Longest Tour Stop Ever?- Page 2

[binau]

Posted: 8/20/12 at 9:10pm

How do we distinguish between 'sit down productions' and 'tours'?

I feel that if they move into a city and haven't booked the next leg then it isn't really a 'tour'. Thoughts on this definition?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/20/12 at 9:40pm

Lion King played Chicago for close to a year. It wasn't a "Sit down" or the origination of a tour- just a long run.

Wicked announced Chicago for a 6 week stand (Stephanie J Block) and then announced that a "Sit down" would begin when that run was over with Ana Gasteyer. The set stayed here and a new set was built for the tour.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 8/20/12 at 10:58pm

I know that THE PRODUCERS played the Pantages in Los Angeles in 2004 for about eight months and I believe it then went on to your without Martin Short and Jason Alexander. However, like BEAUTY AND THE BEAST at the Shubert Theatre in 1995, the set could have gone to an international engagement such as in Mexico City.

Wasn't SUNSET BOULEVARD's pre-Broadway run in Los Angeles not necessarily a sit-down, but just a successful production, much like the pre-Broadway run of RAGTIME?

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/21/12 at 1:27am

Tours are designed to tour.

Les Mis' 1st national tour was designed for long runs. Basically, it was not designed to be quickly set-up and broken down. Mounting it was slightly less time consuming than the mounting of the original London and Broadway productions. The following is the entire 1st national tour itinerary:

First date is first preview, then opening night, and closing night.

Boston, Shubert Theatre 12/05/87 12/15/87 06/26/88
Washington, Kennedy Center 07/05/88 07/09/88 10/08/88
Philadelphia, Forrest Theatre 10/15/88 10/20/88 03/11/89
Chicago, Auditorium Theatre 03/18/89 03/25/89 09/02/89
Detroit, Fisher Theatre 09/08/89 09/13/89 12/31/89
Baltimore, Morris A. Mechanic Theatre 01/06/90 01/10/90 03/10/90
Boston, Shubert Theatre 03/16/90 03/22/90 06/30/90
Washington, National Theatre 07/06/90 07/10/90 09/15/90
Philadelphia, Forrest Theatre 09/21/90 09/25/90 01/05/91
Los Angeles, Pantages Theatre 01/13/91 01/20/91 03/09/91
Chicago, Auditorium Theatre 03/16/91 03/24/91 09/29/91

The 2nd national tour was not a true tour and, like Phantom's 1st national tour, it played only two cities but had a lengthy run at each:

Los Angeles, Shubert Theatre 05/21/88 06/01/88 07/23/89
San Francisco, Curran Theatre 10/21/89 11/01/89 01/27/91

Like the 1st national tour, it was designed for longer runs.

The show's 3rd U.S. national tour was a true tour, meaning it was highly portable and borrowed touring techniques from the arena concert industry, making this 3rd U.S. tour a rarity in that it was an exact replica in scale, quality, and physical design of the original Broadway production. In fact, all three U.S. national tours were indistinguishable from the sit-down Broadway production. They were really quite remarkable in that sense, especially the 3rd national tour which reproduced the Broadway caliber experience for audiences in small U.S. towns, as the tour fit both large and medium sized theatres. It traveled in 8 semi-tractor trailers. The 3rd U.S. national tour of Phantom traveled in 28 semi-tractor trailers and they used a jump set, a duplicate of the show's largest machinery and sets so they could set up in the next city in advance while it played in another. Les Mis was a wonder in how portable it traveled as a complete package.

I've seen all three U.S. national tours and the original Broadway production multiple times and I never noticed a huge difference between any of them. They were all identical with no corner cutting or scaling down on tour. The biggest difference was the 3rd national tour did not have a smaller center revolve as did the Broadway production. It would either lock to the floor or to the outer revolve. Its most notable use was during "Lovely Ladies" as the whores would stay stationary in the center as the outer revolve whisked people and scenes around them, giving an illusion of elapsed time and the relentless drive that original staging was so known for and so effectively served as a platform providing perpetual movement and endless, limitless space.

Miss Saigon's 1st national tour was a monster, traveling in 38 semis.

All Mackintosh productions were replicas of the original Broadway productions in their entirety. I've also seen all three U.S. tours of Phantom and both U.S. tours of Saigon and all were just as lavish as their Broadway productions. I'll never forget when I'd get news of the Les Mis tour coming to Los Angeles. It was such a happy time each and every time it came. To have what Broadway enjoys night after night brought in just as great a production to your own backyard, was thrilling and exciting beyond measure. Sigh.

*Nostalgic*

P.S. - Btw, take my use of "true tour" with a grain of salt. Of course the 1st and 2nd national tours were actual tours. I was pointing out the distinction between them. Obviously any production that ups and moves to different houses and is officially recognized as a tour, is a tour. But the intentions behind the 1st nationals are often times not too different from the more permanent sit downs, whereas productions designed to tour efficiently have more of that 'bus and truck' thing going on and have killer itineraries.

