Posted: 2/15/18 at 10:06pm
DaveyG said: "Wonder which theatre? The Kerr?"
Bart likes the Belasco so I believe it will end up there
Posted: 2/15/18 at 10:09pm
Robbie2 said: "Bart likes the Belasco so I believe it will end up there"
Although it's gearing up to be a surefire flop, Gettin' the Band Back Together is supposed to open at the Belasco in August.
Posted: 2/15/18 at 10:13pm
BroadwayConcierge said: "Robbie2 said: "Bart likes the Belasco so I believe it will end up there"
Although it's gearing up to be a surefire flop,Gettin' the Band Back Togetheris supposed to open at the Belasco in August."
O yea...lol we shall see
Posted: 2/15/18 at 10:17pm
Posted: 2/15/18 at 10:30pm
Call_me_jorge said: "The Lincoln center backed Falsettos played the Kerr, which makes the most sense that this would play there too."
Dude, Falsettos was all about Jordan Roth as the Kerr is a Jujamcyn house
Posted: 2/15/18 at 11:10pm
Posted: 2/15/18 at 11:13pm
Posted: 2/15/18 at 11:22pm
RippedMan said: "awkward, scrunchy face - performances"
...what?
Posted: 3/14/18 at 4:36pm
https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Harper-Lee-Estate-Sues-Over-in-Aaron-Sorkins-Broadway-Bound-TO-KILL-A-MOCKINGBIRD-20180314
"The author's estate is suing over screenwriter Aaron Sorkin's script of the play, claiming that it 'deviates too much from the novel, and violates a contract, between Ms. Lee and the producers, which stipulates that the characters and plot must remain faithful to the spirit of the book.'"
Oh, boy.
Posted: 3/14/18 at 4:44pm
Can't buy this kind of publicity! As long as they actually win the suit, this whole incident could be very useful to pique the curiosity of the public.
Posted: 3/14/18 at 4:47pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 5:15pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 5:22pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 5:29pm
KathyNYC2 said: "They should protect this classic novel."
The novel will continue to exist exactly as it is, regardless of what Sorkin does in his play adaptation.
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:08pm
@JBroadway "As long as they actually win the suit"
I assume by "they" you mean the production and not the estate.
"this whole incident could be very useful to pique the curiosity of the public."
Yes, but when? That suit ain't gonna end between now and Fall '18, and no question an injunction would issue. And even if the issue were a close call (and I don't think it is), I would not bet on Scott Rudin in a federal court in Alabama.
FWIW, I agree with QueenAlice and I also agree with JBroadway that the book will remain intact, but that of course is irrelevant to the lawsuit.
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:14pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:22pm
Any changes to Atticus in the sequel came from Harper Lee, who created him.
Updated On: 3/14/18 at 06:22 PM
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:34pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:35pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:42pm
HogansHero said: "I assume by "they" you mean the production and not the estate."
I did, yes. Sorry to be unclear.
"That suit ain't gonna end between now and Fall '18, and no question an injunction would issue. "
Fair enough. To be honest I don't know much about these things. I just feel like controversy of this kind has often led to more public curiosity. But yes, you're right, the timing is significant.
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:47pm
I simply have no interest in Aaron Sorkin's To Kill a Mockingbird. This isn't a movie. And clearly whatever the contract is does not include turning the novel To Kill a Mockingbird into something Mr. Sorkin thinks it should be. And Go Set a Watchman is irrelevant, since Mr. Sorkin is not adapting that first draft of To Kill a Mockingbird. I wish Watchman had never been published and I, too, believe Ms. Lee was taken advantage of. I do hope the estate wins here.
Posted: 3/14/18 at 6:54pm
KathyNYC2 said: "Good for the estate. They should protect this classic novel. Lee did not have Atticus becoming Atticus in the novel. That's a huge change. Not to mention casting adults in the children's roles."
I agree. Casting adults in the roles of children is, from my perspective, nothing more than a gimmick. How else does Sorkin intend to "adapt" this classic story? If it makes it to Broadway in this form, I won't be wasting money to see it. Better to stay home and re-read the book as written.
Updated On: 3/14/18 at 06:54 PM
Posted: 3/14/18 at 7:01pm
Posted: 3/14/18 at 7:01pm
Casting adults as the children is not a gimmick, it is a viable directorial choice and many productions featuring the Christopher Sergal adaptation have also used adult actors playing the children.
The Sergel adaptation is horrible but apparently Lee turned down countless other requests to adapt the novel for the stage, reportedly including one from Horton Foote.
I think the estate will easily be able to make a case that this adaptation is thus not what Lee herself would have authorized and this is going to be a clear cut and dry victory for them.
Updated On: 3/14/18 at 07:01 PM
Posted: 3/15/18 at 11:41am
"Casting adults as the children is not a gimmick, it is a viable directorial choice..."
You say "eether" and I say "either."
Personally, I have no objection to the actions here of this (problematic) estate; I confess that I also have absolutely no interest in an "adaptation" of this great novel by a low-brow TV writer like Sorkin, attempting to "fix" the novel's "problems." If you want To Kill A Mockingbird, try picking up the book and reading it. If you want a play that's only somewhat similar to Mockingbird, write your own story.
