Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K. — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 11:27am

There is something more than vaguely depressing about this whole episode/thread...it's as if the actual musical and other hard-working actors are totally irrelevant. I understand that Daniel is the big-name draw, and I hope he is being extremely well compensated for bringing in all this money - if he is the ONLY reason people are flocking to see this show, he should be a producer as well. He holds all the cards.

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

#27

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 11:50am

WHAT is depressing? He is a HUGE reason for people having interest in this -- whats wrong with that? Why should be be a producer?

And Lordy Tubby...WHAT is rubbish?

If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it? These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.

#28

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 12:25pm

I just hate celebrity culture in general.

You say he is a huge reason for people having interest in this (the show, presumably), but I'm not convinced. This thread demonstrates that in reality people are only interested in seeing Daniel, and have minimal interest in the show. Reports of people dashing to the stage door before curtain call prove my point further. I don't mean to bash Daniel.

When I said he should be a producer, I meant that he should be the one reaping all the financial rewards as he is the one responsible for them.

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

#29

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:06pm

If he is getting people TO the theater and doing a great job in the process (I think he is, although others disagree.), I don't see the problem. Hopefully, many (or at least SOME) of those ONLY going to see him will be inspired to try another show.

If I'm willing to check out a show because of who is cast (star or not), what's the problem with that? Sometimes it's going to be the piece, sometimes it going to be the performer and sometimes it will be the creative team that causes me to buy a ticket.

I don't think that JUST because he's a star and has a following pre-empts him from being able to perform on b'way.

Personally, I don't "get" stage dooring much at all. And I'm sure he's reaping PLENTY of financial benefits...it was rumored to be quite high.

He certainly isn't the only 'star' to have shows cancelled because of an absence -- and thats at the producers choice, not his.

#30

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:13pm

"This thread demonstrates that in reality people are only interested in seeing Daniel, and have minimal interest in the show."

Ummm... YES???? And your point is?

#31

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:18pm

These producers would rather have a payout from WB than risk any bad word of mouth of "Daniel missed a lot!... went to see Harry Potter in that play and he wasn't even in it! What a waste!"

#32

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:28pm

I agree with Jay's point. It's as if no one else onstage matters, so we might as well make the marquee read: How to Succeed in Business, a one man show starring Daniel Radcliffe -- and be done with it. Apparently the show cant stand on its own merits, so let's just dispose of the scenery, the costumes, God knows the chorus, and the rest of the supporting cast (since it appears everything is supporting the presence of Mr. Potter).

If he's the only reason people are coming to see it, that's pretty sad. He does a reasonably effort, but he's not serious Broadway material. To his credit, he looks like he's having a great time, but is that any reason to shell out a hundred-plus?

http://docandraider.com

#33

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:30pm

Apparently the show cant stand on its own merits, so let's just dispose of the scenery, the costumes, God knows the chorus, and the rest of the supporting cast (since it appears everything is supporting the presence of Mr. Potter).

Boy From Oz

#34

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:45pm

"f he's the only reason people are coming to see it, that's pretty sad. He does a reasonably effort, but he's not serious Broadway material. To his credit, he looks like he's having a great time, but is that any reason to shell out a hundred-plus?"

He IS the only reason most people are going to se it. And there is NOTHING wrong with that. I wish there were more hollywood star driven musical productions around to run along with the others. I remember the days of Anthony Quin in Zorba, and Lauren Bacall in Woman Of The Year ( by the way.. she DID fill the Palace)

HUSSY POWER! ------ HUSSY POWER!

#35

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:49pm

I'm sure the other actors don't mind getting a few days off, all of which they were paid for. I'm sure they're also all grateful to Radcliffe for providing them the opportunity to perform a Pulitzer Prize winning show in front of sold out houses every night.

The only "rubbish" in this thread is the people trying to make this into some kind of referendum on "celebrity culture" as if this hasn't been happening for decades.

Radcliffe is certainly star casting, but he's definitely not stunt casting, nor should he be derisively referred to as "Mr. Potter."

#36

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:52pm

I think the issue is: WHO is only making it about him? It's the ticket buyers -- they are the ones that would raise a stink -- not the b'way community, not the producers, not theater lovers, but the vast body of once a year, once in a llifetime theater goers. You think the rest of the cast minded getting 2 days off with pay? I don't. Do you think the rest of the cast hates that they have a job because of his fame? I don't. I'm fairly certain they love going to work most days. I doubt they hated rehearsing with him either, watching him work his butt off to match their talents.

The problem isn't with fame, but the way we as a society treat celebrities (film, tv, sports, chefs) as royalty.

#37

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 1:54pm

"The only "rubbish" in this thread is the people trying to make this into some kind of referendum on "celebrity culture" as if this hasn't been happening for decades. "

agreed.

HUSSY POWER! ------ HUSSY POWER!

#38

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 2:57pm

I wasn't making any arguments as to the rights or wrongs of the situation, just that I find it a little depressing.

I'm quite sure that the actors are perfectly happy to have jobs, but I'm also fairly sure that it can't be that pleasant to exit the stage door with little to no acknowledgement all the while having a baying mob screaming for your co-star. Or to pass by sackloads of mail for Daniel, and to peek in your own fanmail slot to find a single letter asking you to get a DVD sleeve signed by Mr.Radcliffe.

NOT meant as an attack on Daniel.

