BREAKING: Mandy Patinkin Withdraws from THE GREAT COMET- Page 10

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 7/28/17 at 11:40pm

GeorgeandDot said: "I'm saying what Sally said.

I'm infuriated by his behavior here.  I feel terrible for Denee and Amber and Brittain and Rachel and Dave and the entire cast and crew of this production and also Mandy.  My heart goes out to them.  They've all worked hard for this and they're about to all be unemployed because of someone's selfish choice.  I understand that Oak was put in a crappy situation, but he needed to think about all the lovely young actors in that show.  He could have sacrificed himself and returned in the fall like he was offered, but he instead chose to make this a big deal.  He's hurt himself and his Comet family.  I've seen this before and it's always unfortunate, but Broadway is business and this stuff happens.  This doesn't make me racist, or a Trump supporter, this makes me someone who once worked on broadway and understands how this all happens.  I was a blasian woman working on Broadway many years ago and we have come so far and it is so beautiful to see a show this diverse on Broadway.  It's a shame to see it shutter because Oak made a poor decision to not shut his friend down on twitter.  The show would have at least made it to the fall, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.  Sorry, if I seem far too passionate about this, but this whole situation is just so unfortunate.

 

"

You don't have to be of a certain ethnicity to discriminate the others, though this is not the case and the point here. That being said, I don't understand why you keep assuming Oak is the one who stirred and is still stirring the pot and insist that he should give up his pride and dignity for what? So IF Patti wants to be in the show, other performers should just eat the bullet and give up what they've worked so hard for as well? Actors are not machines, they are human beings who deserve at least the minimum level of respect, so honor this please. You may have been in this industry for quite some time and know how things have been working pretty well, but that doesn't mean the way the industry works is airtight. It's times like this when people voice their needs and wants that make the industry think of better ways of handling things and treating people so it is not as cold as the mammoth downtown.

[mehtotheworld]

Posted: 7/28/17 at 11:55pm

I wasn't very enthused about Oak as a performer after seeing him in Hamilton, so seeing all this support after nothing was said about Brittain was kind of confusing.  Am I the only one who thinks the original announcement did Oak a favor by not calling him out for being less than stellar at selling tickets? I mean, would you rather be known as the guy who had a short stint as Pierre before a bigger name took over or as the guy who was pushed out because his box office draw was nonexistent? Would that ever affect his future career opportunities, or is this going to be considered a win for him?

Anyway, I went out and got tickets for Mandy as soon as I heard he was going to take over. I spent way too much on them and was still ecstatic at the idea of seeing Mandy Patinkin do anything live, and then this nonsense pops up. What a mess. I really do think twitter made it so much worse. I mean, when one of your stars has to basically say the creator of your show is an ally (meaning not racist), you know ****'s going down. I don't really blame Mandy for wanting to stay out of this mess, but **** those people who shamed him about taking the role. The nonsense I saw on Twitter (and Tumblr) was just embarrassing for the GC fandom.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/28/17 at 11:56pm

It's a nice idea that you're sharing, but it's unrealistic.  Producers have a duty to make their investors money.  If an actor isn't working out financially, it may be in the best interest of the show to buy them out of their contract and replace them with a bigger name.

Also, I've only called racist people racist on this board.  I called that one Trump supporting guy racist and all the racists telling me that I wasn't allowed to be offended by some of the things in Saigon, even though I am Vietnamese.   It's not a word that I throw around at anyone.  I haven't made any racist remarks towards Oak.  I'm simply saying that in not shutting his friend up he's screwing over the entire cast and crew.

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 11:56 PM

[bear88]

Posted: 7/28/17 at 11:58pm

EthelMae said: "I haven't seen the show so you all will tell me to shut up, BUT...what I don't get is why this show needs a "name" to run? It had a successful run with extensions originally at Ars Nova, the production in a tent in the Broadway area did well, not sure if there is a production of it I have left out- it got very good reviews, mostly good word of mouth... I don't get it.  Why can COME FROM AWAY, BRONX TALE, ANASTASIA, BANDSTAND, GROUNDHOG DAY, etc all run without "names"? There certainly not better shows.  I realize this is a Broadway venue not OOB but these other shows are running week to week, some better than others, they're running with mixed reviews, some with no Tony awards or even Tony nominations. 

