Anyone know the REAL reason Hello Dolly refused to perform at the TONYS? — Page 3

RicardoMagon said: "UncleCharlie said: "RicardoMagon said: "Alas, Scott Rudin is rich, so I don'thave sympathy for the shows he produced that didn't make him as rich as Dolly did."

Probably in the same way that really poor people who work two jobs just to make sure their kids don't go to bed hungry don't have sympathy for you not getting to see Bette in Hello Dolly.


"

Shouldn't Broadway be accessible to everyone though? Shouldn't Bette in Hello Dolly be accessible for the poor people who work 2 jobs?

"

No. Broadway is a LUXURY. I understand that some folks believe that Broadway is there to inspire the next generation, and yes, when funds are available, by all means go. But don't think that Broadway is something that is a right for everyone. It's not their so that everyone can see it. Of course, the producers and everyone involved with the show would LOVE everyone to see it, but they also want to make money. It's a business. That you wish to see the show and don't have the financial means simply points to the fact that when you do have disposable income, you might be more appreciative when you have the opportunity. And also-- if you want to see more shows, get a job.

LizzieCurry said: "I actually can picture my own mom being miffed at the lack of press clips for a Hello Dolly tour, and she enjoys theatre and can afford to go to a production-contract tour if she wanted to.

I think part of the point people are missing here is that Ricardo feels left out of a genre of entertainment he enjoys, and though his execution here may be a little less than ideal, it's not like he's alone in that feeling — think of the vast number of people across the country who aren't as "finger on the pulse" as we are and feel like theatre isn't for them even if they want it to be. And you can TELL them about discounts and rush and lotto, but that stuff isn't intuitive."



Thank you for getting to the heart of what I was trying to say. You communicated it much better than I did and I thank you for that. I also would like to apologize if I offended anyone with writing this topic. Certainly was not my intent.

"But don't think that Broadway is something that is a right for everyone"





As they say in my mother's favorite musical: It's not a crime to be poor. But it's no great honor either.

No. Broadway is a LUXURY. I understand that some folks believe that Broadway is there to inspire the next generation, and yes, when funds are available, by all means go. But don't think that Broadway is something that is a right for everyone. It's not their so that everyone can see it. Of course, the producers and everyone involved with the show would LOVE everyone to see it, but they also want to make money. It's a business. That you wish to see the show and don't have the financial means simply points to the fact that when you do have disposable income, you might be more appreciative when you have the opportunity. And also-- if you want to see more shows, get a job."

As a theatre academic I fundamentally disagree with you. It’s the reason I consider the West End miles ahead of Broadway because it prides itself in making theatre accessible for all. Which it without a doubt should be.

I don't think that's a valid reason. Sure the TONYS are expensive, but shows have been performing at the tonys live for decades. And alot of those shows weren't making the money that Dolly is making. You're telling me that Scott Rudin is charging the crap out of people to see Bette live and they can't scrimp to make a set for the tonys? I don't by that one bit.

Updated On: 5/24/18 at 03:57 PM

Additionally, he didn't need to care about sales....the show was selling out at even ridiculous prices.



I don't think anyone considers b'way prices NOT to be high. Of course they are. My parents only went to b'way once a year or less. They couldn't afford it -- but it being a treat made it that much more special to them. And then, no one passing around bootlegs, and only occasionally could you see a performance on a talk show. The entire idea of bway was pristine - there's only one after all.



Now we want to see EVERYTHING and we want to see it inexpensively. But everything is more expensive....and yes, perhaps b'way has a higher increased inflation then most things. That being said, we need to be grateful to the shows that the DO offer discounts, rush, lotteries - but never NEVER should we complain when a show doesn't -- other than choosing not to purchase a ticket.

Updated On: 5/25/18 at 04:28 PM

GeorgeandDot said: "I sat in the orchestra for Hello, Dolly! a few weeks ago for $40 so I don't know why you're saying it's more expensive than Hamilton...."

Well, I paid 500 bucks for Hello Bette! and 200 for Hamilton early in its run. It certainly depends when, where, and how you purchase your tickets.

