Javier Munoz Will Be Alternate in HAMILTON on Broadway — Page 6

By framing it that way you make wanting to see the star of the show seem so shallow and superficial. You're stacking the deck.

Updated On: 7/8/15 at 09:10 PM

I would actually argue that Hamilton/Lin/Javier is not the star of the show. The stars of the show are Renee, Daveed, Pippa and Leslie.

""By framing it that way you make wanting to see the star of the show seem so shallow and superficial. You're stacking the deck."
Yes it is and yes I am.
I got tired of posting in the stagedooring threads even though it is another branch of the same tree, but in this thread it is clear to me that folks are missing the forest for the tree. (2 tree analogies, 1 post. pretty nifty.) I don't expect a lot of people at stage doors to actually be interested in theatre instead of celebrities, but I am really surprised how many people here seem to suffer from the same affliction.
There are shows that are really about a singular performance, but as I have said, this is just not one of them. I suspect if LMM read this thread, it would sadden him. "

You've made a lot of good points on here, but, for me at least, it has nothing to do with "celebrity" (which I couldn't care less about ... I've never stagedoored, and never will). It's about seeing an actor whose work I enjoy, in a show in which I expected to see him. But it's fine, I'm over it. I could have sold my Sunday matinee tickets and bought new ones for the previous Saturday night, but decided not to (though it wasn't entirely my decision to make, anyway). But I still think it's a perfectly valid decision for people to make, if they specifically want to see Miranda. It may not be "about" his performance, but that's not to say there's anything wrong with preferring to see it over Munoz's. Heck, before I even really knew who he was, I exchanged my tickets for the ITH tour for another night when I found out he was sick and wouldn't be appearing, simply because I could (I got them through Gold Star, and they were nice enough to inform us of the change and offer to exchange them), and because the prospect of seeing both the creator and original lead actor of the show was too enticing to pass up. His "celebrity" was irrelevant (I'd never heard of him) ... it's just thrilling to see an artist at work on his own labor of love, and that's an opportunity that doesn't come along often in musical theater. I had the same thrill seeing Billie Joe Armstrong in American Idiot (a thrill I didn't get from, say, Daniel Radcliffe in How to Succeed).

Hork, I completely understand what you are saying. I don't think most of the folks on "my" side of this subject are telling people not to do what they want; the issue for me is the sense of entitlement which seems rooted (for some, certainly not all, and I am satisfied, not you) in an interest in seeing a "star" not for his or her unique performance, but out of some warped (what I have called) celebrity worship. It's something we see a lot at stage doors. I remember one time coming out of a stage door with a friend who had to stop and sign dozens of playbills and take just as many selfies. He asked one group of people a question about something in the show and they stared back as a deer looks at headlights. It was pretty clear their only interest in the show was seeing certain people on stage and at the stage door. I've often wondered if they were too excited about getting a selfie afterwards to actually pay attention to what happened onstage.

Beyond that, I've tried to convey my sense of the significance (or not) of seeing LMM in this particular show, and if you read this and other threads, you'll see various opinions on it. I'd like to think some people have come to realize that they have not suffered a catastrophic loss.

""I don't expect a lot of people at stage doors to actually be interested in theatre instead of celebrities..."
Not being as prone to hyperbole as you, I decided not to go with my original response to that assertion, which was to be, "I think you are insane."

Instead, I will go with the less loaded, "I think you are projecting more than the AMC Empire 25.""

Namo. I just spit water everywhere.

A Director,

bravo to you!

(With one exception: I don't think seeing anyone in In My Life could compensate adequately for that loss of time in my life )

A variation on your theme (and I am way too lazy to make a list like you did) is the absolute thrill of literally discovering actors in small theatres downtown, people you have never heard of but who knock you out of your seat. Many of them, too, become household names some time later. I'll give just one example, because it is the one that is, I think, most indelible: Peter Dinklage. It was way downtown, up a flight of stairs and I think the seats were basically old folding chairs. And then this force of nature comes out and you honestly can't believe your eyes. Why would I trade that for seeing a known quantity on Broadway?

I'd like to just discuss the word 'entitlement' briefly because I wonder if the emotion behind this word is making the situation seem to be something it's not. The thoughts about stage doors prompts me to make this comment. Basically, I do not think people are 'entitled' to see a performer in the sense that if they pay $100 it's their god-given right to see someone perform in front of them. I especially do not think that people are entitled to see a performer at a stage door (I personally rarely stage door, and it is incredibly annoying to hear people harp on about how an actor is particularly annoying because they never stage door).

