Bad for Broadway...

I personally don't like the commercialization of Broadway... esp. pop singers on stage. However, some of them have proved me wrong. Esp. Deborah Cox and Joey McIntyre. Although I'm not a fan of Deb's face plastered on the Aida playbill cover, she kinda did kick ass in that show. I do understand the need for it though. Some shows need that extra boost for either ticket sales/ merchandise etc.
I don't think that ALL popstars can be thrown into that category of corrupting Broadway and taking parts away from seasoned veterans, because some do infact deserve the roles... others however (cough *christie carlson romano* cough) are just a disgrace and give those talented few a bad name.


And regarding ticket prices... there's really nothing theaters can do, although some have made great efforts. A majority of shows have rush and lotto opportunities... but we have to face the fact that theater has and always will be a very pricey form of entertainment.

making shows that are too dated.

For example, I saw Spamalot (in Chicago) last night and at one point they make reference to Micheal Moore. Ten years from now people will be like "Micheal Who?"

You mention "Name" actors being in shows. Spamalot is a good example of this. Christopher Sieber is NOT listed in the top billing even though he's a big Broadway guy. Of course David Hyde Peirce, Hark Azaria, and Tim Curry get big billing because they are well-known to non-Broadway people.

Of course ticket prices are high, but with the cost of living being what it is in Manhattan, they almost have to be.

I'm against taking rock stars songs and turning them into a show. I think it's a bad move for B'way. Why don't these out of towners just go and see their concerts or rent the dvd's of their music if they like them so much. Go away Billy Joel and Abba!

---

I agree with you on the issue of ticket prices. It makes Broadway become elitist. It is absurd to think that the average ticket buyer can afford $125 per tix. If Broadway doesn't nurture an 'up-and-coming" audience it will dig its own grave.

As for "names" in shows, we should remember that this is show BUSINESS. "Names" get motion pictures financed, T.V. shows launched, etc. There was a time when Broadway had its own "names" such as a Mary Martin or an Ethel Merman that the world knew and flocked to see.

Sadly, I think this is a thing of the past unless Broadway becomes accessable to the public in other forms -- mainly television. The Ed Sullivan Show, On Braodway Tonight, The Hollywood Palace, et. al brought Broadway and its "names" into America's living rooms. You can't expect the average theater patron to know who Rebecca Luker or Cherry Jones are or blame them for not wanting to fork over $125 to see them sight unseen.

my 2 cents...

---

One of my biggest gripes is the withholding of the first 15 rows of orchestra to ticketbuyers and then charging "premium" prices for them. (eg--Spamalot) $100 is not enough to pay???

Are you serious? I can't believe they are doing that. That's just GREED. It's really sad when you think about it. Rich people who just go to see shows to say they have seen them love those tickets....but the struggling actors who really care about the works are stuck in the rear mezzanine if anything =or they have to second act it.

alto, scroll back up to AndyHardy's post. He explains exactly why we don't. It's not for lack of talent. It's for lack of exposure.

---

The biggest problem I feel is the 'stunt casting' (does the name David Hasselhoff ring a bell??) Just to bring in a 'name' who hasn't the talent nor are they right for the role is a crime. However, some 'names' began in the theater (Hugh Jackman, Antonio Bandares - in Spain) and they have done wonderful jobs in their respective roles.

So, basically, IF the performer is a theater vet and/or is right for the role - then I have less of a problem with it. I would still rather have seen someone like Chuck Wagner take over J&H on Broadway than Hasselhoff, or someone like Mark McVey cast as the lead in a new musical rather than any 'pop' star.

Second 'bad for Broadway' IMHO - is the 'Movin' Out', Mama Mia syndrome.

This thread is sounding a bit like the old joke about the two ladies complaining about the food in a restaurant. The first says "the food is here is terrible," and the other says, "I know...and such small portions."

People seem to be upset about
(A) The fact that so many shows are crappy theme park extravaganzas
and,
(B) They're so expensive to get into!

There is a HUGE amount of theatre in New York City that is inexpensive. There is no way to begin to see all the plays (musicals, less so...) being offered on and off-Broadway, and not at exorbiant prices. The really expensive shows are generally aimed for the tourist trade anyway.

But if the question is what's bad for Broadway, (which is a very different question than "what's bad for theatre")it's the decline of shows that aren't aimed at the tourist trade, shows like "Sunday In The Park," that were written because the authors had something they wanted to say (amazing!) To some extent this is the same as it always was... big splashy musicals (like Hello Dolly) have ALWAYS had bigger audiences that more quirky little shows (like She Loves Me) But there seems less and less choices for those who want to see a Broadway show that's not a screamingly vulgar entertainment. I wasn't a fan of "Caroline Or Change", but wasn't it great that it got to Broadway? And this season has "Light In The Piazza", which we're all hopeful for. But for every "Light In The Piazza" there's 8 or 9 Good Vibrations."

Whoever made it to the end of this rambling post gets a cookie.

---

I don't mind so much when "names" are in shows, as long as they can hold their own...some of the worst performances I ever saw was Jamie Lynn Sigler in Beauty and the Beast and Cinderella, Toni Braxton in Beauty and the Beast (where the entire score was lowered so she could sing it), Melanie Griffith in Chicago. I did think antonio banderas was great in nine

I think if you look at the above posts, you can see that the soaring ticket prices beget all the other problems to which people have objections.

However, "stunt casting" is nothing new, it dates back as far a the 1950s (perhaps even before-I havn't researched that period yet)

---

Stunt casting has been with us always-- I have no doubt that Shakespeare slipped some particularly popular Jester into "Measure For Measure" when the box office lagged. It was far far worse in the past: Recall that the 'Merry Murderesses' of "Chicago" were based on a true story. At least no one has hired Scott Peterson to play Fiyero yet.

And despite any naysaying, Broadway will survive. Among the many many wonderful moments in "Broadway: The American Musical" was Al Hirschfeld saying (Paraphrasing here) "I'm 80 years old. When I was 6, Broadway was already known as the 'fabulous Invalid.' It's always dying , but it always survives...."