Why did the Producers cast Groban to begin with? Why didn't this show open like the others I mentioned above-with no name? I get that if they could get Groban, they weren't going to say no but they set themselves up for this, I think. 

For those who have seen it: is it not that good? Does the show only work with a name? I don't think so. Not from the rave comments I have read here.

"

I thought the musical was terrific, but it has plenty of critics who found it confusing, an empty spectacle, tiresome. The score is divisive even to people who like the show overall. It's sung-through, but is far less traditional in structure than a show like Hamilton. I am sure the producers hoped Groban would bring in an audience and that the show itself would become the star. That has not happened. I guess the musical is a little too out there for a regular Broadway audience without a star, or even a minor star like Ingrid Michaelson (currently playing a supporting role).

Aside from Come From Away, a genuine word-of-mouth hit, and Anastasia, which has a built-in audience, the other shows you mentioned haven't been doing better. But they may last longer, especially given Comet's high costs. Broadway audiences tend to stick to familiar names, in terms of shows and established stars, unless a show really breaks out or wins a major award. Updated On: 7/29/17 at 11:58 PM

[LxGstv]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 12:01am

Mandy tweeted that he never would have accepted the role knowing it would harm another actor.

Can someone please explain how this was hurting Oak exactly? Being treated poorly, yes, but harm??

[EthelMae]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 12:01am

bear88: Thank you for that reply! Makes sense! 

[Jaredinsc]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 12:09am

This was purely a last ditch effort to keep the show going. It wasnt about race. This is one of the most diverse shows thats been on broadway. 

[nag2139]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 12:10am

Heartbroken at the news the past 48 hours. Like many others, I really love this show. While I think the producers are certainly to blame, I also fault those on Twitter who helped to stir the controversy. Cynthia Erivo tweeted that "Oak worked extremely hard for this. Which makes this occurrence distasteful and uncouth." Perhaps what is distasteful and uncouth is the show closing with Oak as the lead because of low ticket sales. And to Rafael Casal's point about the production "parading diversity only to have it be the first thing cut when $ is down" - if Oak isn't selling tickets, he is either replaced, or the whole show goes down. Perhaps these individuals on Twitter weren't aware of the show's financial straits until Malloy’s tweet this afternoon, but it almost seems that they'd rather the show close with Oak than be successful with Mandy.

Finally, the suggestion that Mandy was chosen to replace Oak because of his race is simply preposterous; there's no evidence that the producers wanted to find a white actor to replace Oak, nor would there be any business reason to find a white actor to replace a black actor (I'm perplexed as to where Rafael Casal is getting this idea from). 

Overall, very saddened by the recent news. I feel terribly for the extraordinarily talented cast and all those involved in the orchestration of this great show.

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 12:10 AM

[wntriscmng]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 12:21am

I saw The Great Comet a month ago and I thought it was amazing.  Josh Groban did perform but the only thing I felt weird about after the show was why there was such a huge deal about Pierre when the show is such a strong ensemble piece. While it is great to have someone like Josh or Mandy play him, I don't understand why people would think that who plays Pierre would have such a huge impact. As long as they sing amazing for Dust and Ashes I would be satisfied. 

 

I do think Mandy would be great as Pierre as I'm also sure Oak is. The situation just did seem so weird at the beginning because no details were given so people just felt bad for Oak. It's too bad that the people giving The Great Comet so much backlash are also probably not buying tickets to go see Oak, so now the whole show is jeopardized. 

 

Compared to Brittain and Ingrid, due to Oak's short run there was no way it could be handled like their switch. It was reasonable for Brittain to take time off and come back, a forced vacation was not even expected. 

 

It's a shame what is happening, but I hope the cast and show can enjoy the long run it deserves.

[theater_tech]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 1:18am

This past 48 hours has just been so heartbreaking for me; Comet was truly one of the most memorable experience I had in the theater. I don't think any near-future show will come close to what it was achieving. Of course, my heartbreak can't be compared to the cast and creatives who have fought since 2012 to keep the show going. 

Simply put, the show is just too unorthodox [as Malloy puts it, "weird"] to draw the mainstream audience Broadway attracts. Broadway likes conventional. It may also be unfortunate timing; it could have been really successful in the future when people are ready to embrace it and in a not-so-crowded season. 

