Bad for Broadway...

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:41am

I don't know if this has been discussed here before, but I thought it might be and interesting topic. If you could pick one of the current trends on Broadway that is bad for it....changing it for the worse, what would it be?

I have heard a lot of people say shows based on movies are going to take over Broadway (or has already) and new works aren't going to be produced for a while. I have seen people mention review shows starting with Mamma Mia! (which I love), Good Vibrations, Movin' Out, All Shook Up...taking over Broadway...and not in a good way. I think there are a couple things:

1. As good as they may be (or as bad) I think filtering in "names" into shows is bad for Broadway. Although it may sell tickets, every time a name is put in a show because he/she is a pop singer or a tv actor, a Broadway trooper isn't getting a job. It can be argued that the shows wouldn't open/run without a star and, therefore, they are creating jobs for actors...but personally I would rather see a Broadway gypsy become a star in a show.

2. Ticket prices. Enough said.

Anoyne?

[luvWICKED416]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:49am

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.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:51am

--The "Mamma Mia Syndrome": songbooks that try to get a book hung on them.

--Overblown production values--too much scenery, costumes and 'special' effects. The play's the thing.

--High prices and not low enough low prices. The last row ought not be $40-50-60-75 for anything.

--Greed.

--No true theatre stars or rather not enough stage stars.

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:52am

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.

[OrdinaryJukebox1]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:52am

I've always disliked "stunt" casting. Is that what it's called? I mean, if a performer is truly talented, and has the ability to carry a show/role, then sure, cast them. But, when there are people with "names" on B-way, with no talent, while there are thousands (if not more) of truly talented performers with no work, it's just unfair.

I don't care for the review shows either. I don't want to hear ABBA songs, or songs from Billy Joel or anyone else, from singers with, probably, better voices and such. Let's just write new music, people!!

As for my biggest problem, ticket prices. Every few months, I read that Broadway is in trouble. Well, if we didn't charge 100 bucks a seat, it wouldn't be in trouble. I understand that they have to make money, but if they would stop producing musicals that cost 14 million dollars. Yes, they are wonderful, but that's one of the reasons prices for tickets are so high!!

-Vincent

[Justice]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:54am

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!

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 11:58am

I think it was Broadway: The Golden Age where I saw that in the 50's and 60's Broadway ticket prices were cheaper than movie prices. That is amazing to me. Movie ticket prices have obviously gone up, but in relation to Broadway prices....I am just stunned! I wonder how much of that is greedy producers???

[AndyHardy]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:00pm

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...

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:01pm

Greedy actors, crew, and theater owners all play a huge part, Anastasia. The producers raise the money, and have to pay everyone else, including the investors, before they pay themselves.

Updated On: 1/6/05 at 12:01 PM

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:02pm

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???

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:12pm

Stunt casting performers who cannot sing or act the part and/or completely wrong for the role. If producers do not care about the quality of the work they are presenting, then they have no right to charge such astronomical prices.

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:13pm

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.

[broadwayalto01]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:17pm

I would have to agree with the ticket prices idea.. Also.. Something that really bugs me.. The idea of all the Theatre Legdens passing away.. Who does our generation have..? There are a few.. But we can't say we had Carol Channing, Angela Lansbury, Jessica Tandy, etc. I just wish we had those big names too..

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:19pm

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.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:28pm

gee, where to start?

The bombastic, overly technical and VERY expensive shows that try to mimic the special effects of movies and tv for people with no imagination

Stunt casting

The high ticket prices that result from BOTH of those things.

[wonderful1]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:29pm

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.

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:39pm

Joseph, there is nothing I enjoy more than listening to an old show where a composer has thrown in a topical reference that sends me scrambling for an encyclopedia to figure out what he was talking about! I love the idea of a Joe in 2040 listening to his Psybernetic chip of "Spamalot" and saying "Say...is he referring to President Moore in that line?" Of course, he will probably also be baffled by all references to Spam, too.

Cole Porter was the master: "You're the national Gallery, you're Garbo's salary, You're cellophane!" "When Vanderbilts & Whitneys lack baby clothes...Anything Goes!"

[leefowler]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:57pm

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.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 12:58pm

I'll take peanut butter, please!

[operadiva1979]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:05pm

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

[Anastasia_Beaverhausen]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:30pm

I loved Hugh in Oz and Antonio in Nine. I couldn't believe Malanie in Chigaco though. I guess it's a catch 22....there are some performers who deserve to play those roles even though they are movie/tv stars. Putting bad people into roles to sell tickets is just crazy though.

I guess things were just different back in the days of painted back drops and no mics. I think producers just think they need to be bigger and better to get the crowds in. Therefore, tickets are more.

It's just sad that the big Broadway names of today don't have the exposure of the Golden Age folks.

[twogaab2]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:39pm

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)

[brdwaybaby17]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 1:46pm

Ya know, I can't say that there are things that are "Bad for Broadway." Granted, there are things we don't like, but it is just evolving to serve the masses. We have to face the fact that most people would rather see someone they see on t.v. on that stage than someone we value as a great performer. Times change. As long as Broadway keeps running I'm happy with it.

Posted: 1/6/05 at 2:03pm

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...."

[JBSinger]

Posted: 1/6/05 at 3:51pm

1. Juke-box shows. Yes, I'm sure they are fun and the songs are mostly well known, but they are taking up valuable real-estate and investment money from original product.

2. I don't so much care if movie-to-stage is happening with more frequency. Adaptations have always happened, but doing them well or re-inventing it for the stage is the tricky part.

3. I agree with the ticket price gripes. No last row should cost $60+. The rush doesn't work for us past-school types, maybe a standing room or a club discount or obstructed view. However, I understand why it is so expensive - all the sets, costumes, etc. (hardly the actors salaries) are hand-made/crafted, one-of-a-kind. We can't get McSets.

4. I also agree with inappropriate stunt casting. I'd much rather see a talented newcomer than a movie/tv star take a stab at the stage. Yes, many did start on the stage and I forgive those people (Hugh, Antonio, Eric McCormick) and then we get the rarity like Reba McIntyre. But mostly it just goes wrong.