Foxwoods back to the Lyric; Kong out, On the Town in...

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:11pm

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/king-kong-out-on-the-town-in-at-foxwoods-theater-now-renamed-the-lyric/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Interesting! Seems an awfully big theater for On the Town.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:11pm

Bizarre.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:13pm

1,900 seats? How do they possibly think On the Town can succeed in a house that size? I love the show, but it seems pretty nuts to me.

Sounds like Kong could STILL take the Lyric. I can't imagine On the Town succeeding in that space for very long.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:14pm

Nice to see the theatre return to its original name, though! (Sort of. If I recall correctly, that space is actually a combination of the old Lyric AND the Apollo.)

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:17pm

ON THE TOWN is indeed a bizarre show for this theatre, unless they have Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway set to co-star.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:24pm

My immediate thought is Kong is booking the Broadway Theater. That was in their top 3, no?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:26pm

It's too bad, because the various reviews of this OTT production last Summer made it sound like it was a revival of this great show that might actually, for once, *work* Weird.

[NewSynchopation]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:26pm

It has been a known fact for a while that the Foxwoods was being renamed the Lyric, but On the Town!? Seems really odd. Looks like next season will be heavy on revivals.

Updated On: 3/6/14 at 12:26 PM

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:29pm

These has to be major star wattage attached to this. No way they would choose the largest theatre on Broadway with a relatively small and not particularly well known show otherwise.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:35pm

The Barrington production had no stars. If they are really just transferring the Barrington production then maybe the producers are just that stupid.

[Sauja]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:38pm

I doubt that, neonlights. It just seems almost TOO obvious that this couldn't work in a theater that big without a star. Or maybe I'm just being pessimistic based on how much I want to see Tony Yazbeck and Jay Armstrong Johnson do it.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:40pm

But a spokesman for the “Kong” producers said on Thursday those plans have changed “because of the huge scale of the production, as well as the time needed to implement creative changes.”

Kong in its current state, would not have lasted a month or more. It really was a train wreck of a show.

[oncemorewithfeeling2]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:41pm

I loved the Barrington production from last year and despite how well executed and enjoyable it was, I think it'll be swallowed alive in that theater. Perhaps the producers have something huge up their sleeves that could fill almost 2000 seats. What I saw last summer was wonderful, but not something designed for a huge barn

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:52pm

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this theater is WAY to huge for this show. The Gershwin was too big for the last revival which came in with a slew of glowing notices from the park. I can't imagine a star big enough (who would be willing to do it) that would fill this barn.
I loved RAGTIME in this theater (even from the top balcony when I am a front row center orchestra guy) but really didn't care for 42nd street as I felt it got swallowed whole in this space (and was sitting pretty darn close). No way a charming, intimate show like this should be here. Kind of like the TOM SAWYER musical was lost in the cavernous Minskoff. Producers really need to learn that size DOES matter!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:52pm

Maybe the producers cut them a really good deal to use the theater? Is there a way to curtain off the theater like they do at the Broadway?

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 12:58pm

This is...just weird...

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 1:15pm

Maybe they'll be able to renovate the theater and make it nicer and feel like less of a barn.

Still a weird choice of theater for this show. Especially since lots of theaters will soon be opening up as shows close this spring/summer.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 1:29pm

Does this means Dames is taking the Broadway? (Joke)

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 1:35pm

This will be heavily papered from opening to closing night. This is one crazy ass move. A guaranteed money loser.

[showchoirguy]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 1:44pm

FVCK YEAH!!!!

[oasisjeff]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 1:53pm

"revivals do not usually fill up theaters"

That was a pretty dismissive phrase from the Times. And certainly enough examples to disprove it...

[After Eight]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 2:20pm

"It's too bad, because the various reviews of this OTT production last Summer made it sound like it was a revival of this great show that might actually, for once, *work*"

Many productions of this show have worked.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 2:43pm

"Maybe they'll be able to renovate the theater and make it nicer and feel like less of a barn."

I really did have a barn feel, I hated it almost as much as the Winter Garden. Massive theaters just don't work for me.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 3:00pm

Wasn't the Barrington production rather light on scenery?

[RW3]

Posted: 3/6/14 at 3:02pm

I was hoping that Cameron Mackintosh already called the theater for a hopeful Miss Saigon revival.