I can only hope Comet will bounce back after this. A show closing is one thing, but a show closing amidst negative, bad press is another. This show does not deserve that. 

Also, I really hope that Twitter bandwagon is really proud of themselves. 

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 01:18 AM

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 1:46am

blaxx said: I agree it has nothing to do with racism. This is the case of 'Don't do good things that look bad'. Of course people went nuts and tried to find their own reason behind the action. What I'm saying is that THEY can't be blamed for coming to their own conclusion when the production decided to take the desperate measure. 

The fact that they didn't how awful it would look, makes me sympathize with the conspiracy theorists. Of course their assumptions were wrong, but I don't blame them for feeling the way they did when you take it from their perspective. 

Um, no. Feel your feelings, sure. But starting a hashtag, being vile to Malloy and Chavkin and Patinkin, and who knows who else, heaping scorn and wishing terrible things on the production based on a conclusion that was easy to disprove with a tiny bit of thought or research. Heck, just even coming to this board. They have no excuse. They're on twitter so they clearly have an internet connection. I'm so tired of trying to have sympathy for people who live in a bubble and take one out of context or biased excerpt and use it to form their opinions instead of actually caring about facts and the truth. 

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 1:47am

me opening this thread:

 

[Margo319]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 1:53am

  "I AM HALF BLACK AND HALF ASIAN I DON'T THINK I CAN BE RACIST TO MYSELF."



 

 

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 01:53 AM

[evic]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 2:00am

Maybe just maybe Oak was not good in the role. It would not be the first time producers are not happy with an actor and they are let go. To bring up the race card is outrageous. Despite the good reviews the reason the show was successful was because people bought tickets to see Josh Groban a major star. I for one fled after the first act. Sorry folks but this whole black thing is out of control. Not everything is racist if something unfortunate happens to a black person. 

[evic]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 2:00am

Maybe just maybe Oak was not good in the role. It would not be the first time producers are not happy with an actor and they are let go. To bring up the race card is outrageous. Despite the good reviews the reason the show was successful was because people bought tickets to see Josh Groban a major star. I for one fled after the first act. Sorry folks but this whole black thing is out of control. Not everything is racist if something unfortunate happens to a black person. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 2:11am

EthelMae said: "I haven't seen the show so you all will tell me to shut up, BUT...what I don't get is why this show needs a "name" to run? It had a successful run with extensions originally at Ars Nova, the production in a tent in the Broadway area did well, not sure if there is a production of it I have left out- it got very good reviews, mostly good word of mouth... I don't get it.  Why can COME FROM AWAY, BRONX TALE, ANASTASIA, BANDSTAND, GROUNDHOG DAY, etc all run without "names"? There certainly not better shows.  I realize this is a Broadway venue not OOB but these other shows are running week to week, some better than others, they're running with mixed reviews, some with no Tony awards or even Tony nominations. 

Why did the Producers cast Groban to begin with? Why didn't this show open like the others I mentioned above-with no name? I get that if they could get Groban, they weren't going to say no but they set themselves up for this, I think. 

For those who have seen it: is it not that good? Does the show only work with a name? I don't think so. Not from the rave comments I have read here.

 

I will get a lot of sh*t for this, but as creative as the show is, it is not a show that is going to appeal broadly to average occasional viewers.  It is a little too 'special' to attract an larger audience without a star.  Virtually everyone I know who has seen the show -- probably 15 people who see somewhere between 3 and 10 Broadway shows each a year, admittedly not a huge sampling -- had the same reaction:  incredible stage design, direction, some beautiful songs, Josh was very good in a role that was actually not very big 'for the star of the show',  and some other cast members were also very good.  But, there was no story to speak of, the were bored periodically throughout the show, and they would not recommend it to their friends.

That is why it needs star names.   I suspect that the people who are passionate about it the most are very frequent theatre-goers, with broader taste than the typical occasional theatre-goer; the problem: there are not enough of the former.  The only way to get the latter group is with stars.  