Bettyboy72 said: "Because Bette didn't want to be immortalized on youtube croaking the title number. Her voice is serviceable, but fairly shot compared to her glory days. She has too much vanity to allow that. Rudin took the bullet as producer. Also, as others have said, on the whole she delivers a marvelous, iconic performance. That being said she didn't want America hearing her without context thinking how dreadful she was."

Wow, what a really ****ty thing to say. What is wrong with you?

Dancingthrulife2 said: "GeorgeandDot said: "I sat in the orchestra for Hello, Dolly! a few weeks ago for $40 so I don't know why you're saying it's more expensive than Hamilton...."

Well, I paid 500 bucks for Hello Bette! and 200 for Hamilton early in its run. It certainly depends when, where, and how you purchase your tickets."



Yeah I remember looking at price of tickets back in her original run and I couldn't believe what the prices were. Also I've been doing some research on this board and have discovered that there were many comments on here about how expensive the tickets were to see Bette. Perhaps I'm just behind the times but the first real broadway show I saw was a few years ago and the ticket was 70 dollars at the time I thought that was alot. Clearly it wasn't but it's different with people with different financial backgrounds.

Another thing to realize is my family knows nothing about Broadway so when we purchase tickets to shows, we didn't know there were websites to get cheaper tickers and we didn't know where to get the better deals and all that. I'm sure many people outside of the theater world aren't as ticket savvy as many of you on here. But that's my fault and I'm learning how to maneuver my way through it.

I know you're not supposed to watch bootlegs but honestly, that's how some of us will only ever be able to see these shows. One commentor on this thread said broadway doesn't need to be accessible to everyone. Well if that's true then people who watch shows online shouldn't feel guilty if broadway is only for the upper middle to rich class.

Updated On: 5/25/18 at 07:56 AM

Bizarre everyone is attacking this very fair question. It was much discussed at the time and the poster thought maybe hindsight had cleared it up. Calm everyone and stop congratulating yourself for getting a ticket and/or shelling out the money.

Ok, the Tonys. I was reminded of this issue when I heard a friend of mine less than thrilled Bette was returning, going on to cite how arrogant he thought it was for her to skip performing at the Tonys. And It reminded me prior to actually seeing her in it, I held the same view. The silliness of that aside, I agree with Bettyboy72, she was likely nervous or didn't want to do it at Radio City, so Rudin either made up the excuse or asked if they could do it live from the Shubert. Either way, he took the bullet. I still think it was a crappy thing to do; I still the production is wonderful, she's wonderful in it and she deserved every award she won.

Ok, the Tonys. I was reminded of this issue when I heard a friend of mine less than thrilled Bette was returning, going on to cite how arrogant he thought it was for her to skip performing at the Tonys. And It reminded me prior to actually seeing her in it, I held the same view. The silliness of that aside, I agree with Bettyboy72, she was likely nervous or didn't want to do it at Radio City, so Rudin either made up the excuse or asked if they could do it live from the Shubert. Either way, he took the bullet. I still think it was a crappy thing to do; I still the production is wonderful, she's wonderful in it and she deserved every award she won."

That is such BS that she was "nervous" to perform at Radio City. The woman has been on stage and in the movies for 5 decades now. You really, really think that it's her fault there was no Tony performance of her? This reaks of Rudin. He kept the entire show hidden from the general public until he released a $45 souvenir program.

There is NO B-role of Bette. There were no photos of Bette outside the theater. That man wanted you to pay to see Bette.

It was not her fault, so get rid of this cheap, unfounded vendetta.

RicardoMagon said: "I don't know. If I had to pick a side between Bette didn't want to do it vs Scott rudin didn't want to do it, I think the more logical answer would be Bette didn't want to do it and Rudin took the bullet. The explanation Rudin gave just didn't make much sense. That's why I started this topic because I figured someone on here would know the truth of the matter now that it's been a year since it happened.



It sounds like you already had your mind made up that it was Bette's fault, so why are you even asking? There is NO foundation that Bette chickened out. None, whatsoever. Like Bette would turn down the opportunity to be the center of attention at the Tony Awards. Ridiculous.