Peters/Stritch ALNM ad? — Page 2

Since when is Bernadette Peters not a name? She opened revivals of ANNIE GET YOUR GUN and GYPSY. Not to mention starred in among other things, SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE, SONG & DANCE.

Did her name recognition dwindle down to zero since 2003 when she last headlined a show?

Well, you see that makes more sense now. Much more than the "name" or "Oscar" excuses.

Updated On: 6/23/10 at 08:04 PM

I don't think it's shameful. It's just, I guess odd seeing Bernadette who is theater royalty stepping in to an already existing production as a replacement cast member.

I guess I'm in the minority who actually loved her take on "Mama Rose". But that's another read.

Updated On: 6/23/10 at 08:08 PM

The "name" reason makes perfect sense.

Bernadette is not a household name. She may have been brilliant in GYPSY (that's not even the point), but she sure as hell didn't sell tickets, and the production definitely closed at a complete loss.

Broadway royalty has very little to do with actually selling tickets. The producers were smart (it's the obvious choice) to start the production with a star...get some money in their pockets, get word of mouth circulating, get the production closer to recouping before they put someone in that will not have the same impact at the box office.

It's common sense.

---

Then, my apologies! To you AND Bernadette!

It's not the producers' fault. Mounting a Broadway show is absurdly expensive, and most shows never recoup their money.

It's not them being greedy, it's them being smart. Bernadette Peters never would have raked in nearly $1 million a week. It is all about money, but it's VERY difficult for a show to turn a profit.

---

Am I the only one who feels Elaine Stritch is as much of a name as Bernadette as of now? I mean, with all her appearances on 30 Rock (IMO, playing the same role as she will some 3 weeks from now), she's certainly crossed into the realm of household names to an extent.

I don't know, i'll be seeing it... perhaps more than once... if they finally convince Ramona Mallory to stop destroying the sound system and Erin Davie that Charlotte is the farthest thing from weak...

You're very welcome.

I hear they are going to swap roles after 3 months like the fabled La Cage swap.

---

It is all about money

YOU said it brother. It's ALL about MONEY. Regardless of if the performer cast in the production is actually right for the part. Case in point: Christina Applegate in Sweet Charity. She was cast because she was a household name, she is not known as a dancer and that role has usually gone to a performer who not only can act the part but can dance it as well. In other words a true triple threat. Look at all the other actresses who have essayed that role beginning with Gwen Verdon, who originated it, to Juliet Prowse who opened it in the UK, then Shirley MacLaine who starred in the 1969 film, Chita Rivera, Debbie Allen, Ann Reinking, Donna McKechnie and then...Christina Applegate?!! Something is wrong here.

It's one thing to cast an actor because you get the best of both worlds: a name who will draw audiences and will do the part justice. It's quite another to just cast someone who will draw in audiences but is all wrong for the part. Sure their "name" will get butts in seats and the producers will make money but if that performer is just plain miscast and mediocre in the role then it will just backfire and it's happening too often.

Even well known Broadway performers who will bring in audiences are being miscast in roles just to ensure people will go see the show.

Case in point: Kristin Chenoweth as "Fran" in PROMISES, PROMISES. Sure she's packing them in but she's totally wrong in the role and her reviews prove it. Even Brantley, who usually is Chenoweth's biggest supporter agrees with this. I saw it twice and I disliked it both times I saw it. They got my money but was I happy with the production? No I wasn't. So just because a show made a ton of money doesn't necessarily mean everyone liked it.

People nowadays are going to see shows because "so and so" is in it so it "must" be good, which necessarily isn't the case.

Updated On: 6/23/10 at 10:06 PM

Again, you are missing my point. I'm not against producers casting a name actor if said actor is right for the part and will do the part justice. Denzel Washington and Scarlett Johansson are two perfect examples.

I am against producers casting a name actor regardless of whether that actor is right or wrong for the role just to make a buck. Christina Applegate being one of many such examples and then relegating a true Broadway triple threat like Charlotte D'Amboise to understudy status.

I see what you're saying, but if you're a producer and your money is on the line........what do you expect?

And personally, I was glad to see Applegate in the role. She wasn't Gwen Verdon, but neither was Charlotte D'Amboise.

---

I'm not a student either, so we're in similar positions. The only advantage is that I do live in NYC...

But that's what I'm saying. "At the current prices they are charging now for theater tickets..."

If a show could make a profit with less dough, producers wouldn't HAVE to charge so much money.

Sure, some of it is greed...premium seats and charging more for aisle seats is ridiculous...but overall, producers don't have a CHOICE but to charge that much. It costs THEM an arm and a leg to put the show on. They believe in a project, want it to be seen, loved, and successful...but if tickets cost below a certain dollar, there wouldn't be a chance in HELL of any profit. And the theatre would end up getting rid of them anyway if they're falling below capacity.

The vast majority of theatre producers aren't evil, money hungry, delusional people. Many of them love theatre more than anything in the world, and while they're willing to take a gamble with their own money to bring the show to US, if they don't make a profit, the show's gotta go.

Sure, it's a lot of money, and in most cases not worth it...but they don't REALLY have a choice. It's so expensive that by charging any less, they'd be dooming themselves from the get-go.

---