Dave Malloy speaks on comet controversy- Page 2

[GeorgeandDot]

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

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:43pm

Controversial and disastrous, yes, but I wouldn't say embarrassing.

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:45pm

I wouldn't call it embarrassing for the cast or creatives, but rather for the entire Broadway community, which immediately called for the execution of this show before knowing any facts.  So I find the closing incredibly embarrassing for the broadway community.

[schubox]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:46pm

Liza's Headband said: "Doesn't matter. They would not have lasted. NOT a financially viable show... at all."

Which is what I said. Take away the controversy and the show might have made it to January or February. Not financially viable, but it gives everyone months of employment and gives everyone more time to try and find a solution. Even if there isn't one 

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:46pm

GeorgeandDot said: "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 controversialflops on Broadway."

It's your made-up list, put it wherever you want.

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:48pm

schubox said: "Not financially viable, but it gives everyone months of employment and gives everyone more time to try and find a solution."

Most contracts would have been up next month, so no telling how many would have kept going. Lucas and others only ever said they would be with the show through the fall...

 

[PaulWom]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:50pm

haterobics said: "schubox said: "Not financially viable, but it gives everyone months of employment and gives everyone more time to try and find a solution."

Most contracts would have been up next month, so notelling how many would have kept going. Lucas and others only ever said they would be with the show through the fall...

"

As far as I can tell, only two members of the company (Lucas and Amber in the NyTimes- it was an article during Fashion Week?) said they were thinking of leaving (and in Lucas' case, he was certainly justified- doing that physical a role for so long is unsustainable). Your honest opinion is that most people in that building wouldn't have stayed? Puh-leeze 

Updated On: 9/8/17 at 02:50 PM

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:50pm

Ok so maybe a handful of principles would have left once their contract was up, but what about the ensemble, orchestra, and crew?  They're all suddenly out of a job.  

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:53pm

PaulWom said: "Your honest opinion is that most people in that building wouldn't have stayed? Puh-leeze"

My honest opinion is that it closed last week, so whatever invented futures we choose to believe are somewhat irrelevant now.

[SDV]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 2:58pm

GeorgeandDot said: "Ok so maybe a handful of principles would have left once their contract was up, but what about the ensemble, orchestra, and crew? They're all suddenly out of a job. "

As is the cast of Groundhog Day. And Bandstand.  And Sweat. And Indecent.  It’s theater. It happens.

 

Lord, the amount of hand wringing over the closing of a show which failed to recoup even 15%  is ridiculous.

Updated On: 9/8/17 at 02:58 PM

[hmph]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:00pm

SDV said: "Lord, the amount of hand ringing over the closing of a show which failed to recoup even 15% is ridiculous."

Yes, because most Broadway fans' first thoughts are about finances, not the show itself...

[Jarethan]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:03pm

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."

And everything that I have read says that this was due to inexperienced or stupid producers who spent too much money on a show that was never going to attract a broad audience, beyond those paying to see a star.

[SDV]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:03pm

hmph said: "SDV said: "Lord, the amount of hand ringing over the closing of a show which failed to recoup even 15% is ridiculous."

Yes, because most Broadway fans' first thoughts are about finances, not the show itself..."

The first thoughts here seem to be how can we blame everything except the fact that the show never made money.

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:07pm

Jarethan said: "And everything that I have read says that this was due to inexperienced or stupid producers who spent too much money on a show that was never going to attract a broad audience, beyond those paying to see a star."

It's certainly a tricky show to market, but the bigger issue is even with the star, they didn't make very much money. Groban needed to get them much further along towards recoupment for the show to have a chance at longevity, which may have never been in the cards. 

[PaulWom]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:11pm

haterobics said: "Groban needed to get them much further along towards recoupment for the show to have a chance at longevity, which may have never been in the cards."

Again, very confused by this notion. Recoupment and longevity are two very different entities. The running cost was reported at 700K. If they kept above that with a TV star, even if they didn't recoup, wouldn't they have stayed open until, say, Christmas? And who knows what would've happened after that. 

[schubox]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:11pm

SDV said: "hmph said: "SDV said: "Lord, the amount of hand ringing over the closing of a show which failed to recoup even 15% is ridiculous."

Yes, because most Broadway fans' first thoughts are about finances, not the show itself..."

The first thoughts here seem to be how can we blame everything except the fact that the show never made money."

Actually most first thoughts seem to understand the show wasn't going to make a ton of money but thought it could last a little longer.

This show seems to draw a pretty huge line between people who loved the show and wanted it to scrape by as long as possible, and people who want those first people to get over it and admit the show was always destined to be a failure. It can be both.

Art brings out the romance in people. That's okay. And it's okay to look at it in black and white financial terms. We all don't have to be such dicks to each other about it though 

[hmph]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:12pm

SDV said: "hmph said: "SDV said: "Lord, the amount of hand ringing over the closing of a show which failed to recoup even 15% is ridiculous."

Yes, because most Broadway fans' first thoughts are about finances, not the show itself..."

The first thoughts here seem to be how can we blame everything except the fact that the show never made money."

The show closed earlier than it needed to, and the way it closed was way uglier than the show deserved. I'm really not sure why anyone is confused that people are discussing this, especially considering the specifics that hastened the closing of the show.

[schubox]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:13pm

PaulWom said: "haterobics said: "schubox said: "Not financially viable, but it gives everyone months of employment and gives everyone more time to try and find a solution."

Most contracts would have been up next month, so notelling how many would have kept going. Lucas and others only ever said they would be with the show through the fall...

"

As far as I can tell,only two members of the company (Lucas and Amber in the NyTimes- it was an article during Fashion Week?) said they were thinking of leaving (and in Lucas' case, he was certainly justified- doing that physical a role for so long is unsustainable). Your honest opinion is that most people in that building wouldn't have stayed? Puh-leeze"

Seems as if Nicholas Benton was leaving as well

[haterobics]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:17pm

PaulWom said: "Again, very confused by this notion. Recoupment and longevity are two very different entities."

They are connected in the sense that if you have 10 months of Groban, and you barely make a dent in your recoupment, then your show isn't designed for longevity.

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:18pm

If great Comet wasn't closing, where would Carousel have ended up? Do you think Benton would still have left if carousel didn't lock in a theatre and Comet was still running?

[trpguyy]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:31pm

I'm sure it was just a typo, but Nicholas *Belton. "Benton" is someone else. I suspect he would have left for greener pastures, everyone involved knew that Comet wasn't going to run for much longer.

Also, again, nice of Dave to confirm things I wrote here many many weeks ago.

Updated On: 9/8/17 at 03:31 PM

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:39pm

The too long didn't read version of that article is Oak and his Twitter friends suck. I won't be giving any of them my money for anything they do in the future. 

[SDV]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:44pm

Broadway Joe said: "The too long didn't read version of that article is Oak and his Twitterfriends suck. I won't be giving any of them my money for anything they do in the future."

Yes, that certainly seems to be the message Malloy was hoping to deliver.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:48pm

I was actually going through rafaels tweets again and came across these replies I don't know why it's the first time of seen them. It's probably the only actor who has been apart of the show to criticize Casals claims directly and he didn't even reply. https://twitter.com/mariandtorres/status/891321722619801600

[hmph]

Posted: 9/8/17 at 3:52pm

SDV said: "Broadway Joe said: "The too long didn't read version of that article is Oak and his Twitterfriends suck. I won't be giving any of them my money for anything they do in the future."

Yes, that certainly seems to be the message Malloy was hoping to deliver."

Honestly though, can you refute any of it? Seemed pretty straight forward to me. His comments seemed mild compared to where he could have gone.