Does anyone else not "get" the new COMPANY logo/poster?- Page 2

[kyle.]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:21am

I'm very excited for it to go into previews.

I almost drove down and saw it in Ohio but due to lack of time and money I didn't. Needless to say I'm very upset with myself now.

[Sondheim Geek]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:30am

I didn't say that's the only reason the Sweeney revival existed for as long as it did. I think it existed mostly because it was brilliant, but the fact that it was an attraction for teens helped like hell.

The second point may just be my own flaw, the last time I saw Raul live on stage was in Chitty... and I see him in a fatherly light. It's just more than slightly nauseating to me...

Company has sex, yes, but not as much sex (or rock music, for that matter) as Spring Awakening, so I assume the teens will be attracted to that a bit more. All together, Company is just so different than Sweeney… I really can’t see them attracted to that sort of thing…

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:31am

SM2-You're on a roll again tonight!

Anyway, I love the logo. It's perfect.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:50am

Well, yes, Spring Awakening is going to be more attractive to the younger crowd, but either way, I don't think the teen fanbase really has that much power. It's not all about them, by any measure. This isn't the pop music scene.

re: Raul -- Yeah, so? Before I saw him play Bobby, the last time I saw him live on stage was also in Chitty. You're talking about an actor who is phenomenally talented and entirely re-invents himself with every role he takes on. He'll shed those preconceptions you bring in from Chitty, I'm sure. You saw him play a fatherly role in his last show, so now that's how you'll always view him? He's an actor. I don't see what the problem is.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 12:50 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:53am

I don't see how this logo is boring or ugly- especially when compared with the original. At least the colors in this one don't make your eyes bleed.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 12:53 AM

[TheEnchantedHunter]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:54am

They're cubist, like the show. Which is probably beyond most everyone on this board.






Juan Gris
Spain

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:55am

the last time I saw Raul live on stage was in Chitty... and I see him in a fatherly light. It's just more than slightly nauseating to me...

Therein lies the beauty of acting. Seeing him in Chitty where he actually PLAYED a father probably contributed to you seeing him in a "fatherly light." Just in the same way that I'm sure (and am not saying with assurance as I haven't yet seen the show) that Raul comes off as the bachelor he portrays in Company.

All together, Company is just so different than Sweeney… I really can’t see them attracted to that sort of thing…

I'm not sure why Company and Sweeney are even being compared in the first place. Besides the fact that yes, they're both Doyle-directed Sondheim revivals, can't we just look at them as separate entities?

I tend to think that if you're claiming Sweeney, of all shows, had an extreme teenage fan base - Company is capable of having a similar one. However, as I said above, I really don't see why they should be compared at all.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 1:15am

Raul played an alien in Rocky Horror. Does that mean you could only see him in an "alien light" from then on?

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 1:28am

What is the actual poster? Does anybody have a picture?

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 1:30am

Um, look above.

ETA: If you meant the one with the cast on the cubes, go to the website (companyonbroadway.com)

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 01:30 AM

[Londonskyguy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 1:36am

Sondhiem Geek,,, think about it,, what do you mean it wont do well and that Sweeney only attracted young people,,, come on.... . And you make it sound like a horrible thing that god forbid only married people and people in their 30;s will only see this,, ( as if 30 is some ancient age _,., Who do you think has more money to go see a Broadway show these days,, !!!!!

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 2:19am

I like the poster with the cast on cubes a lot!

[Feathah]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 9:28am

I'm just excited Raul Esparza's name is above the title!

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 10:40am

This show will make back its investment in 4 months. It will probably be the cheapest show to run on Broadway.

Who gives a sh*t about money? A LOT of you guys are always talking about that. I don't want Sondheim to become like ALW. It's not about the money. It's about the art. The show will make back its investment. Don't worry.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 10:58am

Raul looks a lot older than Mano.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:00am

Who gives a sh*t about money? Seriously, where have you been? That was a dumb thing to say. Broadway is an industry, however much that sucks. Money really, really matters, and shows need to make money to survive. If they don't, they can't just stick around for kicks and say "it's about the art." That's unfortunate, but it's the way things are, and if you want your show to run, you have to be thinking about the financial aspect right along with the artistic aspect.

For the record, I also think it'll make its investment back relatively fast, because it's probably not an expensive show to run, comparatively speaking.

ETA -- he does, yeah. Or, it might be nicer to say that Mano looks a lot youngerr than Raúl, you know, being that Mano looks like he's in his early 20's. It's not like Raúl looks fifty or whatever.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 11:00 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:00am

Honestly, I doubt Company will have as much popularity with teenagers as Sweeney, if only because I think Sweeney's popularity with teens was an almost random occurrence. Both shows (well, at least Sweeney - I haven't seen Company) probably deserve popularity among all age groups, but realistically, neither of them seem like prime candidates for teenage fans - Sweeney was a real surprise in that regard.

I also think that Raul doesn't have the same shot for being "fangirled" as Mano did - he presents himself as a lot older and more mature, looks older than Mano, and probably isn't going to sign up for MySpace anytime soon.

