Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy — Page 6

Although I can see that argument and you are right. That doesn't mean I'm not wishing for at least a joint message from the entire cast. If they did something like that I really can't see them facing any backlash, but maybe I'm wrong.

Oak didn't owe them anything, but had he played nice he'd be in a much better position. Maybe Kagan remembers him the next time he produces something. Maybe it gets around that he's a team player and a professional. The worst case scenario of him going along with the replacement is he gets a paid vacation.

We've all seen the worst case scenario of not playing ball. He could have seriously jeopardized his Broadway future

In other news, I can't wait for what happens next- Oak begs to go back into Hamilton, and he doesn't get in. Rafael starts #MakeRoomForOakVol2 , Cynthia starts tweeting about her concern for the Hamilton cast. Oak says, "There is a larger discussion to be had here than why I wasn't allowed back into Hamilton, but I'm not going to stop people from saying it was about race when it wasn't."

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 03:45 PM

SonofRobbieJ said: "He was effectively fired. They had to pay him the remainder of his contract...or be sued. I sure as sh*t wouldn't be looking at that time as a f*cking vacation. Seriously??? "

Yes, he was effectively fired, but he was not out any income. Actors are employees of the producers, and provided they live up to the terms of contracts, producers can fire whomever they wish.



And to those who are upset about all the jobs that are being lost because of this closing, think about all the jobs that will be created by the next show to play the Imperial. And perhaps it's one that will be produced efficiently so it can turn a profit AND provide paychecks.

SonofRobbieJ said: "His failure in the role (in terms of selling tickets, not artistically) was entirely foreseeable. And that's what they set him up for...failure."

Here I totally agree with you. I mean, they had Mandy as a contingency plan and were rehearsing him behind Oak's back, probably from the first week that Oak was in the show. I understand the frustration. Had the producers been upfront with Oak that the show needed tickets, I wonder if his reaction would have been different. On the flip side, how honest is a producer going to be with someone who didn't do the work, and made them look bad in the first place for delaying his start?

Why would they want to? He's hard to work with and he doesn't sell tickets. The only reason I could think of is that Mandy would come back. But then they'd have been back in the same muck they were in when Oak was in it in the first place.

Oak was a mistake from the start.

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 04:43 PM

GavestonePS said:

And if one is a person of color who faces daily disrespect from shop clerks, bus drivers and police officers, perhaps it isn't so easy to recognize that THIS ONE TIME it isn't about skin color.


Actually, I'm getting REALLY sick and tired of random POCs speaking on behalf of all other POCs. Even the usage of "POC" is offensive, reducing entire demographics and subcultures composed of countless unique individuals to a vaguely racist acronym--honestly, how is "People of Color" that far removed from "Colored People"?

I find it curious that often the very people that complain the loudest about being stereotyped have no qualms about making broad assertions about the collective mental and emotional experience of ALL non-white people. Additionally any deviation from what "we" are "supposed" to think, when it isn't met with shockingly racist vitriol (such as Blacks referring to Black heretics as 'Uncle Toms' ), is met with dismissive condescension; if you're looking for an example, just scour one of the older threads about this debacle and observe one Asian poster being accused by another Asian poster of being "unaware" of "the issues concerning race", simply because the former dared suggest that not all minorities see themselves as victims.

Unfortunately, however, many minorities do see themselves as victims in this industry ('we've' been indoctrinated to believe this since 'we' were children, despite ample current evidence to the contrary). No matter how many Broadway credits and awards 'we' rack up, no matter how many critical plaudits and fans 'we' attract. No matter how many concessions (at times bordering on tokenism) are made to 'us', it isn't enough.

'We' are still members of the Victim Class, "outsiders" just don't understand 'Our' Struggle*, and as such 'we' are completely above criticism and, most crucially, shielded from accountability for abusing this unique status and ruthlessly exploiting white guilt.