Updated On: 8/21/12 at 01:27 AM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 7:05pm

"Wasn't SUNSET BOULEVARD's pre-Broadway run in Los Angeles not necessarily a sit-down, but just a successful production, much like the pre-Broadway run of RAGTIME"

Didn't Ragtime have several companies? I know it opened in Toronto and then that production moved to Broadway. A different cast opened in LA and then went to Vancouver where I saw it (with John Rubinsteimn as Tateh and LaChanze as Sara), and then either went to Chicago, or the actual tour opened in Chicago. *I believe*.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 8:14pm

The 1st "tour" of Phantom was designed as a sit-down because, whislt all CamMac productions were replicas, it was a true replica of NYC because it used the full trap door effects for the candelabras, rooftop entrances, et cetera. It stayed in LA from 89-93, and then ran in San Fransisco's Curran Theatre from 94 til 99.

The 2nd National Tour's set was reminiscent of the massive tour set for the Australian tour (which always played very long engagements), utilizing large sizes of the set pieces, including candelabras that entered from the wings, but grew taller and taller as they entered.... it was quite beautiful. However, this set was MASSIVE and far less portable, so it generally played long runs until its last year (1999).

The 3rd National Tour had the same number of set pieces as all predecessors, but they were generally smaller and easier to tinker with.

RE SUNSET BLVD IN LA: Initially, that production was just a separate entity from the eventual NYC production. It was meant to have run concurrently, actually. I'd consider it a sit down.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 8:30pm

Those were two of the LA leads, Eric, so it sounds like you got the LA production. I don't know what happened to RAGTIME after it left Southern California.

***

Note to qolbinau, yes, I think your definition is a good one. If a tour stops in one city for an open run and has no future dates, I think we can consider it a "sit-down", regardless of what the AEA contract says.



Updated On: 8/22/12 at 08:30 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 8:38pm

think the Vancouver Ragtime (which ran two or so months I seem to remember) came after LA's, so that's what happened to the production after it left Southern California. Drabinsky built the Ford (now the Centre) in Vancouver essentially for his productions, and they tended to have long stops, although I guess some of those were Canadian tours and didn't go to the US (Show Boat ran a few months, but I have no idea if it was a tour, for example, or a production that just played a few sit down spots. The Toronto production of Sunset Blvd came directly to Vancouver, and I believe didn't have an afterlife after that, but I know the show was too large to tour extensively anyway).

I can't find my tickets, but I know I saw Ragtime the first time before the Tony Awards that year, and not too long after the Toronto production opened in New York. (LaChanze was excellent--and only recently did I find out she was the first workshop version of Sarah--I guess Flaherty/Ahrens already had a relationship with her from Island).

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 9:03pm

LaChanze was so good it took me awhile to realize she wasn't Audra MacDonald (to whom I was listening on the "Songs from..." recording). A lot of the Broadway cast (including Mitchell and Kaye) were jobbed into LA for several months at a time as a "warm up" for New York. So it wasn't entirely ridiculous that I thought I had seen the Broadway Sarah.

As it turned out, I didn't, but I wasn't at all disappointed.

I was a little let down by John Rubenstein, who is a personal favorite of mine. But frankly, I think Tateh is a hopeless role and will never compete with Father/Mother/Elder Brother or Colehouse/Sarah. In fact, I think that's a major flaw of the show, that the "private" Jews don't take stage the way the "private" blacks and whites do. (Emma Goldman is dramatized and musicalized brilliantly, of course.) The entire second act is betrayed by the sudden emphasis on Tateh and his success in the New World. Really, who cares? Not I, not when there are rapes, murders, funerals and revolutions going on.

***

Oops! Sorry to all for the thread jack. Suffice to say RAGTIME had a good run at the Schubert in LA, but it wasn't a record.

Updated On: 8/22/12 at 09:03 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 9:33pm

We certainly didn't get Mitchell or Kaye--I'm pretty certain the Vancouver run was immediately after, and not before, LA's. And yes, LaChanze was fabulous.

I agree about Tateh. Actually, full confession, at the time I didn't really know who Wubinstein was, even though I had listened to Pippin for years, I didn't put two and two together till I looked at the program sometime later. I definitely agree with you about Tateh's story, particularly in Act II. It does give Mother some good moments, but otherwise it is hard to be compelling as the other storylines heat up.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 9:48pm

IIRC, LA's run continued for awhile after the New York opening. So you wouldn't have seen anyone from the OBC.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 9:54pm

Eric, in addition to PIPPIN, Rubinstein replaced Lithgow in M. BUTTERFLY in NYC. Nothing and nobody can compare to Lithgow in that role, but Rubinstein was very good.

He has also acted and directed in small theaters in LA over the years, while pursuing TV guest shots. He's really very good and, as I said, I blame the role of Tateh.

(In case it isn't obvious, I love RAGTIME. But in addition to the dramatization of the "private" Jews, it has an inherent problem in that nothing in Act II can compete with the funeral at the end of Act I. And yet, where else do you put the funeral? I don't know what the solution is, but it's a shame because the work is otherwise a masterpiece IMO.)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/22/12 at 10:43pm

I would agree with all that.

I notice Rubinstein popping up a LOT in guest roles on tv shows (most recently as a doctor on... I don't even remember what the show was, just that I paid more attention when he was there). I could see him doing well in M Butterfly.,