A Man of No Importance coming to Broadway? — Page 3

sewwwwwww said: "As of yesterday, this is no longer happening. Jim Parsons and the producers couldn’t settle on a number so the entire thing is off. He texted the cast personally to let them know."

This is often a negotiation tool. But pretty bold of them to be this close to putting a show onsale without a deal memo in place.

RippedMan said: "Hate to put the blame on Parsons, but a lot of people could have been employed with this show."



It's not his job (or his responsibility) to take a subpar deal just so other people get to be employed.

JSquared2 said: "RippedMan said: "Hate to put the blame on Parsons, but a lot of people could have been employed with this show."



It's not his job (or his responsibility) to take a subpar deal just so other people get to be employed."

I mean, yes and no. He's doing fine with the residuals from Big Bang and Young Sheldon. So, it's not like it's going to hurt his bottom line. I mean, theater has never been about the money. I just think, if I were in his shoes, helping the cast and CSC for their first transfer. Wonder what the pay was going to be.

Nicticorax said: "Honestly a bit disturbing how many shows are coming to Broadway now solely on the back of a big star. On the one hand, I think it’s great that shows like “A Man of No Importance” are getting the opportunity to reach a wider audience (well, if Parsons hadn’t backed out). But it doesn’t seem like a sustainable model. You’ve got Music Man, Funny Girl, Sweeney Todd, Merrily, Parade, possibly Cabaret, etc etc. These are all shows that would not have come to Broadway without a huge star, and will probably have no legs beyond that star leaving. I can’t put my finger on it, but something about the trend just seems sleazy or insincere."



"Sleazy or insincere"?? How is this any different than "The Golden Age" of the 1950's, 60's, 70's --- when every big show had a Merman, a Martin, a Verdon, a Drake, etc. etc. Broadway theatre has always been "star-driven".

JSquared2 said: "RippedMan said: "Hate to put the blame on Parsons, but a lot of people could have been employed with this show."
It's not his job (or his responsibility) to take a subpar deal just so other people get to be employed."

Correct. Acting is not a public service in the commercial theatre industry. If he is being "used" by the producers to get this to Broadway, he needs to be compensated appropriately based on gross potential and earnings of his past shows.

We should be grateful there are stars who continually want to return to Broadway, especially in musicals.

The good news is, with the nature of Broadway real estate right now, that theatre will be filled with a show that will employ other people.

And this is not Classic Stage's first transfer; they did VENUS IN FUR.

Updated On: 1/25/23 at 02:36 PM

To be fair, a lot of them started out as stage actors too (Hugh Jackman for example, and if we're including Sutton Foster in that list too). And the fact that the productions happen at all means that the Sweeney understudy gets a chance to play Sweeney. Julie Benko broke out a bit for covering Fanny. And if we're going to take shots at Jim Parsons for not doing a show that could employ a lot of people, wouldn't we want more stars to do shows that could employ people? I get the idea that you couldn't really "discover" a new theater star in a major role if those roles are taken up by Hollywood stars, but I think it's a net benefit for Broadway as a whole (assuming that the Hollywood stars can play the part well). I mean Ben Platt started on Broadway, got more famous in Hollywood, and is now coming back to Broadway (and presumably bringing his fans) in a show that not many people outside a small theater community would know/pay attention to, and in the process that show also helps to elevate everyone else in the cast.

Would it be nice if we could cast major theater stars and sell tickets and make a profit? Of course, but given what the economics of theater is nowadays, I don't think it's an issue outside of driving up ticket prices to be unaffordable (but I think that's a separate issue from what we're talking about right now). And for the most part, I think it's great that new shows are still using bona fide theater stars (and yet we get people talking about how they'll never sell tickets either), so there's a mix of both on Broadway.

Nicticorax said: "chrishuyen said: "Would it be nice if we could cast major theater stars and sell tickets and make a profit? Of course, but given what the economics of theater is nowadays, I don't think it's an issue outside of driving up ticket prices to be unaffordable (but I think that's a separate issue from what we're talking about right now). And for the most part, I think it's great that new shows are still using bona fide theater stars (and yet we get people talking about how they'll never sell tickets either), so there's a mix of both on Broadway."

Totally agree with all your points! And perhaps I don't have enough perspective--it just seems this is happening at a level I haven't seen within my lifetime.

"

It's always been happening.

And my point being, it seems odd Parsons would walk away from this simply because of the paycheck - which he doesn't really need. Maybe he didn't get the reviews he wanted, didn't enjoy it, etc, who knows.

RippedMan said: "Nicticorax said: "chrishuyen said: "Would it be nice if we could cast major theater stars and sell tickets and make a profit? Of course, but given what the economics of theater is nowadays, I don't think it's an issue outside of driving up ticket prices to be unaffordable (but I think that's a separate issue from what we're talking about right now). And for the most part, I think it's great that new shows are still using bona fide theater stars (and yet we get people talking about how they'll never sell tickets either), so there's a mix of both on Broadway."

Totally agree with all your points! And perhaps I don't have enough perspective--it just seems this is happening at a level I haven't seen within my lifetime.

"

It's always been happening.

And my point being, it seems odd Parsons would walk away from this simply because of the paycheck - which he doesn't really need. Maybe he didn't get the reviews he wanted, didn't enjoy it, etc, who knows."

Yeah, in the 1990s Siskel & Ebert (who were lovers of theatre and opera in addition to professional film critics) complained that you couldn't get a new play on Broadway without a movie star.

Yes, I wish this wasn't such a last minute move to Broadway so that a great replacement could have been found. I was so looking forward to finally having the chance to see this musical staged as I missed the Off Broadway version. Alas.

I want to hope that they will pursue it with a different star next season, but I wont allow my hopes to get up only to be crushed. lol

I saw it a week before opening, and his Irish accent was rough. Not sure if it got any better, but, by most accounts, he was always the weak link in the cast.

I thought his accent was fine, as was his performance. The show would be totally fine without him, but for the fact that hes a draw for ticket buyers. If they find someone else that can play this role--and they should be able to--i hope it transfers.

That said: why shouldn't Parsons demand what he thinks hes worth? He doesnt need to do this, and should hold out for whatever it is he wants. He doesn't owe anyone anything--and if I was him, the ghost of Beanie would be whispering in my ear, "protect yourself, it isn't worth it."

Thank you for the opinions on the accent. I suppose it depends on how well you know an actual Irish accent. Or a Dublin accent, not a Darby O'Gill accent.