COMPANY (Not Just One Singular Sensation)- Page 2

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 5:59pm

Fair? No. But the show is not making a ton of money. The producers are probably finding ways to save some money while letting their star vehicle shine. Just look at the grosses each week.

[morosco]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:03pm

If this happens this will be a blatant misrepresention of the actual show. New ticket buyers might go in expecting to hear Tunick's lush orchestrations.

[tomemiller]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:03pm

I read the grosses weekly and, yes, they aren't making a profit but if profit is all they care about why don't they just do a "Coram Boy" and close before the TONYS. This way when Raul sings on the TONYS along with Jonathan Tunick's orchestrations the producers won't be misrepresenting the production.




Updated On: 5/18/07 at 06:03 PM

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:26pm

I'm not saying all the producers care about are grosses, but they still have to take into account their financial situation when making decisions about the show. Perhaps the producers feel as if grosses will boost if Raul wins the Tony, whether he performs with the cast or not.

[lawyerman]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:26pm

wow. what are the producers thinking?

they need to ADVERTISE the show consistently- the ads portray an ensemble piece, not a one-man show. i think raul is brilliant and deserves the tony, but the show would gain SO MUCH MORE if they presented themselves as the little show that could at the telecast- by performing a number that makes sense (being alive doesnt make sense out of context) and leaves people humming a tune and thinking "i should see that!"

being alive is not that song. this is shameless raul promotion on their part and is just silly. they should do a medley and have them playing their instruments up there to sell the show.

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:27pm

They should be doing the title song damn it. It's catchy as heck and features everyone.


URGGGH.

[jenna2]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:29pm

Orchestrations aside, from a marketing perspective, Being Alive is actually a really smart choice. All of the other shows will most likely be doing up-tempo songs and/or medleys. By doing something different, Company is more likely to stand out and leave a lasting impression on the audience. It's basic psychology -- people will take notice of something that doesn't blend in with everything else.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:46pm

I think that if enough Tony voters hear about this, it could hurt Company's chances at winning Best Revival. Oh well, I would rather see ACL or 110 win anyway.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:49pm

tomemiller-
If they close before the Tonys they can't perform.

[tomemiller]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 6:54pm

Good point husk_charmer but I would rather see the show close than ruin the integrity of this production. If they can't afford to pay the ensemble then maybe its time to say "good night". I don't want to sound harsh but I really believe in this show. I flew in last Saturday from Florida to see it for my second time and found so many nuances that I missed the first time.




Updated On: 5/18/07 at 06:54 PM

[Dirty_Rotten_Guy]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 7:16pm

"that's disgusting. I wonder if he will have a piano at least. No? But seriously. that sucks."

someone told me he WILL have the piano. "Just him and his piano" to quote the assistant director last week

but things may have changed since then, and maybe there indeed will be no piano.

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 7:42pm

If I'm not mistaken, the entire cast of "Sweeney" performed on the Tonys last year and it wasn't doing so hot at the box office either. "Company" deserves no less. I relish any chance to see and hear the wonderful Raul, but will miss the way I saw "Being Alive" done in its current revival staging. I too have to agree that this a misrepresentation of the show. Shame on the producers.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 7:50pm

SWEENEY TODD did a lot better than COMPANY though. There's no comparison.
Someone at ATC said that this is just another vicious Riedel rumor and that this is just not true...then again, that may be a rumor in itself.
I certainly hope the company gets to make an appearance, I wonder what are Esparza's thoughts on all this.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 7:53pm

This is a bad idea.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:01pm

Millie, I see your point, but the money thing doesn't really make sense as reasoning behind using the original orchestrations over Mary-Mitchell's. If someone has an answer for what one would have to do with the other, I'd welcome an explanation. I'm genuinely confused and curious. It's just a shame because people aren't going to see a good representation of the show on TV. They're going to see a guy singing a song. Raul's performance of Being Alive is explosive and the song is very powerful, but these performances are about representing the shows, and a concert-like, out-of-context performance is not that. If it were, you'd probably have leads singing famous songs and nothing else on the telecast all the time.

