London GUYS AND DOLLS Broadway Bound- Page 2
London GUYS AND DOLLS Broadway Bound
Stand-by Joined: 5/19/04
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#25
Posted: 10/14/05 at 2:43am
it was 5.24 million POUNDS though, right?
No, Variety explicitly said 3 million pounds, 5.24 million dollars.
Maybe that's why they're so eager to bring it to Broadway.
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#26
Posted: 10/14/05 at 5:07am
Yep, the budget was around £3 million - it's nearly always cheaper to mount shows in London than on Broadway (though the returns on the latter can often be greater).
I agree with Michael Bennett: the only reason for the sell-out has been Ewan McGregor. It's also a much darker 'realistic-looking' production which I don't think would go down well on Broadway. The choreography is great and Jane Krakowski was a knock-out, but this was a special one-off that I can't honestly see succeeding without some serious star power.
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#27
Posted: 10/14/05 at 9:23am
I wouldn't say that a revival from 13 years ago is "every five minutes", but it IS kinda quick in comparison to other shows, I'll admit.
They'll have to stunt-cast Sky, I think. I agree with those who say Ewan McGregor VERY VERY likely won't be doing the show on Broadway... but maybe a mid-run replacement? Or a three-week "special engagement" wouldn't be out of the question. One of those lovely moves designed to boost ticket sales...
Kay, the Thread-Jacking Jedi
Quando omni flunkus moritati (When all else fails, play dead...)
"... chasin' the music. Trying to get home."
Peter Gregus: "Where are my house right ladies?!"
(love you, girls! - 6/13/06)
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#29
Posted: 10/14/05 at 11:31amChris Sieber could not sell tickets.
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#30
Posted: 10/14/05 at 11:38ami would love to see a broadway production of guys and dolls! seeing as i was one when the last one opened!
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#31
Posted: 10/14/05 at 11:46am
Yes, most people figure that 10 years is long enough to show it to a new generation. Or at least sell it to the Short-Term Memory Loss theatre-goers. But I could certainly stand to wait a while before I see "Gypsy" or "Guys and Dolls" revived again. Great shows, but overdone.
It's all about profit, of course... Kinda like the movie studios releasing multiple versions of the same films on DVD: "The Special Edition," "The Really, Really Special Edition," "The Anniversary Edition," etc. We get it. Those movies sell, so you keep putting on a new coat of paint and throwing them out there again for the masses to consume.
What happened to "variety is the spice of life?" It always loses to the almighty dollar.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#32
Posted: 10/14/05 at 11:50am
except for the BILLY ELLIOT special edition DVD! AAAH! *is obssessed*
but yeah... Guys and Dolls... fell in love with the movie and was going to see it this December but plans fell through so that sucks but i hope they bring it to Broadway.
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#33
Posted: 10/14/05 at 12:12pmglenn close is not attached to a revivial of NIGHT MUSIC, trust me.
Featured Actor Joined: 3/14/05
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#34
Posted: 10/14/05 at 12:22pm
this show is so over done...over over over.
i love jane krakowski..but not even i will see this.
cant we do other shows.
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#35
Posted: 10/14/05 at 1:12pmThough I agree we don't need a Guys and Dolls revival... I'd like to suggest Eric McCormack:) Purely because I love him.
Broadway Star Joined: 5/19/03
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#36
Posted: 10/14/05 at 4:24pmi found this production on whole to be dreadfully boring. The "concept" behind it basically is to explore the darker, seedier sides of new york, organized crime etc. And the result is a show that looks less like the self proclamed "broadway fable" than a broadway noir. The costumes are dark and dreary, almost completely devoid of color, and the sets look like a sweeney todd set, mostly just scaffolding and a NYC lightbulb backdrop. Now, Im all for reinterpreting existing material, IF it works. But to attempt to find the darker, desperate sides of a character like Nathan Detroit--im sorry, it just doesnt work. These are FABLE characters, crazy cartoons of men created so vividly by Runyon, and in this production, everyone onstage just seems to take a deep, stanislavsky approach that is neither needed nor effective. The staging then is incredibly uninspired and frankly quite high schoolish at times, with background characters making cheap and pointless crosses in order to pander for a cheap laugh that rarely comes. I've never actually been bored by the opening fugue for tinhorns song. Here, I was, as the three men literally stood center stage the entire song, only occasionally making pointless placement switches amongst themselves. If tis production makes its way over, it will pale in comparison to its '92 predecessor, a production that completely captured the "fable-ness" of the show. Hopefully they'll take another look at its direction before it opens here.
Chorus Member Joined: 8/1/05
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#37
Posted: 10/14/05 at 4:42pmFOAnatic, I'd go if Chris Sieber were in it. In fact, that is probably one of the only ways they would ever get me in the theater for Guys and Dolls.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#38
Posted: 10/14/05 at 5:14pmGotta disagree w u re Gallagher's career- i mean he is on a hit tv show whereas Mr Lane's tv career has otherwise been a bust. Film wise Nathan does more voice work so points to him there.Gallagher has spoken about G & D and said that the plan was always to feature Lane as a star making role ( hadda wait for Bialystok for that) BUT the other point Peter made was the two couples have to complement each other one rough & tumble funny and the other gentler and more thoughtful in its humour. THAT's what makes the show a complete experience. Sides- Luck BE a Lady is a show stopper so take that to the memory bank and deposit it!
