Does anyone else not "get" the new COMPANY logo/poster?- Page 3

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:02pm

Emcee never said that shows that didn't make their money back shouldn't be written in the first place.

You basically implied that money wasn't an issue. Well, money IS an issue because even to mount the smallest musical, it is going to cost millions of dollars.

Sure, there are people out there who write with no intention of or no desire for commercial success. We see those pop up every once in a while - mainly off-Broadway and at the non-for-profits. If a producer is going to mount a show on Broadway - they either: 1) Believe in it as art, and want to get it out there, or: 2) Think it will make them money.

How else can you explain ALL SHOOK UP, RING OF FIRE, LENNON, GOOD VIBRATIONS, MAMMA MIA, etc? They all thought, "Hey - this will make us some money."

No, money shouldn't dictate what does and what does not open on Broadway- but it is uneniable that is HAS to. And shows do not have to run for 14 years to be considered a financial success. COMPANY did not run for too long, and it recouped it's investment. If a show is a hit, it will often recoup it's investment within the first year.

And again - you will say it shouldn't be that way - but it has to. If there was no money involved in Broadway, it wouldn't exist. Plain and simple. It will always be that way, and there's nothing that will change that.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 12:02pm

I really need to see Camp.

Anyway. I'm not saying I approve of it; I'm saying that's the ugly reality. I grew up watching the industry the way it is now; where shows that deserve to run longer than they do close because they aren't making enough money and mediocre crap runs forever because it's making boatloads. I don't agree with it, but that's my generational reality, so I've sort of come to accept and disagree with it. It isn't a good statement, no, in that it's unfortunate. But when you look at it in that you have to consider money if you even want shows to be open, I think it's a little bit easier to accept on very basic terms; even the best shows from an artistic standpoint need to consider money to survive. That's what I mean by "that's the way it is."

ETA -- what munk said. :)

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 12:02 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

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

Mano looks a lot younger than Raul.

The Roundabout Revival had an amazing cast and didn't even make it to Broadway.

I Love COMPANY, but the instrument thing is coming to close on the blood red heels of SWEENEY, well we will see.

I hate the logo.

[PARISinNYC]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 2:10pm

No, they do say it's from COMPANY, don't they? Before all the musical numbers they list the song, the writers, but I don't remember if they list the name of the musical?

I know they did for "Turkey Lurkey Time" from PROMISES, PROMISES.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 2:14pm

Nevermind.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 02:14 PM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 4:36pm

You basically implied that money wasn't an issue. Well, money IS an issue because even to mount the smallest musical, it is going to cost millions of dollars.

Yes but why does the payback have to be buttloads of money? I understand investments but investments in art are BAD NEWS! This is the way it is done, I know this. However, why can't it be more along the lines of "Yeah I invested in Company. I got 1,000,000 out of it." Instead of "Did you see that crap we have running? Who cares I made 6,000,000 last year off of it." That is not right. It is ALL about the money now.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 4:38pm

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, or something, but how do you expect shows like this to go up without investments? Something's gotta cover the running costs and get the shows on their feet. If the art needs money to survive, why is investment in art bad news? I understand that art becoming ABOUT (and for the sake of making) money is bad news, but not the former.

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 04:38 PM

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 4:46pm

Bottom line is no matter how much of an art it is, art costs money.

[bwayondabrain]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 4:52pm

i think this show might be selling fairly well
checked tickets for my family for December, and the best we can get right now is like Row N in the orchestra...i dont know if that is considered good
but they are also selling up till like March or April of 2007

anyways, i wish this show the best of luck- i might be seeing it, not sure yet. but Mylinda Hull's husband is working on this, might be assistant directing, so im hoping this will do especially well :) at least have a healthy run

yeah

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 4:57pm

Of course it's all about money-everything in this country is! Even the fine arts. If you aren't privately funded, money is the top concern when a show is mounted.

[kyle.]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 5:21pm

This thread should be renamed, "Putting It Together: A Company Thread"

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 5:36pm

Can someone post the actual poster?

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 5:45pm

Spidey, click on the link:

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=910374

Scroll down!

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 05:45 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 5:50pm

Here, spider:



(Sorry, it's not a great picture... and it's much darker blue than my flash makes it look.)

[StageManager2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 6:00pm

... what Emcee posted!

See, I would've but I'm not computer savvy enough. *jealous*

Updated On: 10/21/06 at 06:00 PM

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 6:19pm

I get that you need money to mount a show. That is obvious. What I am saying is that the payback NOW seems to be astronimical! Or it is expected to be. Shows have to run for 20 years now. Why? I am talking from an investors standpoint. Obviously you would like to make some cash off a show but why does it have to be so much? Is it because we are spending millions of dollars on props (Wicked, Saigon, Pirate Queen) and investing less time on quality? Producers now spend money on things they DO NOT need in order to distract from a weak score or story. "Company" has a great score, amazing book and the most innovative director Broadway has seen in ages. It will be dirt cheap (by Broadway standards) to mount and will make more than enough to cover the investment. It will run for a year and close. While a show like "Wicked" which, in my opninion, has a horrible score and a crappy book and will run for 30 years and make its investors millions upon millions. Now as an investor you would wisely choose something like "Wicked", but it comes at a cost. It says to the actors, composers, and the audiences that shows that cannot destract an audience with flying helicoptors and falling light fixtures are no longer welcome. It will become "I'm gonna invest in that piece of crap down on 43rd cause there is a HUGE pirate ship that floats around. Kids will love that and the folks will come in droves. Who cares about the story."

Again, I am NOT saying that is what Emcee said. I just don't think it was "stupid" of my to say something like "who gives a **** about money". When I said that I meant "mega musical" money. Money that is made over the corpses of great scores.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 6:34pm

I get what you're saying and again -- to a degree -- agree. But isn't the point of investing in something to do so in something that you think it going to do well so that you can make back what you put in and then some? Individual investment in a show is just like investment anywhere else; and that's why people invest in shows like Wicked and big, flashy megamusicals. It's what makes the money, so from a business standpoint, it's obviously smart. Again, unfortunate, but looking at it that way, if you were in it for the cash (not that you should be), you'd back the stuff that's going to bring it in as well -- like you said.

And again, I thought it was stupid to contest that money in ANY sense is no issue, not that money on the mega-musical scale mattering as much as it does is a bad sign.

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 6:43pm

This was all started because people think the logo of "Company" won't bring people into the theater. The truth is the investors and Sondheim already know who is gonna come see this show. The sames ones that went to see "Sweeney". NYC crowds or Sondheim geeks. They could write "Company" up there in magic marker and the same people would go see it.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 7:48pm

You're right...the logo does not matter one bit.

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 7:53pm

Because a few posters on this thread don't like the logo or don't understand what it's "supposed to be" does not mean it isn't a really great logo.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 7:54pm

I like the concept but the staging leaves me cold

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 7:55pm

I like the logo but the staging leaves me cold

[TheaterAddict7652]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 7:57pm

No, they do say it's from COMPANY, don't they? Before all the musical numbers they list the song, the writers, but I don't remember if they list the name of the musical?

Yes, the movie says its from Company. They actually don't list the song, only the name of the musical and the writers.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 7:59pm

What staging? You have't seen it yet, Roxie.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/21/06 at 8:04pm

Well, he likes the "concept," by which he means "actor-musician staging," but it still leaves him cold. Looks like someone's semantics don't match up with the incessant blabber of dissent.

And don't you know, munk? He KNOWS it's not gonna live up to the original even if he hasn't seen it. He is all-knowing when it comes to comparison and death of the traditional orchestra.

PS, I would so go see it if it were written on the marquee in magic marker. :)