Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy — Page 7

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#151

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 2:08pm

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.

I always thought the very same. And it would have been a very smart move to leverage the reputation of the venue on the heels of the successful Lady Day and Fun Home runs. I suspected it was a critical mistake as soon as they announced the venue and renovations to the theatre to accommodate the show. It seemed obvious the show (as well as the cast) would have to work twice as hard to repackage an already successful product. The Broadway production was sort of like the "New Coke" for Great Comet. I hope the show can eventually return to its roots and have a successful afterlife.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

#152

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 9:49pm

JayElle said: "Yes, Jamie Foxx would've been great.

Jamie Foxx would have been fabulous!

"Anything you do, let it it come from you--then it will be new." Sunday in the Park with George

Updated On: 8/31/17 at 09:49 PM

#153

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 10:53pm

JayElle said: "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

"He may think he's a Star but Oak is not a 'star' from Hamilton or will ever be a "star" in my eyes...After he was fired and the race fiasco that he created when it wasn't about race along with his I'm a nobody buddy the contentious Casal and their angry, obnoxious friend the talented "Erivo". Sad that it had to close and it shouldn't be as it would have been so exciting to see Mandy Starring but happy it's all over now this Sunday but sad for the cast because they didn't deserve the outcome that was created causing the show to close! We will never know what would have happened after Mandy ignited the box office...

"Anything you do, let it it come from you--then it will be new." Sunday in the Park with George

Updated On: 8/31/17 at 10:53 PM

#154

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 11:25pm

Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af.

#155

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 11:30pm

^aren't Christine and the phantom usually a wide age range apart?

My father (AIDS) My sister (AIDS) My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS, AIDS, AIDS) The gays and the straights And the white and the spades

Updated On: 8/31/17 at 11:30 PM

#156

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 11:37pm

I thought it was a little creepy there too...

#157

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 11:41pm

Hellob said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af."

Except, I wouldn't really say that Pierre pines for Natasha in the context of the show. They have a very sweet exchange at the end of Act Two and part ways. In the larger context of War and Peace I could see the problem, but within the world of Great Comet it wouldn't have bothered me to see Mandy Patinkin opposite Denee Benton.

Updated On: 8/31/17 at 11:41 PM

#158

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 8/31/17 at 11:44pm

I agree with what Hogan and Mr. Matt both say, but I think what everyone forgets is how small Circle in the Square is, leading to a much smaller potential weekly profit. I know multiple productions coming in this year that looked at Circle, but decided not to book the theatre once they realized how small their profit margin would be. As Broadway shows get more and more expensive, Circle looks a much less enticing proposition even with a star.

Heck, The River made "just" over 900K in it's top week with one of the biggest box office draws ever.

Updated On: 8/31/17 at 11:44 PM

#159

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 12:07am

Call_me_jorge said: "^aren't Christine and the phantom usuallya wideage range apart?"

I never saw it but I was always under the impression that he was late 30s-45ish.

Idk, he could be her grandpa and her opening song description is young so it's extra weird, imo.

#160

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 12:16am

The profit margin can be high; the number of seats is obviously limited. This is what is known as the Book of Mormon phenomenon: book a smaller theatre, create a high demand, and adjust ticket prices accordingly. And this is in contrast to what the Kagans have now done twice: booked a large theatre they can't fill, and sell tickets at relatively low prices.

I have no way of knowing if this would have succeeded, but I know that what they did in the Imperial could not. Had they scaled the show to Circle, at a reasonable capitalization, they might have been able to successfully sell folks on a super cool intimate evening that they would pay premium for. The same $900k would have actually been enough to pay the bills and recoup in a reasonable time. And if they failed, they certainly would not have lost $12mil.

#161

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 12:19am

Hellob said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af."

I can see the creepiness, but he seemed really full of energy in that morning show interview and they really don't interact in any way that could be interpreted as romantic until the end. I don't really see him as a doddering old Bolkonsky type, or even a grandfatherly type, which helps.

Plus, it's Mandy Patinkin. To think he actually rehearsed the show. We could have seen him sing Dust & Ashes, Pierre, The Great Comet of 1812, etc. I would love it if there were any sort of rehearsal video/audio.

#162

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 12:25am

Hellob said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af."

If I were not myself
But the brightest, handsomest
Best man on earth
And if I were free…
I would get down on my knees this minute
And ask you for your hand
And for your love

Is this pining? Seems more like thinking aloud about if their realities were not what they are...

#163

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 12:27am

haterobics said: "Hellob said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af."

If I were not myself
But the brightest, handsomest
Best man on earth
And if I were free…
I would get down on my knees this minute
And ask you for your hand
And for your love

Is this pining? Seems more like thinking aloud about if their realities were not what they are...

