Peters/Stritch ALNM ad?- Page 2

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:00pm

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?

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:02pm

If you remember, Nunn wanted a younger Desiree the first time around. Bernadette wouldn't have fit what he wanted then. Hannah Waddingham was 34 in London, and Catherine Zeta-Jones is 40.

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:04pm

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

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:05pm

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


You mean Gypsy, the one I just mentioned where a LOTTTT of people hated her performance?

I guess I don't think this is shameful and you apparently do. No offense meant.

And thanks, TheatreFan. I would never have thought it game from a dress, but I still think they look mismatched. Whatevs, though. Bernadette's gonna make this f*cker run for years!

ETA - Who is making excuses? I stated facts. Catherine Zeta Jones is a bigger name than Bernadette Peters. Catherine Zeta Jones has an Oscar and Bernadette does not.



Updated On: 6/23/10 at 08:05 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:08pm

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

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:10pm

I liked her. So there!

Again, I wasn't trying to make it personal. I think I was reading you as more outraged than surprised!

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:11pm

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.

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:12pm

Oh no, not outraged at all. Surprised...yes.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:13pm

Then, my apologies! To you AND Bernadette!

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:20pm

The producers were smart (it's the obvious choice) to start the production with a star

And this is where I take issue with producers. First I am in no way coming down on film actors. I think Catherine Zeta-Jones, despite the unfortunate Tony Awards performance was a wonderful Desiree as I am sure Denzel Washington and Scarlett Johansson were the right choices for their respective parts in FENCES and A VIEW FROM THE BRIDGE respectively.

I take issue with producers after the "all mighty dollar" who cast celebrities in theater productions and the celebrity is absolutely wrong for the role.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:38pm

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.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:45pm

Maybe they are just listening to the facebook group and givin' Broadway back to Broadway

[jagfkb]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 8:58pm

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...

[suttonfoster]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 9:26pm

YAY THANK YOU SO MUCH ljay889.

I really appreciate it

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 9:29pm

You're very welcome.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 9:34pm

Oh, BERNADETTE is playing Desire. I thought it was the other way around. I feel dumb.
Updated On: 6/23/10 at 09:34 PM

[backwoodsbarbie]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:01pm

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

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:05pm

Elaine Stritch may be more known now because of her recent TV work, but I don't think her name is any more known to most people than Bernadette.


Neither are household names. In my experience, non-theatre people that DO know who Bernadette is remember her from a handful of 80's films.

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:06pm

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

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:11pm

Well what isn't about money?

I'm not saying I'm a fan of everything being about money, but since theatre became so expensive to produce, you can't blame producers for wanting to get some names.

A revival of FENCES, with or without Kenny Leon's brilliant direction- would have been discounted to high hell, on TDF every performance, it probably wouldn't have recouped it's investment. And it sure as hell wouldn't be the toughest ticket in town...without Denzel Washington.

Please, I wish true Broadway talent would always prevail, but it doesn't. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:20pm

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.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:23pm

Christina Applegate being one of many such examples and then relegating a true Broadway triple threat like Charlotte D'Amboise to understudy status.

To be fair, d'Amboise was starring in Chicago during that time, she wasn't just Applegate's standby. And I believe many people who saw both as Charity enjoyed Applegate more.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:24pm

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.

[Marquise]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:30pm

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

At the current prices they are charging now for theater tickets I expect nothing less than what I am paying for.

Case in point: Paid top dollar to see Lansbury and CZ-J in ALNM. Got my money's worth.

Paid top dollar to see Chenoweth and Hayes in Px2 = Throrughly disappointed.

Mind you these are only my opinions. What do I know? I'm just a die-hard Theater going lover like the rest of you but I don't have the luxury of being a student or living in NYC on a full time basis so I miss out a lot on TKTS and I don't qualify for student rush. I find a few bargains here and there but for the most part I'm paying top dollar if not damn near close to it and I want my money's worth is all.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 6/23/10 at 10:35pm

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.