense:"

Holy ****, where to start. He was announced in February and wasn't selling tickets for his July-September run (that's what they mean by poor advance), on top of being unprepared for his first week and forcing the production to push his debut back. They announced Ingrid for July-August to basically save Oak's run, and she got them to a point where they weren't making Groban money but were at least making some money. However, her run ended 8/13, meaning they would have three weeks of disastrous Oak sales that Dave said weren't sustainable. Considering that, if Mandy effing Patinkin walks in and says he'll do Pierre, well, he's just going to be Pierre. That's a no brainer.

Have you really not been following this story?

Speed said: "If being the "star" and not selling tickets gets you fired, why wasn't Andy Karl fired? Why haven't Patti Lupone or Christine Ebersole been fired?"

I really can't believe that Oak fans believe he's in the same stratosphere as Andy Karl, let alone Patti Lupone or Christine Ebersole. Really? Kind of helps explainOak's comments though..."

Ok so he's supposed to sell tickets at the rate Groban was??  Was he being PAID as much as Groban?  I would guess not.  So expected to do the same job for less money?  Poor producing.  And what stratosphere is Andy Karl in if every show he stars in is a big flop?  And LuPone and Ebersole are supposed to be stars but their show isn't turning a profit.  And is this a new rule that if an actor with a higher Q rating (Mandy) wants a job on Broadway, they are automatically entitled to it?

[RndmAnswrs4RndmQstns]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:16am

Not that you need your ego stroked or anything, GeorgeandDot, but you seemed to be accurate right from the beginning of this whole disaster. Kudos to you.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:18am

GeorgeandDot said: "You make it sound like he was entitled to the part. No one is entitled to their part. The producers can fire them whenever they like. They had a big name star who was available so they dumped the nobody who wasn't selling tickets. That's what happened. Groundhog Day didn't replace Karl because they didn't have a Tony and Emmy winner waiting in the wings. He was all they had.

Anyways, your argument is shallow and based in emotion, not fact. They were letting him out of his contact to boost the advance and try to save the show. He decided to make it a race issue and all about himself.

Basically Oak deserved to get fired the second he showed up to rehearsals unprepared. He was lucky to make it so far."

He IS entitled to the part.  He signed a contract!  And unless it said he must sell X amount of tickets to keep his job, then they should keep their end of the deal.  No they cannot fire actors whenever they like.  As for Andy Karl, I'm sure there are MANY actors who are more famous than him that would take on the role.  But the producers didn't explore that avenue.  They stood with their choice to have Andy play the role.  I, personally, am more famous than most people on Broadway but I'm not entitled to their roles if I ask to play them.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:21am

Tapping23 said: "Speed said: "GeorgeandDot said: "Speed, your post drips with entitlement. Why should they keep him if he's the star and he's not selling tickets? They don't owe him anything. There clearly wasn't any racism afoot other than the fake racism happening in Oak's head. The 1 million coming in every week was being brought in by Ingrid Michaelson who had a shockingly huge following. The lack of advance was after Michaelson left. Oak was a nobody who didn't sell tickets. Plain and simple. Patinkin was going to boost ticket sales and help the show last into the fall where another star would step in, this was something that Oak could not do. Stop calling people racist in this thread for speaking the truth.

By the way, I'm a black (and Asian) person myself who has pushed for diversity in the past, if that helps my argument at all. This situation was not about diversity, it was about a diva with a fragile ego and a struggling musical."

Entitled to what? I'm an outsider here. If being the "star" and not selling tickets gets you fired, why wasn't Andy Karl fired? Why haven't Patti Lupone or Christine Ebersole been fired? Doesn't matter if Ingrid or Oak were selling tickets, the show was at least breaking even and Oak was leaving soon anyway. How can you blame him for poor advance? His presence should've sold tickets to future performances that he was not going to be in??? That makes no sense:"

If your house is burning do you watch it burn or do you take action to get help to stop it? How do you know they were breaking even? Unless you have seen their books not sure how you can make that claim. Many contracts have promotional clauses. Morning shows, interviews, public events etc. This jas nothing to do with Oak. He made it about himself. It is not his fault tickets weren’t selling. However, tickets weren’t selling what do you do? They thought his presence coming off of Hamilton would push tickets it didn’t. So they get a star to come in try to boost sales andkeep the ship from sinking. In the theater world he isn’t being blamed. However, if the show closed at a lossand it came outproducers were not doing enough to keep the show going and hadopportunities that they passed on would be negligent andopen them up to lawsuits.

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2017/07/29/dont-cheer-mandy-patinkin-leaving-great-comet-just-yet/amp/"

Sounds like poor producing.  Like I said...  I wonder if Oak had the same salary as Groban...  I bet not.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:23am

Speed said: "I wonder if Oak had the same salary as Groban..."

