Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 needs to be revived and back on Broadway!!- Page 2

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/19/18 at 6:06pm

willep said: "Kitsune said: "In reflection,I'dreally like to see a scaled-down version of Great Comet in a more intimate venue - I hope some good regional productions will pop up in that way. For all that I enjoyed the spectacle of the Broadway staging, I think there are some interesting things that could be done on a smaller scale."



As much as I adored the Broadway version, for me it was never quite as wonderful as in the more intimate Kazino setting. That remains one of my favorite theatre going experiences. Unfortunately I didn’t see it at Ars Nova."

The Kazino staging was much better than Broadway. Sadly most are only acquainted with the Broadway production even when it was a much better piece Off Broadway. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 12:56am

Natalia10 said: "I want to make a message board for all of those who, like me, who miss The Great Comet dearly <3."

 

I am going to bed in a minute and in a little bit of a bad mood, so I probably shouldn't say that you need to get a life.

I will be shocked if it is revived on Broadway in the next 50 years (and I won't be around for it), unless tastes become much more high-brow OR Roundabout decides to do a scaled down version for three months OR someone comes up with a 'John Doylish' approach to the material.  Since I believe that the two primary reasons for its success were Josh Groban's name and the elaborate, i.e., brilliant but very expensive, staging, I doubt that it would be a success.

I actually enjoyed a good chunk of Comet and was impressed with 1/2 to 2/3 of the complex score, but I don't think it will ever be a financial success.  I think I read somewhere that all three versions lost money, although some creative accounting pushed the losses from the first two runs into the budget for the Broadway version of the show.  

I'd say you are going to need to be happy with your memories of the show and the cast recording.

 

PS -- I am sure that it will show up some time in a Carnegie Hall event, a la Follies and South Pacific, or Encores, etc., but that's it.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 10:10am

With the announcement today of planned sit down productions in Tokyo, London and a US City (Chicago?) I can't help but imagine these productions, should they happen, go back to the much more manageable size of the Kazino staging. While I enjoyed the Broadway production, it was really an exercise of Hubris -- it became a massive, expensive, elephant - a star vehicle - outfitted to be in a huge Broadway theatre -- it was an almost flagrantly irresponsible production that really had very very little chance of ever recouping.  And while it was wonderful to see something that grand and outside of the box on Broadway, I can't say the show was better in any way than it was Off Broadway with a smaller cast and physical production.

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 10:21am

I'd love to see The Decemberists produce a production with them as the house band and several of the roles, with Colin Meloy as Pierre.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 10:36am

QueenAlice said: "With the announcement today of planned sit down productions in Tokyo, London and a US City (Chicago?) I can't help but imagine these productions, should they happen, go back to the much more manageable size of the Kazino staging. While I enjoyed the Broadway production, it was really an exercise of Hubris -- it became a massive, expensive, elephant - a star vehicle - outfitted to be in a huge Broadway theatre -- it was an almost flagrantly irresponsible production that really had very very little chance of ever recouping. And while it was wonderful to see something that grand and outside of the box on Broadway, I can't say the show was better in any way than it was Off Broadway with a smaller cast and physical production."

What announcement??

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 11:19am

Call_me_jorge said: "What announcement??"

There's literally an article on this site about it, but the source is:

http://variety.com/2018/legit/columns/great-comet-musical-whats-next-1202704598/

[Jimmyb1969]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 11:56am

Maybe the most dreadful 2.5 hours I’ve ever spent in the theatre.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 12:09pm

Jimmyb1969 said: "Maybe the most dreadful 2.5 hours I’ve ever spent in the theatre."

Thank you!  We were wondering. 

[Mike Bevel]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 1:18pm

blaxx said: "Jimmyb1969 said: "Maybe the most dreadful 2.5 hours I’ve ever spent in the theatre."

Thank you! We were wondering."

My sense of relief, now that I know, is immeasurable.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 1:21pm

The show, IMO, should have stayed Off-Broadway where playing in a smaller venue would have been more cost effective. Transforming the Imperial & hiring Groban was a huge expense. It was reported that the show would have needed to run for several years at full capacity to recoup. That's a daunting task by the producers.

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 2:32pm

ACL2006 said: "The show, IMO, should have stayed Off-Broadway where playing in a smaller venue would have been more cost effective."