Re the shows you listed, CFA is that incredibly rare ensemble show that is hitting a nerve with the theatre-going public.  Anastasia is a very conventional show which has a built-in audience, based on the movie(s) on which it is based, primarily the cartoon, and the demographic the producers were hoping to appeal to in particular, i.e., the younger Wicked crowd).  GHD and Bandstand are both more seriously hurting at the box office right this minute than TGC (until these announcements, at least); Bandstand would be selling out if Jake Gyllenhaal was the lead (although Corey Cott is terrific), GHD would be selling out if a late 40s Hugh Jackman or a 35-40 year-old Kevin Kline or probably even what would be a totally miscast Nathan Lane was in the lead (although Andy Karl is supposed to be terrific -- I haven't seen it).  

Its a bitch.

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 2:18am

Yeah it is a weird predicament. I mean, the show should be selling because it's good. And it is good. And the reviews will back that up. But apparently, for whatever reason, it just isn't. That said, I saw it in the tent and loved it. I thought it was special and interesting. I haven't seen it on Broadway - I will go this week - but perhaps it's a little too left of center. It's got the "Les Miserables" feel to it, but with a much more current aesthetic. I think Groban would have been a good choice about this time of year, but not for the original star of the show because then you're essentially saying it is "his" show. So they sort of set themselves up for failure. Like, if "War Paint" decided to just use the understudies after the leads left. 

[sondheimfan2]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 2:55am

So another mediocre show from this season fails. Count it among "Groundhog Day," "War Paint," and "Sunset Boulevard."  What's happened to Broadway?!

[blaxx]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 3:17am

VintageSnarker said: "blaxx said: I agree it has nothing to do with racism. This is the case of 'Don't do good things that look bad'. Of course people went nuts and tried to find their own reason behind the action. What I'm saying is that THEY can't be blamed for coming to their own conclusion when the production decided to take the desperate measure. 

The fact that they didn't how awful it would look, makes me sympathize with the conspiracy theorists. Of course their assumptions were wrong, but I don't blame them for feeling the way they did when you take it from their perspective. 

Um, no. Feel your feelings, sure. But starting a hashtag, being vile to Malloy and Chavkin and Patinkin, and who knows who else, heaping scorn and wishing terrible things on the production based on a conclusion that was easy to disprove with a tiny bit of thought or research. Heck, just even coming to this board. They have no excuse. They're on twitter so they clearly have an internet connection. I'm so tired of trying to have sympathy for people who live in a bubble and take one out of context or biased excerpt and use it to form their opinions instead of actually caring about facts and the truth. 

 

I don't excuse the ignorance, nor approve of the extremist reactions; none of which would have happened had this been handled better. It was under the production's power to prevent the fiasco and they blew it. You can't hold an internet mob accountable for their opinions, you can't even assume they know how to do research on the matter.

What you should know as a professional theater producer is that social media can and will take your actions and statements at face value. Give them nothing to support you and they will create a monster out of it. Again, a professional producer can't assume the level of expertise or education from "the internet". Be clear, transparent, fair and people will likely side with you. Make a move that seems unfair and you're done. When people have been walked all over for a long time, they will accuse you of the worst unless you know how to articulate your actions much better than TGC producers did. 

And I'm sure none of it was ill intentioned. But man, they failed at professionalism by trying to hide the "why" behind the move. You hide it, the mob will make you sure you'll hear from them; and if they are wrong, make sure it wasn't because you didn't give them enough information to begin with. 

 

[bear88]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 3:25am

Jarethan said:
I will get a lot of sh*t for this, but as creative as the show is, it is not a show that is going to appeal broadly to average occasional viewers.  It is a little too 'special' to attract an larger audience without a star.  Virtually everyone I know who has seen the show -- probably 15 people who see somewhere between 3 and 10 Broadway shows each a year, admittedly not a huge sampling -- had the same reaction:  incredible stage design, direction, some beautiful songs, Josh was very good in a role that was actually not very big 'for the star of the show',  and some other cast members were also very good.  But, there was no story to speak of, the were bored periodically throughout the show, and they would not recommend it to their friends.

That is why it needs star names.   I suspect that the people who are passionate about it the most are very frequent theatre-goers, with broader taste than the typical occasional theatre-goer; the problem: there are not enough of the former.  The only way to get the latter group is with stars.