You’re joking, right?

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:28am

BroadwayConcierge said: "Speed said: "I wonder if Oak had the same salary as Groban..."

You’re joking, right?"

I said "I bet not."  Why did you edit that out?  If true, what we have here is a black man being paid less than the white man but expected to do the same job at the box office.  And then bashed on a message board when he doesn't.

Updated On: 10/5/17 at 01:28 AM

[hmph]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:29am

Speed said: "Ok so he's supposed to sell tickets at the rate Groban was?? Was he being PAID as much as Groban? I would guess not. So expected to do the same job for less money? Poor producing. And what stratosphere is Andy Karl in if every show he stars in is a big flop? And LuPone and Ebersole are supposed to be stars but their show isn't turning a profit. And is this a new rule that if an actor with a higher Q rating (Mandy) wants a job on Broadway, they are automatically entitled to it?"

Several people have tried to lay out the facts to you to no avail, but the starkest fact is that the show closed 9/3 and it absolutely did not have to. Big old nobody Oak was standing in the way of grosses that might get them through the rest of the year, so he got replaced. The producers were trying to fix the mess they made by relying on a Hamilton alum that couldn't fill seats. He didn't have to make as much as Groban, he just had to do what Ingrid did and get them through the Summer, after which they had a TV star "name" already rehearsing. Did you really expect the producers to just close the show without trying to do anything to get sales up?

And really, Andy Karl is definitely on another level from Oak, regardless of Broadway box office (multiple Tony noms, that Olivier he won, etc.). However, if they had, say, Jake Gyllenhaal ready, willing, and able to take over in GD, well, I'd kind of assume they'd organize a respectable exit for Andy and usher Jake in right quick. 

[PaulWom]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:32am

Speed, I don't even know where to begin w your comments, but providing some insight here:

Live theater is a tricky business, especially when it comes to celebrity. And when it comes to celebrity, a lot of it is who is available, when they're available, and what they're interested in. Sting did it with The Last Ship, which I think is the best comparison. If Jamie foxx had been available in January, I'm sure the producers would've hired him in a heartbeat. Left with few options, they went down a route without a "big" name, but one that happened to get industry buzz (think Heather Headley in Color Purple). But as said above, regardless of when things happen, the job of the producers is to keep the show running as long as possible, so when Patinkin makes himself available, you hire Patinkin. Just like if Hugh Jackman wanted to be Pierre.

[Speed]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:32am

hmph said: "Speed said: "Ok so he's supposed to sell tickets at the rate Groban was?? Was he being PAID as much as Groban? I would guess not. So expected to do the same job for less money? Poor producing. And what stratosphere is Andy Karl in if every show he stars in is a big flop? And LuPone and Ebersole are supposed to be stars but their show isn't turning a profit. And is this a new rule that if an actor with a higher Q rating (Mandy) wants a job on Broadway, they are automatically entitled to it?"

Several people have tried to lay out the facts to you to no avail, but the starkest fact is that the show closed 9/3 and it absolutely did not have to. Big old nobody Oak was standing in the way of grosses that might get them through the rest of the year, so he got replaced. The producers were trying to fix the mess they made by relying on a Hamilton alum that couldn't fill seats. He didn't have to make as much as Groban, he just had to do what Ingrid did and get them through the Summer, after which they had a TV star "name" already rehearsing. Did you really expect the producers to just close the show without trying to do anything to get sales up?

And really, Andy Karl is definitely on another level from Oak, regardless of Broadway box office (multiple Tony noms, that Olivier he won, etc.). However, if they had, say, Jake Gyllenhaal ready, willing, and able to take over in GD, well, I'd kind of assume they'd organize a respectable exit for Andy and usher Jake in right quick."

Total racism.  Oak is "big old nobody" but Andy is "on another level."  Neither sell tickets so both should have the same rep.

[hmph]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:34am

Speed said: "BroadwayConcierge said: "Speed said: "I wonder if Oak had the same salary as Groban..."

You’re joking, right?"

I said "I bet not." Why did you edit that out? If true,what we have here is a black man being paid less than the white man but expected to do the same job at the box office. And then bashed on a message board when he doesn't."

Holy hell, is this Rafael Casal? Because that argument was as insipid and simplistic as his tweets on the subject.

But anyway, to bring it back to Oak, I am really hoping more cast members speak up, though I do understand how they tried to focus on the positive aspects of the production toward the end. Mary Page Nance's response was pretty amazing though...

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:35am

hmph, I was literally JUST about to ask if Speed is Rafael Casal, LOL. 

[PaulWom]

Posted: 10/5/17 at 1:40am

hmph, I do hope more actors speak out on how awful Oak was, seeing as he's trying to co-opt the legacy of the show to make it about himself. It would suck if the theater community held him up as a false idol.