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

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.

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

Thank you! We were wondering.

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).

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.

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!

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 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!

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?