That said, I don't understand why popularity among teenagers is even an issue on this thread. Yes, I realize the teenage following helped to sell tickets for Sweeney, but I don't think Company necessarily needs a teenage fanbase to sell tickets. Perhaps adults who were turned off by the content of Sweeney will be more likely to see Company, bringing the equation back to zero. As long as it can pull in audience members one way or another, it doesn't matter if a show has a huge teenage fanbase. When you think about it, how many of those teenagers were really seeing Sweeney every night, or even every week?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:03am

I totally agree with your last two paragraphs; and the third says what I was trying to say way better than I actually did.

You're right about the actors, too; I think in terms of "being attracted to" them, since that came up, he has an equal shot (for various reasons, not limted to the fact that they um, look alike [I'm sorry!!!]), but he doesn't put himself out there in many of the ways that get legions of fangirls.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 11:03 AM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:23am

Who gives a sh*t about money? Seriously, where have you been? That was a dumb thing to say.

Where have I been? Ummm I grew up in the industry. I've been around. Where have you been?

It is NOT all about money. If you think it is perhaps you should sit down with a few more composers and producers and ask them why they really put on these low budget shows. They know WELL beforehand how much money they are going to get back.

Do you think Sondheim thinks that "Company" will become the next "Wicked"? Believe it or not there are still some people out there who DO their work because of the love of the art. "Company" will most likely not make real money. It will make back it's investment and a little extra. Sondheim and the producers already know this. They are putting the show up because they think people should see their new vision, not so they can make money. They already know how much money they will make. Yes it is a business but I have to say it is a real shame when people like you call other people "stupid" for putting the art of the piece before the investment in it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:33am

You're both totally misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say it was ALL about money. Since when is it all or nothing? You asked who gives a sh*t about money, when it seems pretty obvious that you HAVE to give a sh*t, and I think it's naively purist and unrealistic to assume that you can get away on Broadway without caring at all about the cash whatsoever. Asking who gives a sh*t assumes that it's not a factor at all. And no, maybe it shouldn't be a concern whatsoever, but it is and it has to be. That's the way it goes.

Nor did I say that Sondheim doesn't do his work for the art, and that he's out there to get the next hit. I don't think he is, but I DO think he's got some financial consciousness. Who doesn't hope their show will be successful? (Even if it doesn't become the next Wicked.) Even still, though, no matter how high art you are, there has to be some concern about money. So yes, even if this show is going up so that people can see a reinvention of a classic and because it's a beautiful piece of art, and even though their prime intention isn't to make money -- I think somewhere, someone is thinking "wow, this could be a hit, however -- they DO have to worry about the money. It's just that sort of necessary evil. It's not an either-or between "care about money because you have to" and "write a show hoping it'll be the next Wicked." Even Sondheim, if he wants his shows to see the light of day, has to be concerned with selling tickets. If for some crazy, ridiculous reason, it was selling in the 20 and 30 percentages, it wouldn't exactly stay open just because it's some revelatory artistic vision, and just because the powers that be know they don't have the next Wicked on their hands. There's a lot of middle ground.

I'm not calling anyone stupid for placing art higher on the scale of importance than money. I happen to AGREE with that idea and I think it's a shame that Broadway is more about money than it is about art. BUT, I recognize that that's the way it is, because theater, at least on Broadway, is much more "industralized" than it is off-Broadway and elsewhere.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 11:33 AM

[kyle.]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:37am

They aren't going to be making ANY money using THAT poster.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:39am

They'll make a killing with their reviews. =P

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:47am

I'm not calling anyone stupid for placing art higher on the scale of importance than money. I happen to AGREE with that idea and I think it's a shame that Broadway is more about money than it is about art. BUT, I recognize that that's the way it is, because theater, at least on Broadway, is much more "industralized" than it is off-Broadway and elsewhere.

OK sorry

However you have to agree with me that one of the WORST statements to make regarding art over money is "Thats the way it is". It doesnt have to be that way. It wasn't always that way. When did it become the norm that a show has to run for 30 years? Is that all "cats" gave us? Shows like "Follies", "Company", "Sweeney" and countless others ran for a year or sometimes even less and are STILL regarded as some of the best work to EVER hit the stage. Hell "Follies" did not even make back its investment. Does that mean it should never have gone on? It is probably (and this is all opinion) the greatest score to ever be written. Yet we have crap like "Wicked" that will run for 50 years ! It drives me nuts. This is still an art form! I refuse to see it any other way. You can make money with these small shows. Why do you have to make 100,000,000?! Does that make a show better? I'm not saying this is what you are saying Emcee I am just pissed.

Theater goers no longer have to invest in anything. They just have to sit there and look at the pretty lights.Even shows by R&H which would pack them in in the old days are lasting 2 years if they're lucky. "South Pacific", one of the greatest musicals of all time, will have a limited run at LC. Only a bunch of New Yorkers will see it and it will close. Why? Because there wont be a friggin light fixture that will fall on the audiences head!

Wake up people! =)

[BwayLeadman]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:48am

The movie Camp introduced "Company" to the younger teens. They may show up and check it out.

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 11:58am

I haven't seen Camp in a while - I know they sing "The Ladies Who Lunch" - but I don't think they actually say anywhere that the song is from Company.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 11:58 AM