Javier Munoz Will Be Alternate in HAMILTON on Broadway — Page 3

How does it make financial sense to have someone perform one show a week?

They're paying Munoz to perform one show a week.

This ain't EVITA.

He works every day. There is no other understudy (just as in Curious Incident). Maybe best to leave concerns over the expenses to people who understand (and pay) them.

There are several things being said in this thread that would be amusing were they not so sad. First, the idea that Miranda is a slacker or is an ego run amok is just arrant nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. Second, did it ever occur to the any of you micromanagers that Miranda is being generous to his understudy? Most understudies (many of whom never go on) would give anything for an opportunity like this. And it is also a sign of enormous respect, that Miranda thinks Munoz has earned this by his performance. Finally, those who are complaining or expressing outrage (most of whom, incidentally, are not affected by this at all) are really just evincing the same perverse sense of entitlement that frequently surfaces here in many contexts. What if Miranda had not performed in the show at all? What if he chose not to transfer with the company to the Broadway production? Anyone who would not have seen the show because of that simply doesn't know what they are missing (and is more engaged in some unfortunate cult of personality than anything remotely related to a love of theatre. As I said before, Miranda's masterpiece is not the performance he gives on stage; his masterpiece is what he wrote, and the absurdity of someone lashing out by saying he will get his due when he is "yesterday's news" is startlingly lame. What exactly is the pathology underlying a comment like that?

And finally finally, rest assured that NO ONE who does not want to see Munoz will have to. Every single ticket to this show can readily be sold, and even at a substantial profit. Just head over to Stubhub and take your spoils.

Updated On: 7/6/15 at 10:58 PM

Okay Hogan, We didn't need the vitriolic response. A simple, kind, explanation would've sufficed.

Skittles, thank you. I have not seen the show and thus am not familiar with it.

Updated On: 7/6/15 at 11:15 PM

Matt, you are probably right, but I found a lot of stuff in this thread infuriating. I would expect this from no-nothing tourists, but not from people who, by their presence here, should be theatre-lovers.

Hogan, your response was warranted. I'm actually a little shocked by the responses here, considering how there are so many people who would kill to see this show but can't because of all the advance ticket sales; I'm sure they wouldn't gripe about seeing the understudy.

Updated On: 7/6/15 at 11:27 PM

I couldn't do it. Even when I was at the top of my game as MC Ice Bucket.

It's also worth noting that Lin has a young child at home and it's not unreasonable for him to want to...um, see his kid at some point considering he's basically been working nonstop since he was born. He's a person, not a machine, he's the most qualified person to assess both the show's needs and his and this is the decision that was reached. I'm sure it was not made lightly. To say he's "appearing whenever he wants to" is so insane to me. He's missing one scheduled performance a week. Many roles on Broadway have alternates and many do not publish the schedule (Alex Sharp in Curious Incident? The Matildas? Christine Daee?), it's a courtesy that Hamilton decided to do so at all. Also, isn't it preferable for Miranda to know his limitations as a performer and make use of an alternate instead of overextending himself or burning himself/his voice out and having to miss a lot of shows unscheduled? Honestly, the entitlement on this board is insane.

Updated On: 7/7/15 at 12:24 AM

I too am finding much of what I read in this thread infuriating, but for different reasons.

Far as I can tell, not everyone is suggesting that Miranda doesn't have the right to a day off. Not everyone is suggesting that Munoz is a less-than-capable substitute (having seen him, I can attest to how excellent he is). Not everyone is suggesting that the producers don't have the right to make this decision, whether in March when tickets went onsale, or a month or two from now.

Where everyone is mistaken, though, is in thinking that the producers really don't have a moral obligation to garner goodwill and do the right thing by, at the bare minimum, offering direct refunds at this point to those who have a ticket for a Munoz peformance and who choose that option. (After all, as has been suggested here, they will surely not have trouble reselling them at face value, at the bare minimum.)

As I've stated above, I paid to see the show off-Broadway (at already inflated off-Broadway prices, late in the run), and found out the day before that we would not be seeing Miranda. Fair enough. We went. We love. We thought Munoz was terrific. But then we bought tickets to see it again this fall specifically to see Miranda. Obviously an illness would always have been a possibility, and we might have been stuck seeing the understudy again, but this isn't that. And personally, I WOULD suggest that if this didn't seem a little bit underhanded - or choose your own word, sneaky, suspicious, shady, etc. - then they wouldn't have a problem offering up such refunds. We're out of the country this week, but when we return you can bet we'll be calling Ticketmaster and, having seen the show once already with the understudy, insisting on it. That isn't 'entitlement' - that's just decency, fairness, and common sense.

Honestly, the truth is, if the producers don't do as they should and direct Ticketmaster to offer those refunds or exchanges, then - just as people who can't see Broadway shows live often find an, ahem, alternate way to view them - there's a way for resourceful people to get that refund AND stick it to the producers at the same time by making sure the seats aren't paid for and can't be resold. I took advantage of it once about 30 or 40 years ago, and hoped I'd never have to again, as I must admit it's a bit underhanded and should be altogether unnecessary. That said, if the producers and Ticketmaster don't do the right thing, then we'll have no problem lying just a little bit to make sure that the right thing in fact gets done. And I guarantee that we won't be alone.

Hopefully the producers will see the light and change their approach on this matter before we have to stoop to that level.

"Is it technically possible for Javier to be nominated for a Tony, or is it only the person who was in the role on opening night who qualifies ?"

I don't think he'd qualify. Aaron Walpole and Nathaniel Hackmann weren't eligible, but Ramin Karimloo was. He also did 7 shows a week.

Kimbo,

First of all, let's wait and see what the producers do. (Expecting Ticketmaster to magically do this automatically is not reasonable.) My strong guess is that anyone who wants a refund (or an exchange on a space available basis) will get it. I think this is a tempest in a teapot.

Secondly, anyone who wants to sell their tickets can easily do so at a profit on Stubhub (or elsewhere). Or, for anyone not wanting to profit, box offices routinely resell tickets in this fashion, and I'm sure you appreciate that there will be no problem unloading these tickets when the show is basically a sold out through pretty deep into 2016. There is a buyer on this site alone for every kvetcher's tickets. Buyers are salivating.

Finally, I have no idea what you are alluding to in your penultimate paragraph, but it sounds a lot worse than what people are (prematurely, at a minimum) accusing the producer of.

One more thing. As just about everyone knows, Ticketmaster, unlike Telecharge, is not very tapped into the theatres for whom they sell tickets. While Telecharge (aka the Shuberts) can just pick up the phone and call the box office, the poor schlub at Ticketmaster, who has probably never even been to New York, has no clue how to do that. They can, as suggested in the next post, send a message, but these are usually matters that are handled by the box office treasurer, at the instruction of the GM at the instruction of the producer. This all happend today (or yesterday at this moment); chill a little before declaring World War III on one of the best producers in town.

Updated On: 7/7/15 at 01:19 AM

The overwhelming majority of ticket buyers are seeing Hamilton because of Hamilton, not because of Miranda's performance. Very little in its substantial buzz is actually about his take on the role. He's not above the title, he's not being marketed as the reason to see it, his performance was not the main target of critical praise. The show is the star here, and rightfully so, despite terrific performances across the board.

If your satisfaction with seeing the show hinges on collecting the "original cast," then perhaps you should reconsider why you want to see the show at all.

If this histrionic nonsense is indicative of the sort of backlash that can be expected toward the show, this season is going to irksome.