Bare the musical 2010-2011 Broadway season, anymore info?

[Soliantu]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 12:29am

So back in November, playbill.com announced bare may finally open on broadway during the 2010-2011 season, has there been any other information about this floating around? And on the same note.. I'd personally love Michael Arden to rejoin the cast as Peter. I don't think he's too old for it still, he's 27, that works in theatre.. especially if the two guys on Glee playing Finn and Puck (both 27 in real life) can pass for high school seniors on a tv show (not bashing them or glee, at all).. To me he was amazing to the role and really did the show justice (which is important) Anyone agree? I'm personally very excited about the idea of this coming to broadway.. as I'm sure many are.




Original Playbill Article Updated On: 2/28/10 at 12:29 AM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:14am

I really hope it does reach Broadway (where it should have gone in the first place), but I doubt Michael will be back in it. I know Damon....who wrote the music....wasn't too fond of the NYC cast and the direction it took. I don't know, I guess we will have to see.

Updated On: 2/28/10 at 01:14 AM

[BwayTday]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 1:20am

I hope this show reaches Broadway. I love it. But I really think that I should be in it .

Oh this is a little random but Michael Arden wrote a song for The Battery's Down "Don't You Dare Stop Singin' 'Bout Tomorrow" and it is pretty much my favorite song from that show.
Updated On: 2/28/10 at 01:20 AM

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:11am

Okay, don't want to be a kill joy, but I for one thought Bare was a bore. As a gay man, I also found it offensive. I would be very surprised to see Bare on Broadway. Who would it appeal to?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:14am

I completely disagree with you but you are entitled to your opinion :)

Also, BARE has a huge fan base. When they started selling the concept recording, they sold out on the first day. I was one of the folks that tried to order the next day and I had to wait until they got more made.

Updated On: 2/28/10 at 02:14 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:31am

I didn't care for it either. I know it has some very dedicated fans but I also found it tedious and predictable.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:34am

Oh my heart *grabs chest*

Updated On: 2/28/10 at 02:34 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:45am

Lol. I think it's great that you love it dj. There are more than a few questionable shows that I love.

Who cares what anyone else thinks, as long as you like it that's all that matters.

[tourboi]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:45am

Bare doesn't belong on Broadway. There's a fundamental problem with Bare: it's story is so intimate, it plays best in a SMALLER space, not a Broadway house. BUT it's production demands (cast size, band size, and necessity of a killer sound design) aren't viable for a commercial production off-Broadway in New York with the current off-Broadway business model.

Solution? Maybe a tour on a small scale in small, select venues, or a full commercial production in a secondary market? But BROADWAY? I love the show... but it would be lost.

Updated On: 2/28/10 at 02:45 AM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 2:48am

Taz - damn straight. I was just playing but that is the great thing about theatre: there is something for everyone.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 3:05am

The production that was rumored to be targeted for Broadway (foolishly) is the same one that was supposed to be mounted in San Francisco last year, directed by Stafford Arrima. Unfortunately, it never materialized.

The producers held a reading in New York with a starry cast in February of last year to attract potential investors, but they weren't able to raise enough money to actually get the show on its feet.

I imagine this incarnation is permanently dead now (I would venture to guess that Damon Intrabartolo's recent legal problems haven't helped matters.)

Updated On: 2/28/10 at 03:05 AM

[tourboi]

Posted: 2/28/10 at 3:36am

Damon's troubles have nothing to do with anything.

But yes, its the same producers who were unable to get the show up in SF. So the next step is Broadway, LOGICALLY. (sarcasm).

[Soliantu]

Posted: 3/2/10 at 11:49pm

reading those responses made me grab my chest as well spider.. lol.. I'm shocked to hear so much negativity about the show though... this show had such a big following back in 2004.. where are all the fans? Also I completely disagree with it not having the appeal for broadway or an audience for it... Look at all these shows like Spring Awakening and In The Heights, both winning best musical. Personally I find bare to be much better than both, delivering a better message and (in the case of spring awakening) focuses on one plot and sticks with it at least.. I think these shows that appeal to the younger crowd are just what Broadway needs, especially one with such a score. Of course.. my opinion

[Devious]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 6:44am

I would be thrilled if this came to Broadway!

