Posted: 9/8/17 at 12:10pm
Wow!
http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/great-comet-dave-malloy-is-still-processing.html
Some fascinating new facts from this article
Updated On: 9/8/17 at 12:10 PM
Posted: 9/8/17 at 12:23pm
Oak has said, and tweeted, that the show needed time to get ready, while Chavkin and Malloy have said he wasn’t fully prepared to fulfill all the requirements of the role, specifically some portions of his piano and accordion playing, which were cut and given to other performers. “I had to go in for a week because he was unprepared, and he tweeted that we were unprepared,” Malloy says. “That was strange and hard.”
Wow
Posted: 9/8/17 at 12:30pm
^that got me too. What utter disrespect. I also loved reading his perspective on the twitter peeps, where he basically thought their end goal was to close the show. I can't begin to think how he's feeling now. What a miserable way for a show to close.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 12:42pm
Really interesting article. I echo what that crew member said at the end
Posted: 9/8/17 at 12:55pm
Can't wait to see how HogansHero tries to spin this one
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:00pm
That last line... I'm still in shock
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:12pm
Wow, I'm glad he did that interview. I was at the last show and during the Abduction scene Lucas Steele motioned for the whole theater to sing "goodbye my gypsy lovers." I was sitting in front of some Imperial theater ushers and sound technicians. They were singing along but wiping away tears. I've never seen a theater staff that seemed to love a cast as much as the Imperial staff loved The Great Comet crew. According to a few staffers I talked to they were the nicest, kindest, most fun cast they'd ever met.
The fact that it had to close so prematurely ... I still can't wrap my head around that.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:36pm
zzannahk said: "Can't wait to see how HogansHero tries to spinthis one"
Well I'm sure he'd say Dave isn't a money man and he's reacting emotionally to a situation that's about money.
This confirms what I thought though, that while the show was never going to be a runaway hit, it could have made it through the end of the year, and maybe a little more.
I also had the thought, that people were saying why should Oak defend the show when he owed them nothing. Well the show clearly covered for him when he said the show wasn't ready for him, they could have refuted that, but instead went along with it
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:38pm
This confirms what I thought though, that while the show was never going to be a runaway hit, it could have made it through the end of the year, and maybe a little more.
^ If this is true, WHY did Malloy suggest the Patinkin move was made to essentially keep the show open/running??
Updated On: 9/8/17 at 01:38 PM
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:42pm
Liza's Headband said: "This confirms what I thought though, that while the show was never going to be a runaway hit, it could have made it through the end of the year, and maybe a little more.
^ If this is true, WHY did Malloy suggest the Patinkin move was made to essentially keep the show open/running??"
I think he meant it in the sense of the show needed someone to keep it running while the other TV star prepared. I don't think Malloy ever said that the show had no prospects of running past Mandy.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:43pm
You sure about that? Reread the article, and also remember what he tweeted out during the controversy...
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:43pm
It's not unusual for a show to use a rotating door of celebrities to keep it open, see Hedwig or Legally Blonde in the west end. They where lining up a TV star to take over from Patinkin.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:49pm
Doesn't matter. They would not have lasted. NOT a financially viable show... at all.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:55pm
HogansHero is always ecstatic whenever a show closes. Yawn.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 1:56pm
Liza's Headband said: "Doesn't matter. They would not have lasted. NOT a financially viable show... at all."
Really? So once again- confirmed in both the Nytimes and Vulture that a TV star was slated to replace Mandy, and you're saying it would've closed Sept. 3rd anyway? Unbelievable. Alternative facts, anybody?
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:12pm
I think you're conflating two things into one. If the show did get the TV star and did make it until January or beyond, it was still doomed financially. If you just want the show to keep running, and aren't interested in them making their money back as long as you can keep seeing and enjoying the show, that's one thing. But at their current rate, they would need to stay open through 2019 for it to be a hit... and no matter when they eventually closed, they wouldn't have recouped.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:23pm
But at their current rate, they would need to stay open through 2019 for it to be a hit... and no matter when they eventually closed, they wouldn't have recouped.
I'm not sure I understand this logic. What happens in 2019 to make it a "hit" other than recoupment? Otherwise your metric for "a hit" seems to be an arbitrary length of run.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:27pm
bakerswife372 said: "I'm not sure I understand this logic. What happens in 2019 to make it a "hit" other than recoupment? Otherwise your metric for "a hit" seems to be an arbitrary length of run."
If they were only able to return 15% of their investment in 11 months, with a celebrity name able to bring in nearly $1M a week, they would need to somehow stay in business for several more years just to break even.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:27pm
haterobics said: "I think you're conflating two things into one. If the show did get the TV star and did make it until January or beyond, it was still doomed financially. If you just want the show to keep running, and aren't interested in them making their money back as long as you can keep seeing and enjoying the show,that's one thing. But at their current rate, they would need to stay open through 2019 for it to be a hit... and no matter when they eventually closed, they wouldn't have recouped."
I think "would it have recouped" and "would it have run longer than it did" are two very different conversations. Shows fail to recoup all the time, that's not really what people are talking about.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:33pm
So you're just saying that is someone else started as Pierre on September 5, it wouldn't have closed on September 3?! Then, we agree. That is a very non-controversial opinion. 
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:34pm
I think the goal is to keep the show open for as long as possible and make back the money. I'm sure that they had come to realize that they probably wouldn't be recouping, but I don't think they nor anyone else could see this show not making it past the one year mark. I would say that if they were to have kept the show open till January, it would have been a success. Not financially, no, but they had a decent run and probably could have taken the show on tour. The show did close prematurely due to the loud mouths of others. The show was struggling, but would have made it. They had made arrangements with other stars who were going to be stepping in, but all dropped out after the controversy. The show was on life support and Oak, Casal, and Erivo, as well as their supporters pulled the plug. They attacked the show (both passively and aggressively) without having any idea of the situation at hand.
If the show had made it till January, it wouldn't have recouped, but at least it wouldn't be considered one of the most controversial, embarrassing flops in all of Broadway history.
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:36pm
GeorgeandDot said: "If the show had made it till January, it wouldn't have recouped, but at least it wouldn't be considered one of the most controversial, embarrassing flops in all of Broadway history."
I doubt this show would even crack the top 25 of that list...
Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:41pm
Has there ever been a show nominated for 12 Tony Awards and accompanied by a slew of raves that closed so suddenly after an embarrassingly misguided sh*t storm on twitter? I don't think so. Therefore it's certainly within the top five most embarrassing and controversial flops on Broadway.
Updated On: 9/8/17 at 02:41 PM