Broadway Star Joined: 6/26/05
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#39
Posted: 10/14/05 at 6:02pm
"Seems too soon for me."
I agree.
Updated On: 10/14/05 at 06:02 PM
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#40
Posted: 10/14/05 at 6:11pm
In other words...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
"I broke the boundaries. It wasn't cool to be in plays- especially if you were in sports & I was in both." - Ashton Kutcher
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/28/05
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#41
Posted: 10/14/05 at 6:35pm
Yes, the cartoonish '92 revival was great... Lane, Prince, Gallagher...how can you top that? Besides, it was so well done.
I also think it is not the best idea, I for once think that the '92 was one of the best revivals of a show I've seen.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/25/05
re: London GUYS AND DOLLS Possibly Broadway Bound#42
Posted: 10/14/05 at 7:52pmThe '92 revival opened more doors for Lane than for Gallagher. Lane had been pretty much under the radar until that time, contributing good, painstaking performances in Terence McNally plays, until G&D happened. That led to the FORUM revival, and, arguably, to THE BIRDCAGE (and, eventually, to THE PRODUCERS). His star may be fading a bit now, but Peter Gallagher's star never rose--he just went back to the steady, not-terribly interesting career he's always led (mostly in supporting roles.) He's a perfectly good actor (as Sky and everything else he does) but can you really call him exciting or even distinctive?
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
Gallagher's Career#43
Posted: 10/14/05 at 8:10pm
Honey if he ever trains those oh so intense blue eyes on u- you'll get excitement!
Peter has always seen himself as a character actor and remember those are the ones who keep working 4 evah! ( in fact his conventional matinee idol handsomeness is very out of style now and if anything has prevented him from moving to the upper regions of A list-dom it is that)
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/25/05
Gallagher's Career#44
Posted: 10/14/05 at 8:34pmOh, I'm sure he will work forever. I just don't see him getting those vivid, defining roles that make a performer memorable (as a star or as a character actor). As a friend of mine put it, he's never really good or bad--he just does what's needed, and it's hard to remember his performance after it's over. I've only really disliked him once--in the laughable CENTER STAGE, when we were supposed to believe he had once been a great ballet dancer. But I'll readily agree that those eyes and features of his are peculiar and striking--particularly those giant bushy eyebrows that could trap small birds.
Featured Actor Joined: 10/4/05
Gallagher's Career-Guys and Dolls question#45
Posted: 10/31/05 at 3:48pm
Why does an actor need to have showy roles to be successful? I put Peter Gallagher in the same boat as Victor Garber. Both are multi-talented and have had really long careers on stage, film, and currently are both known for their television series.
But that's not the reason why I wanted to add to the board. I actually have a question. There was a post about how the hot box numbers were changed or made griddier. What does that mean? Also...do you think changing the idea of light and fluffy Guys and Dolls to a real gangster musical would turn away audiences? I mean...high school groups would be sure to go to the show, but not if it's at all realistic.
Thoughts?
Gallagher's Career-Guys and Dolls question#46
Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:09pmHave they made a cd of the London cast with Ewan and Jane? If so I would love to have it!
Gallagher's Career-Guys and Dolls question#47
Posted: 11/1/05 at 5:55am
The hot-box numbers aren't necessarily grittier, but it is made crystal clear that Miss Adelaide makes her money by taking her clothes off for money, rather than just being mildly coquettish as in most previous productions.
There will be no CD of the show due to Ewan McGregor apparently refusing either to record one or to promote it, depending on which rumours you believe. It's a shame as the orchestration and arrangement of 'Sit down you're rockin the boat' easily beats any currently recorded version 
Updated On: 11/1/05 at 05:55 AM
Broadway Star Joined: 1/18/05
Gallagher's Career-Guys and Dolls question#48
Posted: 11/1/05 at 6:11am
i think it would be nice to see
i'd definitely go
although, i'd rather see glenn in NIGHT MUSIC then ewan...even for his looks and accent.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/12/03
Gallagher's Career-Guys and Dolls question#49
Posted: 11/1/05 at 6:16am
I'm with roquat.
Ingenues come and go, but character actors go on forever.
The only way an ingenue makes a lasting impression is to be a little bit odd (Mary Martin) or have a phenominal voice (Barbara Cook).
Broadway oblivion is filled with dozens of pretty and talented performers who were not strange enough to stick in ones memory.
Gallagher's Career-Guys and Dolls question#50
Posted: 11/1/05 at 9:46am
Didn't think Ewan was the reason there's no recording. Everything I'VE heard indicates that one of the substantial financial backers of the recording pulled out. :-
http://ewan.pitas.com/#20051019-3
Kay, the Thread-Jacking Jedi
Quando omni flunkus moritati (When all else fails, play dead...)
"... chasin' the music. Trying to get home."
Peter Gregus: "Where are my house right ladies?!"
(love you, girls! - 6/13/06)
Videos