[newintown]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 11:13am

I saw the original production at ATA (how long ago was that?), and although it had some interesting moments, I admit it wasn't for me. Shows about teen angst strike me as banal, I'm afraid. but I know there are others for whom it's a potent topic.

That said, to claim, as some have, that there's a "huge" audience for this is, I think, misleading. There may be pockets of support here and there, but if there really was a huge potential audience, a commercial NY production certainly would have happened by now.

[boxboynyc]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 2:43pm

I have a friend asssociated with the currently planned bare production and actually, it was the NYC reading for San Fran
that sparked real Broadway interest. SF only didn't happen because both the Marines Memorial Theatre and the Post Street
Theatre (the only two venues of choice in SF for bare) stopped
functioning as legit, commercial houses. So Broadway was the next logical choice, and the authors, who believe in these producers, actually granted Broadway rights, which the producers did not have during the reading for SF.


Updated On: 3/3/10 at 02:43 PM

[Scott Briefer]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 8:44pm

Well, everyone is entitled to their tastes, but sometimes I just find myself scratching my head and wondering...

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/3/10 at 11:47pm

Plenty of other venues in SF that would be right for BARE, and be commercially viable. But that depends on how you see BARE artistically.

It could be argued, that those two venues are absolutely not right for the show.

[EVIE]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 11:23am

So no SF production? Bummer!

[bwayjoemcnally]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 3:29pm

I love "bare". I could care less if anyone thinks it's "a bore". To me, the score soars, the lyrics punch you in the gut, and the characters are totally multifaceted. We all went to High School. No, we were not all in the closet, a jock, the fat girl, the princess at the rave, the Mom, or the catholic priest...but we all knew a few.

I fell in love with the show a decade ago when it played @ the Hudson Theater in Hollywood. John Torres will always be Peter to me. In fact, with all due respect to the NY cast, the LA cast was pure magic on that stage. I agree it is well served in a small space, but could reach new heights in one of the more intimate broadway houses...where it has always deserved a home.

"bare - a pop opera" should have opened years ago at what is now New World Stages. maybe it still should. amazing venue with terrific bathrooms. as with most foiled creative ventures...it all came down to $. or the lack thereof. somebody should give it another shot. done right again, perhaps with some trendy stunt casting for a chunky advance (archuletta?) - I think this show would be HUGE.

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 5:17pm

Couldn't agree with you more that the LA production was superior to the NY production. But why?

Well the LA production was VERY raw, small, and in your face.

The New York production at ATA was obviously being groomed for a glossy production at then Dodger Stages.

The NY production, for me, didn't work artistically as well as the LA production for that reason. It was too pretty... from the gorgeous cross window above the stage, to the use of all the platforms (I know, they're part of the actual space), and the rock concert lighting (I know, LA had big lighting for that space, but it was still more intimate). At the Hudson you felt at times like you were on top of the stage it was so small.

A glossy, big-produced BARE just doesn't pack the emotional whollup of a smaller, more raw, intimate BARE. Evidence? BARE ran extension after extension, recouped, and turned a profit in LA, where it was a big hit. In NY, with a bigger production budget, and goals for a bigger venue... dud.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 5:46pm

I hope this show sees a Broadway stage soon, but the *you know what* that I just saw was a mess. It's got a lot of tweaking that needs to be done. How this show could fill up a Broadway Theatre? That's another question, but the material has enough potential to draw people into the theatre based on the beauty of the show alone. There's hope. As long as the show is reworked in some areas, it WILL be great.

[Fanb]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 8:51pm

If this happens I hope they bring back Kaitlin Hopkins as the mother. And would love to see her again in "Bat Boy" for that matter.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/4/10 at 9:06pm

Kaitlin and Jim both joined the faculty of Texas State University this past year; Kaitlin is currently the director of the college's Musical Theatre program. So it's not likely that either of them would be able to participate in a New York production of Bare any time soon (or any other show, for that matter).

[Fanb]

Posted: 3/5/10 at 8:51pm

I'm happy to hear that Kaitlin Hopkins is teaching others, but I am sure going to miss seeing her on stage. She has an incredible ability to play style and is one of the best actors who sing around. I wish her luck and hope that she can take a break at some point and come back to the NY stage.