Where it also closed as an open run...

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 3:15pm

QueenAlice said: "With the announcement today of planned sit down productions in Tokyo, London and a US City (Chicago?) I can't help but imagine these productions, should they happen, go back to the much more manageable size of the Kazino staging. While I enjoyed the Broadway production, it was really an exercise of Hubris -- it became a massive, expensive, elephant - a star vehicle - outfitted to be in a huge Broadway theatre -- it was an almost flagrantly irresponsible production that really had very very little chance of ever recouping. And while it was wonderful to see something that grand and outside of the box on Broadway, I can't say the show was better in any way than it was Off Broadway with a smaller cast and physical production."

I thought that you summarized the issue brilliantly.  When I think of Comet, I can't help thinking of the original Ragtime, the 1973 Candide, and the original Follies productions (although for me Comet does not approach any of those production's greatness, other than its production values).  Each of those shows was probably doomed to financial failure and shorter runs than they deserved before they ever opened, because no-one was apparently managing the fiscal aspects of shows that were probably never going to appeal to as broad an audience as a lot of popular shows.  All were acclaimed productions, all were too expensive to produce and operate (relative to realistic potential grosses).  As a result, they had shorter runs IMO than they deserved.  (I actually think Ragtime may have been a victim of poor timing, opening in the same season as The Lion King and the Roundabout production of Cabaret, but that is pure conjecture on my part).

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 3:34pm

Ragtime caught some of the same grandiosity flu that infected Comet, and of course was also subjected to garden variety fraud. I don't think Garth misapprehended what his show was or how to market it the way Kagan did. Which makes me dubious that his judgment will be any better on the road. I was reminiscing with some friends last week about Hedwig at the Jane Street and one of them said it's too bad Comet didn't settle into a place like that. (Clearly, it would still be running.)

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 3:47pm

Not to steal the topic, but I think Ragtime has had some of the worst luck ever.  The original production -- clearly the subject of mismanagement and fraud, per your comments, HogansHero -- was just so unnecessarily overblown.  While I loved it, the scale wasn't necessary; all it did was bloat the investment and bloat the weekly nut. 

I have always assumed that the revival failed for two key reasons...it was too soon and it opened so close to the financial meltdown...who was going to pay top dollar for a revival of a recent flop, with a non-star cast?  I have often wondered whether the revival -- had it been the original production -- would have faired better (smaller investment, smaller weekly nut).  Though not as lavish, it trusted the material and was an excellent production, if not as brilliantly cast as the original.  Clearly rhetorical; I just find it frustrating that two flops probably doom it from being produced on Broadway in my lifetime (I am 67).  (Good news: The Asolo Rep in Sarasota (where Bonnie and Clyde got started) did an incredible Evita in the fall and has a new production of Ragtime opening in April...at least I will get to see it again).

Despite its failures, however, I still think that Ragtime would have appealed to a broader audience than Comet...it has a real story, a lot of emotion, and a great score that is easier to appreciate than Comet.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 3:57pm

For some reason, RAGTIME has just never really hit home with audiences. I don't know why exactly, since it has a great score, a great story, heart, etc. But no production of it (even some done on a much smaller scale in places like London) has ever made money. Audiences on a collective scale just seem resistant to it.

[Kitsune]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 4:23pm

Jarethan said: "QueenAlice said: "With the announcement today of planned sit down productions in Tokyo, London and a US City (Chicago?) I can't help but imagine these productions, should they happen, go back to the much more manageable size of the Kazino staging. While I enjoyed the Broadway production, it was really an exercise of Hubris -- it became a massive, expensive, elephant - a star vehicle - outfitted to be in a huge Broadway theatre -- it was an almost flagrantly irresponsible production that really had very very little chance of ever recouping. And while it was wonderful to see something that grand and outside of the box on Broadway, I can't say the show was better in any way than it was Off Broadway with a smaller cast and physical production."

I thought that you summarized the issue brilliantly. When I think of Comet, I can't help thinking of the original Ragtime, the 1973 Candide, and the original Follies productions (although for me Comet does not approach any of those production's greatness, other than its production values). Each of those shows was probably doomed to financial failure and shorter runs than they deserved before they ever opened, because no-one was apparently managing the fiscal aspects of shows that were probably never going to appeal to as broad an audience as a lot of popular shows. All were acclaimed productions, all were too expensive to produce and operate(relative to realistic potential grosses). As a result, they had shorter runs IMO than they deserved. (I actually think Ragtime may have been a victim of poor timing, opening in the same season as The Lion King and the Roundabout production of Cabaret, but that is pure conjecture on my part).