"

Yeah, pining is the wrong word but you know what I mean. Just kinda icky to me.

#164

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 1:05am

HogansHero said: "The profit margin can be high; the number of seats is obviously limited. This is what is known as the Book of Mormon phenomenon: book a smaller theatre, create a high demand, and adjust ticket prices accordingly. And this is in contrast to what the Kagans have now done twice: booked a large theatre they can't fill, and sell tickets at relatively low prices.

I have no way of knowing if this would have succeeded, but I know that what they did in the Imperial could not. Had they scaled the show to Circle, at a reasonable capitalization, they might have been able to successfully sell folks on a super coolintimate evening that they would pay premium for. The same $900k would have actually been enough to pay the bills and recoup in a reasonable time. And if they failed, they certainly would not have lost $12mil."

I see what you're saying, but at the same time, I have a lot of friends who disliked the Kazino production, but loved the Imperial one. Why? Because of the size of the spectacle. Like you said, it's really just Monday Morning Quarterbacking at this point, but I don't think there was ever really a winning situation with Comet. It's too ahead of its time. It's hardly the first time producers have taken a large gamble on a show becoming a hit. All I can say is that I'm grateful to have frequented the Imperial version, which in my opinion is the apex of what Comet could be.

#165

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 1:11am

He's an aging, loveless, trapped alcoholic failure...too scared to accomplish anything b/c he has no self confidence...trapped in his marriage and life. Dust/Ashes lyrics say that he could've been something but didn't have the nerve, blaming everything outside of him.

She is an unreachable fantasy of his past life and of how happy he could've been if he had a relationship with someone like Natasha.

He's simply trying to tell her that she's better than the best, single man out there. Looks more to me like a grandpa, uncle, neighbor trying to shore up a fragile girl whose beauty he's always admired.

B/c an older man admires or has love for a younger woman, doesn't mean he's a sexual predator or horny old man. Seems the village looked to him for everything, including money. Strikes me as a platonic relationship and a wish that he could've been as lucky as Andre. Once she shows him the kindness he can't get from Helene, he finds that "love" he sought in Dust/Ashes.

(Hell, the AA club is next door on 46th. I wonder if any of their members ever heard Dust/Ashes and "is this how I die, sick with booze." Wasting every minute with every drink. Just a thought.)

#166

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 1:21am

@PaulWom yes MMQ and also a matter of taste. I loved it downtown. Less so on Broadway.

It's not the first time producers have taken a gamble and not the first time they have taken a stupid gamble. I would say that this was the mother of all stupid gambles except it actually was less stupid than the one the same producers took with On the Town (or its predecessor, Spider-Man. which truly is the mother).

And yes, we can follow the path in which our own self-interest makes us (freakishly) grateful for stupid producers. It's actually something I said about On the Town when it was first announced: that I was glad I'd be able to see it more than once because it too was designed to fail and would surely be severely discounted in that barn. And it was. And Josh Groban came to Broadway and his tickets were (relatively) affordable. To everyone except the investors.

#167

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 1:30am

HogansHero, 1) like I said, I'm friends w a lot of people who frequent Broadway shows (we're mostly older than the typical downtown crowd), and they really disliked the claustrophobia of Kazino. In my personal opinion, I don't think it would have sold on Bway. I mean, let's be honest- the thing that drove away repeat ticket buyers was not the spectacle, it was everything else (and I'm not saying that I hate everything besides the spectacle- IMO, it was ahead of its time).

2) I'm genuinely curious- why are you so angry? Are you an investor in the show? This level of anger and resentment seems odd from an observer.

Updated On: 9/1/17 at 01:30 AM

#168

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 1:32am

@Hogan not really, and comparing something like Comet at Circle in the Square to BOM at the O'Neill is apples and oranges.

Let's say Comet went to Circle. The show would have been capitalized around 6 million give or take due to the large nature of the show including theater renovations, physical production, bonds, and a healthy reserve due to it's risky nature (I budget Broadway shows with GA's as my job). The large cast/chorus would've made the weekly running costs minimum 650K, what Fun Home made on a good week further in its run. Fun Home was capitalized under 4 million. Without a star, the show would have an extremely hard time recouping with those numbers.

Let's say the Kagan's decided to get a star (Josh Groban). He would be earning a large salary plus 5-10% of the weekly box office. Running costs and profits still would've been a small margin, the higher the box office the higher the weekly running costs get. With Josh and a full house the running costs would've been under 740K. Fun Home made a tiny profit at Circle.

Producers budget musicals with ability to make real profit per week, not 100K per week. That's how you recoup. It would have taken FOREVER for Comet show to recoup.