I suppose what I really think they are 'entitled' to is a refund or exchange for a performance that was not as advertised. Now, I will explore this a little further by responding to this comment:

"And with extremely limited exceptions no producer ever guarantees anything other than that the show will be performed approximately at the time listed on the ticket. Because they can't. Let's get this straight: you are not entitled to a damn thing other than that."

Now, I acknowledge that 'legally' the obligation is for the show and not to see a specific performer. However, I really think there is a large difference between what is 'legally promised' and what actually exists in reality in terms of advertising and marketing a show. Yes, a show might not "guarantee" that the star will be in a show because as you said, they can't, but for all intents and purposes in terms of the marketing the show they are suggesting that if we buy tickets to a certain show we will see a certain performer in the show. Obviously many producers (particularly when the 'name is above the title') acknowledge this and therefore do refund/exchange if a performer is out. But I wish this were a more widespread practice. And what is particularly frustrating is that shows will very clearly advertise a performer in their show when it is convenient for them (i.e., convincing someone to buy a ticket), but if they can't actually deliver on these goods they are not willing to compromise.

A great example recently was Pippin. TONY AWARD WINNER PATINA MILLER occasionally missed shows, but (as far as my understanding goes) they weren't willing to refund or exchange tickets. I think it's really a questionable marketing practice that they can get away with convincing people to buy tickets to see a Tony Award winner star in a show and not refund/exchange when they can't deliver the goods. Of course, because it is such a widespread and apparently legal practice they can get away with it.

I'm happy to have the argument another time about what the experience of seeing an understudy is like (yes, I am very happy I caught Jeremy Jordan in West Side Story but no, I was not happy I missed Patina Miller) - but that is not the core issue here. The core issue for me is that shows are marketing/advertising that they are providing a certain service, and when they can't they aren't obligated to be accountable for that. That seems wrong to me.

I know the counter-argument will be "but they aren't promising they are providing that cast, only the show". And yes, maybe 'legally' - but as I said for all practical purposes and how shows are sold in the real world, they are suggesting you will indeed see a certain performer if you see the show.

I'm looking at Something Rotten!'s website and it's just a classic example. Assuming they don't give refunds/exchanges, look how they are advertising the show on the front page:

If they are able to advertise the show and suggest that there will be a Tony Award winning performer in the show, I really think they should also be obligated to be held accountable (in terms of refunds/exchanges) if they can't deliver on what they advertised.

"HogansHero,

The list isn't mine, I found it on Facebook."

She also tweeted it. https://twitter.com/jenashtep/status/618987448366968833

"I would actually argue that Hamilton/Lin/Javier is not the star of the show. The stars of the show are Renee, Daveed, Pippa and Leslie. "

I would have to disagree, I think Lin has a much bigger following than any of those actors put together. He is the "star" in terms of who people know IMO.

golbinau,

I am pretty certain just about everyone honors above the title absences. Also many below the title ones. The particular problem is that Hamilton simply has no inventory with which to effect exchanges so all that offering them accomplishes is to make already disappointed people disappointed for a second time. And since anyone can easily sell their tickets at a profit if they want to, this is truly a no harm no foul situation. Finally, while you compare this to other shows, I do not think you can identify a single place where Hamilton has been marketed based on LMM's performance. He has been interviewed extensively, but those interviews invariably have focused on his writing, not his performance, and the b-roll has also focused on the ensemble, not him.

In the final analysis, what you are advocating is making all tickets exchangeable or refundable. It is beyond doubt that there is someone for whom the absence of every single actor in every single show is the reason they bought a ticket in the first place.

As I said a long way up this thread, everyone understands disappointment, even when we think it is unwarranted, but not everyone has signed on to the entitlement you think you have.

Right after the cast recording of Pippin Patina Miller did miss show. So did a lot of the cast. They all got sick. But, at that time she had not won the Tony award she was just nominated and her name was not over the title.

Actually, buying back the tickets would be advantageous to the producers in that the prices will definitely be going up shortly. And the line of people who would buy those tickets for cash so that they could resell them on stubhub at a profit of 2-5 times the face value would make the line for the first night lotto look like a coffee klatch.

There is nothing wrong with your proposed system, except that there is a commonly understood system in place that would have to be subverted, even though it has worked well for years. I just don't see any harm being visited on anyone here; the only think that registers to me is that some people with tickets to see Munoz are unhappy. But please understand that offering refunds or exchanges is not going to get Miranda back at the performance where these folks feel entitled to see him, and not a single person would get a different replacement performance than they can get right now, if that's what they want.