Sweeney did much better than Company is doing. It rarely fell below fifty percent, if I remember correctly. Yeah, Company needs more advertisting, but it's your basic catch-22. If the show is doing poorly, it's not making money. If it's not making money, there's no money to put into the advertising. Then there's no advertising to get people to come, and it just keeps not making money. It's breaking my heart; I love this revival, and it deserved so much better. I'm so sorry to see it ending up like this.

Updated On: 5/18/07 at 08:01 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:05pm

In all honesty, I expected Raul to perform BEING ALIVE on the Drama Desks with a pianist accompaniment - very casual. And I really saw them performing the title song or Side By Side on the Tonys.

This is upsetting.

[tomemiller]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:23pm

The marketing for Company has been poor from the start. For instance, I registered on their web site to be notified when tickets went on sale and received a mailing three weeks after they did. I was furious over this. I went to the box office and complained to the salesperson who said that they had no control over the marketing of the show. The marketing people already had a built-in audience with the Sweeney crowd. All they had to do was to tap into it.
Updated On: 5/18/07 at 08:23 PM

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:25pm

What a terrible idea!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:25pm

Well, they don't.

[Brick]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:31pm

Everyone calm down.

While I certainly think this idea doesn't represent the production this 4-minute national commercial is advertising, and it's slightly disrepectful to the other peformers and Ms. Mitchell, I think it is a financial decision.

the show has been playing to half-full houses for many weeks now. I imagine they are close to recouping, though, and would like to get there by cutting as many corners as they can.

Let's face it: even if it takes best actor and revival, neither of which are in-the-bag wins yet, the box office isn't likely to take any major jumps.

So, I think it's unfortunate. But I imgaine they would have done a snippet of the opening and gone into 'Being Alive'. So, why not just fo the later if it costs 1/10 of the money...
Updated On: 5/18/07 at 08:31 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:35pm

It's clearly a financial decision.

Let's face it: even if it takes best actor and revival, neither of which are in-the-bag wins yet, the box office isn't likely to take any major jumps.

Yes, and the producers are pretty much admitting that with this gesture. It comes off like they know they're screwed, because it not a sure shot for best revival, and even if it did win, that might not help, so they aren't even going to try anymore. It's a sad admission of defeat, and I can't help but assume this is going to look bad and hurt the show's chance at best revival.

Updated On: 5/18/07 at 08:35 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:45pm

And to all the people who complained when the Weisslers wanted to produce this..

Lord knows they would've promoted it a HELL of a lot better than these lousy producers. And I don't think they would've stunt casted. They never gave up on Sweet Charity, and though their grosses weren't very strong - they weren't nearly as awful as Company's grosses.
Updated On: 5/18/07 at 08:45 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:50pm

Wait...

The producers of each show have to pay their actors to appear on the Tonys?? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the telecast producers to foot the bill?

I'm pretty sure other televised awards shows don't work that way. (The record companies don't pay their artists to appear on the Grammys right?)

Do the Tony winners have to buy their own trophies, if they win?

What a cheap outfit.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 8:58pm

Fair? No. But the show is not making a ton of money. The producers are probably finding ways to save some money while letting their star vehicle shine. Just look at the grosses each week.
That doesn't explain why they can't use the original orchestrations.

I think that if enough Tony voters hear about this, it could hurt Company's chances at winning Best Revival.
Or Raul's chances, which would defeat the whole purpose of letting the "star shine". Even if they do win a Tony, the bad press they get from this will end up being the final nail in the coffin.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 5/18/07 at 9:33pm

I admit that I was definitely pretty miffed about this this morning, but I think that it's being blown a little out of proportion. The only thing that REALLY makes this the story that it is is that they're asking to use Tunick's orchestrations. If they had had Raul do Being Alive solo with Mary-Mitchell Campbell's orchestrations played by the orchestra, while I'm sure a few people would've been upset for the rest of the cast, it wouldn't exactly be gossip column-quality material. It would just be... a pragmatic (if fairly disappointing) decision

However, I'd like to think (and perhaps I'm just naive and optimistic) that most voters aren't going to let something like this bias them. The production is clearly struggling, and it's obviously bad that this draws even more attention to that fact, but they may still decide that it's award-worthy.