To anyone confused or amazed by what appears to be haughty arrogance or callousness on the part of some of the, ahem, People of Color in this scenario, there is your answer: all our lives, we have gotten away with manipulating others with the victim card, and we've had our words taken as gospel truth any time we complain about racism. Few dare challenge the allegation, justifiably fearing intense backlash.

And now, here we are, at the Great Comet Debacle.

A cool show that's employed a bunch of my really talented and beautiful colleagues and friends over the years has been needlessly shuttered. People with no understanding of business and economics but plenty understanding of the power of the Victim Card have put a bunch of "POCs" out of work, NEEDLESSLY.

I'm sure I've offended at least some people here. I'm sure Ms. Erivo's sycophants or the good people over at "BroadwayBlack" would label me an "Uncle Tom" or a "c00n" for posting this. But this needed to be said, I'm tired of people's sh!tty racial politics, I'm tired of it infecting my industry, I'm tired of it infecting the careers of my colleagues, I'm tired of it infecting my interpersonal relationships with white people, and I'm tired of white people feeling sorry for me.

The world isn't perfect, society isn't perfect. But the fact is, and I can speak to this personally, there has NEVER been a better time to be a Black performer in this industry. Is there still some BS? No doubt about it. And yet, that hasn't stopped me and many of my colleagues from building enviable careers and in many cases achieving great success and fulfilment.

I imagine it's the same kind of success and fulfillment that the cast of The Great Comet was feeling, until their show was needlessly destroyed by wannabe activists.

*I'm sure Ms. Erivo, a Tony-winner and star at an age when most are slumming it in college or joining the workforce, is struggling mightily right now in Hawaii, to be sure.

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 09:15 PM

Soaring29 said: "Anybody think Oak knew about Patinkin?"

Knew what about him?

If Oa knew about Patinkin pre this whole mess.

HogansHero said: "@bdn223 "It is somewhat hypocritical on here for everyone to argue that its Kagan's plan of relying on the Best Musical Tony to make the production financially viable. " There is of course some hypocrisy in what's been posted, but let's zero in on what constitutes good and bad producing for a minute. Producing 101 says that you don't budget on the assumption that you are going to be a blockbuster hit. And yet when you drill through the numbers for Comet, it's obvious that that is what they did, because there was no other way to ever recoup in a timely manner. Inside or outside the theatre, it is basic management that you don't get ahead of your own numbers because of your own enthusiasm."

HogansHero, you've made this point, and I've agreed with you, but that conclusion is awfully depressing. My question is whether you think there was any way for a Broadway version of Great Comet to succeed? Was it always a fool's errand that should have been dropped by Kagan long ago?

It was a high-risk show, with a high budget. Could a scaled-down version have worked on Broadway? My guess is no. Should they have tried it without a star, and let in sink or swim on its own merits? It worked for Hamilton, but Great Comet seemed a little too offbeat to work without a star to bring in mainstream audiences unwilling to sample it otherwise. It seems like they were hoping for magic, but the musical never really became more than an unusually popular cult show that was too costly to survive once the star left.

I think you're right about trying it on Broadway without a star, and said so myself. But I wonder if there was anything the producers could have done differently, aside from hoping their offbeat show hits paydirt and brings in enough revenue for years to recoup.

Without a star, it doesn't open. With a star, there's a constant Broadway audience expectation for another star. But those stars have to be able to play the roles, and bring in a large enough audience to make money in a big-budget show.

JayElle wrote: "The NYTimes article said "tourists like" shows with stars, shows based on movies, and something they know. In other words, they are culturally deficient and need simple presentations."

In your words, not in other words. It reflects poorly on you to be be so condescending and insulting to "tourists," and to lump them all together as if they are one entity. Frankly, I'd say it's your comment that appears culturally deficient.

" If they wanted brain taxing presentations, they'd to go the Met."

The show wasn't "brain taxing": it was simply taxing.

"I've been to many shows watching patrons bored, head in hands, left at intermission, fidgeting, kids disgusted, and even a guy READING A BOOK. "

Blame the show for that. It didn't do its job of holding an audience's interest.

Updated On: 8/31/17 at 06:56 AM