Mormon's weekly running cost is about that, around 700K. Comparing a theatre with 750 seats to one with 1,100 seats makes a huge difference to profit margin. There is little room to make money on that.

Add on Kagan's extra 6 million dollars of developmental money for this show it wouldn't have stood a chance at Circle.

#169

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 2:19am

@Paul, you may be right about it not selling on Broadway. All I am saying is that one could put together a plan for Circle in which a reasonable person could see a path to recoupment, something that was not possible at the Imperial. I am not angry and not sure where you are seeing anger. I am just not a fan of stupidity. (And obviously not an investor since (like just about every producer and significant investor I know) I called this as a lousy deal when it was first announced so would not have touched it with a 10 foot pole.

@lesmiz1862, some of what you say is off, but no matter. Your starting point is not the same as mine. I am talking about scaling the show for Circle, not comparing it to Mormon except in strategy. And as I said, that strategy is that you will sell very expensive tickets to an intimate production. (Also not that it matters but IIRC the developmental dump was about $4mil, not 6.) To illustrate, what I am saying is that you could market the show to create a demand for your 750 seats instead of defeating premium pricing by having a boatload of seats unsold and lowering demand such that the overall pricing map sucks. Overlay the Dolly/Hamilton price map over only 750 seats and you recoup in a year. (Now again to reiterate, I am NOT saying this would happen but simply that it is a plausible strategy that COULD succeed, as opposed to what was done which could NOT.) I am talking about a smart producer creating an event, something these producers thought they were doing but could not achieve in financial profile.

#170

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 3:45am

I started the Monday Morning Quarterbacking discussion, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

I just know my own experience of being able to score three discounted Front Mezzanine tickets a week before seeing the show in April (during spring break). And I could have waited longer and paid less.

That was great for me, as an out-of-towner planning a trip at the last minute. And I certainly was blown away by the look of the Imperial, and the musical itself. But my ticket buying ease obviously wasn't good for the show. What's good for the investors in a Broadway show is when it's a mad scramble to get tickets, when demand outstrips supply, when the complaints are about scalpers and premium prices and availability.

HogansHero's plan sounds more realistic in terms of creating that demand. I still don't know that it would have worked, because the show's appeal probably was more limited, and as things turned out, it never captured the zeitgeist the way Dear Evan Hansen and Come From Away did.

#171

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 7:49am

Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af.

Plus, in War and Piece Pierre is in his 20s. I know that the show generally seems to portray him as older, but I'm not a fan of that, either.

Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!

Updated On: 9/1/17 at 07:49 AM

#172

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 9:17am

Hellob said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af."

I'm sure you're not the only one, but I'm not in that camp. If we're talking about two (or more) willing adults in a relationship, I'm fine with it. Celebrate the love and get over it. :)

I know Sondheim has had one or two significant others who were much younger. I myself can easily believe that I might, in my old age, date someone who hasn't even been born yet.

#173

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 9:18am

SporkGoddess said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af.

Plus, in War and Piece Pierre is in his 20s. I know that the show generally seems to portrayhim as older, but I'm not a fan of that, either."

There's no pining. I walked out of the theater with way too many people who apparently didn't pay attention to the show.

He isn't coming on to her or even expressing any romantic feelings toward her. They do end up together, but it's years later. He had always carried affection for her, and when he heard what happened envisioned her as another Helene, but upon seeing her, he changed his mind.

His speech at the end is just him, cheering her up, to use a crude phrase.

#174

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 9:36am

schubox said: "SporkGoddess said: "Am I the only one who didn't want to see a 64 year old man pining for a 24 year old girl? Creepy af.

Plus, in War and Piece Pierre is in his 20s. I know that the show generally seems to portrayhim as older, but I'm not a fan of that, either."

There's no pining. I walked out of the theater with way too many people who apparently didn't pay attention to the show.

He isn't coming on to her or even expressing any romantic feelings toward her. They do end up together, but it's years later. He had always carried affection for her, and when he heard what happened envisioned her as another Helene, but upon seeing her, he changed his mind.

His speech at the end is just him, cheering her up, to use a crude phrase."

He says if he weren't married, he would get down on his knees and ask for her hand. And then he goes outside and sees the Great Comet of 1812 and envisions a new beginning for himself. I think the audience is to infer that this is the start of something between Pierre and Natasha.

#175

Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy

Posted: 9/1/17 at 9:37am

Well, in the novel they get married in 1813, so it's not exactly years later. I don't think he's pining for her but I definitely think he has feelings for her.

Like I said, I'm kind of the wrong person to argue with because I don't like casting Pierre as someone older in general, and not just because of the Natasha thing.

Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95