"

I love Ragtime. I've seen two productions: The non-equity tour in the 90s, and recently a local production in Berkeley. Needless to say the scale for both was relatively small. I was flabbergasted when I found out the original production used live fireworks!  

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 5:42pm

QueenAlice said: "For some reason, RAGTIME has just never really hit home with audiences. I don't know why exactly, since it has a great score, a great story, heart, etc. But no production of it (even some done on a much smaller scale in places like London) has ever made money. Audiences on a collective scale just seem resistant to it."

That's not really correct. The original production ran for over 2 years at 90% of capacity in a huge venue, and at over 80% of its gross potential. Audiences came; the problem was mismanagement (and fraud).

And to keep this thread on-topic, that's exactly what happened with Comet.

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 5:54pm

Jarethan said: "I read somewhere that all three versions lost money, although some creative accounting pushed the losses from the first two runs into the budget for the Broadway version of the show."

While true, I don't think that is necessarily creative or rare. But it does beg the question why people say it should have just stayed off-Broadway, when it also lost money and closed there. Unless it closed for reasons other than ticket sales?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 6:20pm

haterobics said: "But it does beg the question why people say it should have just stayed off-Broadway, when it also lost money and closed there. Unless it closed for reasons other than ticket sales?"

Ignoring the fact that you are using the expressing "beg the question" incorrectly (look it up, it's a common mistake and you are not common ), I think the reason it did not succeed off-B relates to a failure to realize what the show is/was, build it properly and market it effectively: the same problem that killed it on Broadway. Moving it to the theatre district was a mind-boggling decision. 

What was done with Comet (and Ragtime) is not unique to the theatre. Putting shiny gold things all over real estate doesn't make it "fancy" or "luxury" either. :-O

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 8:56pm

Hogan, I might be incorrect, but weren't there stories about Livent essentially buying out percentages of their unsold tickets to make it seem better their productions were selling better than they actually were?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 9:36pm

I don't recall that, but if true, the scale would not really be possible as a major effect of the grosses. In other words, the show grossed roughly $80mil. How much of that could Livent have "bought"? Usually when there are rumors that a producer has goosed the box office, it's early in the run, to create the appearance of an in-demand show. But Ragtime ran over 2 years. What would be the purpose of investing -what?- $100k in tickets at that point. At some point, it's about making money, not spending it. Now I realize we are talking about a fraudster, but still, what scale of purchases wold be possible over the long haul? 

My personal sense, having seen the show a few times, is that it was well attended by paying audiences. As I said, I think the problem was unrealistically grand budgets.

[haterobics]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 10:21pm

HogansHero said: "Ignoring the fact that you are using the expressing "beg the question" incorrectly (look it up, it's a common mistake and you are not common )"

Wow, it even has its own website!

https://begthequestion.info

Thanks!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 2/20/18 at 11:10pm

QueenAlice said: " Hogan, I might be incorrect, but weren't there stories about Livent essentially buying out percentages of their unsold tickets to make it seem better their productions were selling better than they actually were?"

The story that I read was that Ragtime’s money (and it was very profitable on its own) was being used to pay the bills for the endless tours of Showboat Garth sent out (which were not at all profitable).

[Mike Bevel]

Posted: 2/21/18 at 4:31pm

HogansHero said: "And to keep this thread on-topic, that's exactly what happened with Comet."

I found an old Playbill article about the Ragtime/Showboat Canadian tuxedo of it all re: Garth Drabinsky and that was a wild ride to read.

I've followed a lot of what you've had to say about the financial mismanagement stuff w/r/t Great Comet -- but are you also suggesting fraud there, too?

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 2/21/18 at 4:39pm

I don't believe there was any fraud involved with COMET, just flamboyant producing that never could have realistically re-couped. But producers are rarely spending their own money on the production, so if they can find investors who read the operating agreement and budgets (which in this case clearly outlined a tough scenario for recoupment) and still want to invest - who can blame them?