OLD DOGS, FEW TIX - nypost.com

[macbeth]

Posted: 2/4/04 at 7:11am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/l.cfm?id=20428

Revivals vs. a lack of new shows is a problem that I certainly see on Broadway, and I think that Riedel hit the nail on the head this week. What does everyone else think?

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 2/4/04 at 8:03am

Well, Reidel does make some good points.
But I find it telling that he ignores both AVENUE Q and TABOO (the POST isn't about to give Rosie credit for anything) in favor of the far less adventuresome MOVIN' OUT, which is basically a moderne dance ballet tied to a tiresome story and a bunch of Billy Joel hits, which at its heart is little more than NEVER GONNA DANCE for '70s boomers.

Updated On: 2/4/04 at 08:03 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/4/04 at 8:07am

Broadway is following the same path as NYC apartments. Only the wealthy can afford them.

Riedel says that song catalogue shows such as Billy Joel's point the way. But it's really unfair to make that connection since there are very few new (non-revival) shows to compare it to. I do agree that the current state of the theater is not kind to novice producers.

Broadway goes where the money is. They are soaking the baby boomers because they have the money. They have ignored Generation X and are training the boomer children to attend theater by offering the Disney shows.

Updated On: 2/4/04 at 08:07 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/4/04 at 2:42pm

As usual, his column is extremely one-sided and egotistical. For example, he lists Never Gonna Dance as a revival simply because it was based on a musical film. Considering no stage version of the film was ever mounted before, it is less of a revival than Crazy For You (also not considered a revival, yet based on the stage production of Girl Crazy) was in 1992. If Chicago and Cabaret are not included (though they are revivals) because they differ from the original productions, then the same could be said of Wonderful Town, Fiddler on the Roof and Gypsy, yet they are included in the article.

He never mentions his personal criteria for acceptable revivals or what he considers A, B, or C list shows (where is this mysterious grading list?). I love the way he asks if Broadway will break out of the geriatric ward, yet fails to mention shows like Rent, Avenue Q and Aida that have all attracted the teen to thirty-something audiences. Not to mention the recently closed Urinetown and the upcoming Jerry Springer The Opera.

He then goes on to make a very stereotypical comment about gays and calls them "show queens". How is this guy allowed to keep his job? The only show he praises is Movin Out (which is not a musical) and then suggests that Broadway wouldn't be so "shoddy" if it had more pop-star catalogue shows. And of course, he never mentions The Producers and Hairspray - two of the top three selling shows on Broadway. Both with original scores that have been attracting old and young audiences alike.

Does anyone take this guy seriously?

[TheaterBaby]

Posted: 2/4/04 at 2:56pm

"Does anyone take this guy seriously?"

UMMM, well I know I don't. lol I don't even read his articles...I refuse to. The only time I even know that he says something is when people on message boards talk about it. He writes garbage articles for a freakin' tabloid, and I for one refuse to give them any business by buying their paper/tabloid, or even by discussing him (with the exception of rigt now).

He called gay men who attend Broadway shows "Show Queens?" Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

Updated On: 2/4/04 at 02:56 PM