Dave Malloy is suing GREAT COMET producers over unpaid royalties for int'l productions

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/theater/great-comet-dave-malloy.html

ColorTheHours048 said: "It’s a shame this show’s legacy will probably be its controversies, and not what a spectacular production it was."

I'm hoping the controversies will have less power over time, but I agree with the sentiment. When I saw the headline my first thought was "This show deserves better."

Shotgun Players in Berkeley is doing a production this December in a small house. As much as I enjoyed the spectacle of the Broadway production, I think the material will really shine in a more intimate setting.

If anything, the Kagan drama probably just makes Malloy less likely to want to have his work produced commercially. (Which has been rumored or perhaps even discussed by DM in the press.) Which is a damn shame, because there are far better producers out there and commercial producing is the only way his work will get seen by the masses. Even if it’s not a financial hit.

curiousincident said: "Does Dave Malloy not have an agent?? They're usually pretty good about these kinds of things"

Of course he does. And the agency has no doubt been working on this for months and advised Malloy that a lawsuit was the best way forward.

EDIT: nvm, I made a joke but maybe in poor taste

In all seriousness, good for Malloy for standing up to them.

It's a shame that some people feel this is the show's enduring legacy - my main associations with Comet remain rooted in the brilliance of the material. It will go down in history as one of the great masterworks of the 2010s, and people will remember it for that long after they remember this BS

Updated On: 4/22/22 at 12:16 AM

I found the Broadway production bloated. The frenetic staging pulled focus from the score and felt like Cirque Du Soleil. Too much money was poured into a cult hit. I think Dave lost control of the reins. I didn't care for it at all. It became very clear after Groban left that the public's interest in this property was limited at best.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "It would be really interesting to see a smaller production of it without audience interaction."

I mean, I'm all for a smaller-scale production, but the audience-interaction aspect has been baked into the show from the very first staging. But I agree something was lost in the transfer to Broadway, and he scale and spectacle of the production sometimes felt at odds with the actual material.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Bettyboy72 said: "It became very clear after Groban left that the public's interest in this property was limited at best."

Well yeah. It's an extremely esoteric musical and was basically known to the public as "the Josh Groban show" and bellyflopped immediately after his departure.

It would be really interesting to see a smaller production of it without audience interaction."

It also didn’t help that the production was actively sabotaged by certain prominent members of the Broadway community.

Agreed, I've never understood the appeal, and I LOVE out-of-the-box, auteuristic work. I found it overwrought and confusing. Would have loved to see it off-Broadway in the tent.

Oops, didn't quote @bettyboy

Updated On: 4/22/22 at 12:43 PM

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "But the reality is that even without the Twitter sabotaging, it would have closed soon after Patinkin's run (which was only going to be less than a month). They were running on fumes and there are a finite number of bona fide stars who would have been willing to go into that show as a replacement. It was an ugly ending, but the show wouldn't have lasted much longer."



To be fair, there was no shortage of great potential Pierres that could have taken over after Patinkin's run to keep the show afloat. I mean, it's not exactly the most demanding role in the world (aside for the accordion playing that Oak had trouble with). The problem is that the twitter drama made it so no actor would touch the role with a ten-foot pole, because they feared the potential backlash.

Personally, I would have killed to see Raul Esparza or John Gallagher Jr play Pierre.

Personally I’d say Pierre’s a fairly demanding role. Even if you cut out the accordion and piano playing, it still asks for a strong, wide vocal range and the actor only gets the leave the stage at intermission. With that being said though, Anatole is probably a more challenging part than the show’s actual leads.

Anyway, I seriously wonder what the search for Groban’s replacement was like. If they had played their cards right I figure they could’ve gotten a big enough name to come in. And even if they botched the search and had slim pickings, I really find it hard to imagine Oak was the most financially viable choice.

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "trpguyy said: "It also didn’t help that the production was actively sabotaged by certain prominent members of the Broadway community."

Yes, that's what we call "eating your own."

But the reality is that even without the Twitter sabotaging, it would have closed soon after Patinkin's run (which was only going to be less than a month). They were running on fumes and there are a finite number of bona fide stars who would have been willing to go into that show as a replacement. It was an ugly ending, but the show wouldn't have lasted much longer."

I was hoping they'd get Weird Al to take over for Patinkin