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

#39

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 5:18pm

and this basically guarentees that the show will close unless they find another star to replace him.

A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.

#40

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 5:34pm

To be fair: most of the chorus/ensemble in ANY show get little attention at the stage door OR fan mail. This happens in nearly every show -- the leading and supporting roles have fans and that's it. Who's getting huge attention at the SD for Mormon? Gads, Rannells and James. Not the ensemble.

I don't think its a smack in the face to anyone to see his fandom. Many b'way actors don't want that kind of recognition, and those that do, they get to daydream a little bit.

(I understand that you are not attacking Radcliffe individually, but I think what you have issue with is more about the public response to "celebrities" then it is about the celebrities themselves.

#41

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 5:42pm

>> "and this basically guarentees that the show will close unless they find another star to replace him"

Bingo. And highly unlikely.

>> "Radcliffe is certainly star casting, but he's definitely not stunt casting, nor should he be derisively referred to as "Mr. Potter.""

Oh please, get a freaking grip. He *is* Harry Potter, and he will be living with that millstone for some years to come. Yes, it's been a very lucrative one for him, but years from now, folks will still be looking at him and saying "Oh yeah, Harry Potter", just as they have with countless others who were locked into a specific role for a very long time.

And yes, it *was* stunt casting, so let's not pretend otherwise. The whole production was built around him: it's not like they had an open call. And when he leaves, it will very likely close.

http://docandraider.com

#42

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 5:50pm

Radcliffe is the only reason I want to see How to Succeed, and I love and support theatre in all forms. I am just not a fan of the show but I've heard amazing things about him and what he is doing on that stage every night.

I see nothing wrong with him being the main reason people are attending the show.

"I will not cease from mental fight, nor shall my sword sleep in my hand: Till we have built Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land."

#43

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 6:00pm

^ Honestly, when was it ever any different? This production basically exists because of his desire to do it...it wouldn't have happened otherwise.

I also think some of the things being said in this thread are completely ridiculous. What is so bad about people going to see a classic, Pulitzer Prize-winning musical because of Daniel Radcliffe? I know some will disagree, but I think he's doing fantastic work.

And I can't say for sure, but I highly doubt that the rest of the company begrudges him his fan mail or his treatment at the stage door. In fact, I'm sure most of them took the job knowing that it would come with the territory; Daniel Radcliffe is the star of one of the biggest film franchises ever, and so he's recognized as Harry Potter around the world. He has also made the choice, as an extremely young actor, to pursue theater not because it will bring him more money or recognition or fame, but because he wants to do it. He has worked incredibly hard to match the talents and efforts of everyone else in that company, many of whom have been working on Broadway and in professional theater for many years, and in my opinion he has succeeded.

#44

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 6:37pm

dramamama, you are right - it is the whole public response to celebrities that bugs me. I guess I just don't get the hysteria.
In my ideal world, everything would be on merit...but as has been pointed out to me before, rarely in life is anything based on merit. Sucks.

"Honestly, when was it ever any different?"

It has rarely reached the extremes it has with this production, and I do not believe celebrity power was ever as strong as it is today.

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

#45

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 6:41pm

The "when was it ever any different" was meant to refer to this specific production, sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't think it was ever a question that this show would close when Daniel leaves unless they can find someone with equal or near-equal star power to keep pulling in money.

#46

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 6:55pm

It has been like this before. (of course, I'm going to blank out on who was involved) I remember that the stage door from some big star was divided...if you didn't have a playbill and ticket from that nights performance you could stand on one side of the barricade and if you did, you stood on the other side. Whomever the "star" was knew the difference.

Also a few years ago, there was a crazy stage door insanity -- I can remember sitting in a theater watching a play (I want to say it was while I was at A Steady Rain -- another production that only got to b'way because of its two stars) and you could hear the fans outside burst into cheers when a hollywood type came out of the stage door. And then trying to get down the street after the show was over was crazy.

#47

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 7:05pm

^ I think you're thinking of Jude Law's Hamlet for the first. And the second was Superior Donuts who had to deal with the crowds FOR A Steady Rain. I believe they sent people out with signs to ask the people across the street to be quiet.

As for Radcliffe, I think he's quite good in the show, and I really admire him for taking Broadway seriously and committing to do it right after he finished starring in what is basically the biggest franchise of all time. He's shown that he's interested in doing good work, in being a really versatile actor, and I salute him for it.

Updated On: 7/18/11 at 07:05 PM

#48

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 7:14pm

I think the sad part is that with all the money the producers spent on Radcliffe, they couldn't get a better production that could stand on it's own merit. The material is certainly there. In years gone by, even when a show was being carried by a Star (like Channing in HELLO DOLLY, the production went on without her for several years), not that Channing was ever a big franchise movie teen heathrob. But that goes along with the Idol worship in today's climate.

#49

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 7:52pm

I believe Julia Roberts gets the credit for the "one side of the stage door barricades is reserved for people who just saw the show" concept, from when she was in Three Days of Rain and the stage door was flooded with people who never saw the show.

"What was the name of that cheese that I like?" "you can't run away forever...but there's nothing wrong with getting a good head start" "well I hope and I pray, that maybe someday, you'll walk in the room with my heart"

#50

Harry Potter costs broadway show 400 K.

Posted: 7/18/11 at 8:21pm

I must confess that I'm not sure I would have seen Three Days of Rain had Julia Roberts not been in it.

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95