That's a fair assessment, one that's backed up by the numbers and a statement by the show's own creator. Plenty of people on this board didn't like Great Comet at all or responded with indifference. I thought it was fantastic, but two of my other recent favorites were Fun Home and Hedwig, which suggests an affinity for quirky, weird shows. Both have done well, but their appeal is limited in terms of a broader audience. And to work on Broadway, Hedwig - a much cheaper show than Great Comet - needed a star. The Hedwig revival kept stunt casting but numbers steadily dwindled. Fun Home didn't last long on Broadway despite winning Best Musical, although it has toured well. And it's a lot cheaper than Comet.

I have been a little surprised that Great Comet didn't catch on more, that it was so dependent on having a star in the cast (even Michaelson in a supporting role). It's the sort of musical that, if I lived near New York City or had more money, I would definitely see again just to catch all the stuff I missed the first time. But the numbers don't lie. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 3:27am

Margo319 said: "  "I AM HALF BLACK AND HALF ASIAN I DON'T THINK I CAN BE RACIST TO MYSELF."



 

 

Why do you keep on trolling me?  I never said anything about Oak's race in this thread.  I am a dark skinned woman.  I look more black than I do Asian.  I understand what actors of color go through.  Back in the 80's a PoC would've been laughed out of the audition room if they were to audition for this show.  Now we are blessed to have casting directors who are open to PoC.  There's a long way to go, but this show and Hamilton have both taken big steps towards a more diverse Broadway, so to say that racism played a part in this decision is hilariously dense.  If that's you in your picture, than I sure as hell know more about being black on broadway than you do.  Sit down, sister.  You may have more understanding of the xenophobia going on right now in this country, but you definitely don't know what it's like to be black in America.  I would never attempt to suppress your opinion in a matter that involved your heritage, so why are you pretending to know more about mine?  Have you ever been the person in charge in a room and overheard someone call you the n-word or a "race mixer," or a "chink?"  Because that was a daily happening on Broadway back in the day.  These kids on Broadway now have no idea how beautiful it is right now.  It brings tears to my eyes to see a cast like Comet.  I've put up with too much sh*t in my life to have some kid call me racist on a Broadway message board.

 

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 03:27 AM

[10086Sundays]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 3:30am

I agree that they could, and should, have been upfront about what was going on and that it wouldn't have been a problem to admit they were in a dire financial situation.  The reason being, the truth would have appeased Oak's fans and the theater community, while the public at large would have only heard that Mandy Patinkin was going into Great Comet making them want to buy tickets. I also wonder if they had announced it in person, instead of via press release, since their press releases suck, if that would have made a difference as well.  This was a special situation that required something more than the usual PR methods.

I have a friend who lives in NY and bought tickets the second they heard about Mandy, but had no idea about Oak being released or any of the drama. When I sent them the article about Mandy backing out, they cancelled their tickets immediately.

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 3:37am

Because a good marketing technique is telling the public "Nobody's coming to see our show so we need a star". Anyone with a half a brain can read between those lines. They probably didn't think about the reaction of Oak's "fan base" because, judging from ticket sales...

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 03:37 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 4:00am

10086Sundays, it's easy to argue for a different strategy because the one they used ended up with the worst of all worlds. But I agree with Sally Durant Plummer that admitting your show is about to fail doesn't seem like a great marketing plan. 

It was bad enough when people were making the obvious deduction that they were desperate. Confirming it is basically saying, "No one really want to see our musical anymore unless we hire a big star who will only be around for three weeks." 

 

 

[10086Sundays]

Posted: 7/29/17 at 5:09am

Obviously, you don't lead with "we're in trouble," you lead with "Mandy Patinkin joins Great Comet" and outside of the insular world of this message board and diehard theater fans that's all the public at large is going to see and care about.  Even knowing what was going on didn't stop people on this very board from buying tickets, just like not knowing didn't stop my friend. Admitting the truth couldn't have been any worse than letting people read between lines.


Of course, either way they'd need competent people to handle it, which they don't have so it was never going to end well. Poor decisions were made all around and now the people who can least afford to are going to pay for it by possibly losing their jobs earlier than they had to.

ETA - Oak has enough friends and fans to start a Twitter campaign that contributed greatly to this mess and Mandy backing out so...  Small but mighty and all that. I only mentioned them  specifically since their uproar was an unanticipated result that could possibly have been avoided with another tactic.

Updated On: 7/29/17 at 05:09 AM