Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy- Page 6

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:02pm

'Listening to a producer isn't being a humble obedient servant, it's called doing your job.'

Listening to a producer who fundamentally changed the agreement of employment that works out terribly for you?  Nope.  I've been replaced in projects that have moved on to bigger and better things and it always f*cking sucks.  I've also replaced people in stuff and, thought I'm thrilled to have a job, I know in the back of my mind that someone else is hurt by it.  Their ego, yes.  But also their career in some way.  But that's the business.  We all sign up for that when we sign up for this path.  I could tell you some sh*t about a show that went on to win a couple of Tonys that was really awful and damaging...but I don't.  So there is a very, very small part of me that looks solely at his refusal to do go along with his removal from the role as a positive thing and think 'Good job.'  

Again...the Twitter f*ckery was just that.  Insane.  I won't defend that at all.  But I certainly don't think he needed to make nice with anybody once it was clear what was being done to him by the producers.  

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:04pm

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.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:10pm

Call_me_jorge said: "I really hope we get a statement from the cast on this. I know we have this expose, but it's really not enough. I just want read their complete thoughts."

What's the phrase? Oh my sweet summer child?

[schubox]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:36pm

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 

[raddersons]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:37pm

SonofRobbieJ said: "Listening to a producer who fundamentally changed the agreement of employment that works out terribly for you? Nope. I've been replaced in projects that have moved on to bigger and better things and it always f*cking sucks."

What would have worked out terribly for him? He would have gotten two weeks paid vacation? That sounds just awful. Oak's end date on his contract was already set, and due to his own attitude he wasn't going to get renewed anyway. With Mandy coming in, he was still getting paid for the whole contract period. I find it very naive of Oak to think he can act high and mighty when he didn't do the work.

Updated On: 8/30/17 at 03:37 PM

[PaulWom]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 3:45pm

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]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:01pm

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???  Come on.  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.  This is set firmly on his shoulders.  Some of his choices after the fact are not choices I would have made. But actors are consistently looking to move their career forward.  They have to.  So moving from a supporting player in a major show to a lead in another major show was a big move for him.  Alas, the production had no contingency for generating ticket revenue, save replacing him with Patinkin (whom I would have loved to have seen).  Alas, Michaelson couldn't stay with the show. And they couldn't get a Vanessa Hudgens to play Helene or what have you.  So, the burden of selling tickets was placed on the shoulder of this one actor, and when he couldn't deliver because there is no track record of him doing so, they made a clutch decision to fire him and replace him with a name.  That decision hurt him and it hurt the production...and was entirely avoidable with good producing.  

[SeanD2]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:15pm

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]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:25pm

'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.'

Absolutely true.  But if I'm fired from my day job (PLEASE SOMEONE FIRE ME FROM MY DAY JOB), I'm out a salary and benefits, but my reputation wouldn't necessarily take a hit because it wouldn't be a particularly public ordeal.  This was.  No matter how this played out, he was shown to be unable to sell a show.  That affects him professionally.  The further incidents will affect him even more, but that's on him.  His firing was very, very public and very, very detrimental to his career, even if he had 'played nice.' 

[raddersons]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:27pm

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?

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:33pm

They should have nailed down a return for him after Labor Day, especially if someone else was being trained to do the role.  The idea that 'Maybe we can convince Mandy to stay on,' is magical thinking at best.  Bonkers, batsh*t delusional is really what it is. 

I think they should have just gotten Jamie Foxx to begin with.  

[raddersons]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:43pm

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

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 4:51pm

Solely to avoid this PR mess.  Even if the racial optics weren't all that obvious (though I believe they were), it was still going to call attention to the fact that the show was not selling well.  

And I do not disagree one bit that his casting was not...advantageous to all involved.  

[Blactor]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 9:15pm

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]

Posted: 8/30/17 at 11:35pm

Anybody think Oak knew about Patinkin?

[schubox]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 12:03am

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

Knew what about him?

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 12:43am

Yes, Jamie Foxx would've been great.  The NY Times article said that Oak didn't know about Mandy until the director told him.

They all screwed up. Childish personalities.  The article said the director Rachel (?) knew Oak from a San Diego gig. So I would presume she brought him on board based on that west coast production.  Many articles said he wouldn't rehearse as expected or learn instruments so they had to reassign that portion to cast members.  Producer "pimped" Oak's experience as Hamilton "star," (which he wasn't),  leading Oak to write in Playbill that he was more than Ham.

None of them had any PR sense.  I oftentimes said that the show needed some editing b/c ALOT of folks complained they couldn't follow the story or understand the lyrics over the music.  FOCUS GROUPS, producers.

I've seen the show more times than Ham and not b/c of ticket availability.  I loved feeling like I could engage with the cast on the stage and in orchestra. (I can't do stairs to the mezz.)

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

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.  If I sat next to him, I would've hit him in the head.

I was appalled that the NYTimes story said they tried to negotiate a resolve with Oak and Cynthia.  DuHHHHH, she wasn't part of the show so how did she become important in the resolve.

I've said before, Oak had the opportunity to be a loser or a hero. Yes, they may have treated him terribly with little notice or displeasure with his performance. But, he could've stood tall, said the show needed help, and in the interest of the cast and keeping all employed, he would leave.  

Instead, he chose to just leave.  None of us knew what happened in real life. But in reality, too many folks are   going to be unemployed b/c the powers that be and the key players (sans Cynthia) couldn't act like adults and work on the greater good on behalf of the cast, fans, and patrons.  If the tourists didn't like the show, well damnit, fix it. That's what TV does.

I've spent alot of $ on tickets to support the cast. I will think twice in the future.  And to hell with CE.

Have a nice day

 

[Soaring29]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 1:02am

If Oa knew about Patinkin pre this whole mess.  

[haterobics]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 2:14am

JayElle said: "None of them had any PR sense. I oftentimes said that the show needed some editing b/c ALOT of folks complained they couldn't follow the story or understand the lyrics over the music. FOCUS GROUPS, producers."

What do you think PR does exactly?!

[bear88]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 2:26am

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.

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 2:35am

bear88 said: "Should they have tried it without a star, and let in sink or swim on its own merits?"

I don't think Broadway was a possibility without Groban. Lucas said as much at Josh's final curtain call.

Also, what works for Hamilton... is pretty much not something people can just do if they want to as well.

[bear88]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 3:27am

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.

[haterobics]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 3:37am

bear88 said: "But I wonder if there was anything the producerscould have done differently, aside from hoping their offbeat show hits paydirt and brings in enough revenue for years to recoup."

I'm sure we can come up with a lot of things, but not sure what that gets us... the show still closes on Sunday? I'm sure people who watch sports (for whatever reason) can do that for every lost game, too.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 6:56am

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

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/31/17 at 8:35am

@bear88 I don't know. I had once suggested Circle, where there are reasons that may or may not have worked. What I do know is (a) it could not work on the scale of what was done and (b) it worked at Ars Nova which, for those who have never been there, is about the size of the lobby of the Imperial. I think it might have had a chance at Circle to become the hottest ticket in town, and in a venue that could have been made suitable without a lot of engineering. But that is monday morning quarterbacking at this point.