#26
Posted: 2/20/15 at 10:57am
The difference between Bloody Bloody and Hamilton is that Hamilton is a far better show.
Riedel on Hamilton transfer — Page 2
#27
Posted: 2/20/15 at 10:57am
There were so many things wrong with that column today that I'm not even going to give him the benefit of the doubt about this. I cannot wait for Riedel's downfall. I think I know what it will be, and while I don't want the event that will cause it to happen anytime soon, it really can't come soon enough. It happened to Walter Winchell...
#28
Posted: 2/20/15 at 10:59am
Ha, thanks Kad. I really just need to become a subscriber at The Public. Their ticket prices have gotten out of hand and it used to be a lot easier to get in cheaply with rush lines, but even those have gained too much visibility to be easy now.
I've heard wonderful things about the show, and after being obsessed with Phillipa Soo after Natasha, Pierre I'm chomping at the bit to go.
I've heard wonderful things about the show, and after being obsessed with Phillipa Soo after Natasha, Pierre I'm chomping at the bit to go.
Marie: Don't be in such a hurry about that pretty little chippy in Frisco.
Tony: Eh, she's a no chip!
#29
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:04am
Besides being based on historical figures, they have NOTHING in common, those 2 shows. As pointed out - one is good. No, brilliant.
#30
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:06am
Right, Hamilton is brilliant. BBAJ was not.
My problem with the Public's membership model is that tickets to Hamilton still cost $80 or $85. How is that "public"????
My problem with the Public's membership model is that tickets to Hamilton still cost $80 or $85. How is that "public"????
#31
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:09am
I love Bloody Bloody and saw it many times at the Public. But: A) It was not rushed to Broadway. It closed at the Public in the early summer and opened on Broadway in the fall, at the very start of the next season- the weakest time, arguably, for a show to open. B) The general consensus is that it lost a good deal of appeal in moving to a Broadway house, which was reflected in its reviews, which were generally less enthusiastic for the transer. C) BBAJ did NOT sell out its extensions- tickets were easily had for its final weeks at the Public. Hamilton sold out its extensions within a few days of their announcement.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 2/20/15 at 11:09 AM
#33
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:13am
Having seen both shows. I enjoyed both (enjoyed BBAJ more). I really think it should wait the year to transfer. Hamilton could stand to loose 20 minutes (what 20 minutes I am not sure about because everything in show is vital to the plot and ending).
#34
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:13am
The tickets were $95 when they went onsale to the public (non members), so with fees it was a little over $100. That's what I paid. That's barely more than the member price.
#35
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:16am
As a member, I only paid $50 per ticket to see it.
#36
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:18am
Ah okay. I guess that's better than the $80 they upped it to later in the run. Still, I'm a member at the Vineyard and my tickets are $15.
#37
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:20am
I waffled about seeing Hamilton at first. I hadn't loved Fortress of Solitude, and I didn't think I would like a rap musical. But being a member and able to get a Hamilton ticket for $50 pushed me over the edge, and I'm really glad I got to see it.
It is a very expensive looking show, top notch in every way. The money that the producers coughed up was well spent. Personally, I feel it needs a bit of cutting, and I would like a more boffo ending, but it's in good shape.
It is a very expensive looking show, top notch in every way. The money that the producers coughed up was well spent. Personally, I feel it needs a bit of cutting, and I would like a more boffo ending, but it's in good shape.
Updated On: 2/20/15 at 11:20 AM
#38
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:23am
"Hamilton could stand to loose 20 minutes (what 20 minutes I am not sure about because everything in show is vital to the plot and ending)."
Then it doesn't need to lose anything. Things should only be cut if they are superfluous, not because shows should be under 2.5 hours. Hamilton earns its running time, which can't be said for a lot of other pieces of theatre.
Then it doesn't need to lose anything. Things should only be cut if they are superfluous, not because shows should be under 2.5 hours. Hamilton earns its running time, which can't be said for a lot of other pieces of theatre.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#39
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:24am
I agree Mac. I thought the ending was a little flat.
#40
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:26am
Like Bloody (which we did not care for) Galt Mac Dermott's Human Comedy opened off Broadway and got great reviews. The basically same show reopened on Broadway & did not get good reviews & quickly folded. How the same show can get great reviews but gets bad ones simply because it transferred escapes me
I have the first cd release. For some reason, it was never tracked. As a result, you have to listen to one disc fully without taking a break before going on to the 2 nd one.
Doubt will get a chance to see it especially when it moves to Broadway.
I have the first cd release. For some reason, it was never tracked. As a result, you have to listen to one disc fully without taking a break before going on to the 2 nd one.
Doubt will get a chance to see it especially when it moves to Broadway.
Poster Emeritus
#41
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:29am
Kad, maybe reworked is a better word, parts of the show flowed well, I started to get bored in spots, but was then drawn back in.
#42
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:32am
My one "complaint" was that a lot of the show relied on talking about Hamilton's talents as a writer, but Lin only used one (?) piece of Hamilton's actual writing in the show. I would think he would be able to turn more of his speeches and essays into spoken word style pieces to work in if he's going to claim that all of Hamilton's power was in his words. It doesn't make a ton of sense that we don't see really any of his work.
He also gives Alexander Hamilton a pretty huge pass on what was an incredibly problematic financial plan but the show doesn't seem to want to get into the "politics" of the actual events themselves and that's fine.
He also gives Alexander Hamilton a pretty huge pass on what was an incredibly problematic financial plan but the show doesn't seem to want to get into the "politics" of the actual events themselves and that's fine.
#43
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:34am
You mean the incredibly problematic financial plan we're still using today?
#44
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:34am
I actually think this season is ****in fantastic!! Its not weak at all
Use my fabulous TodayTix code: JEYCY
#45
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:38am
Both BBAJ and Hamilton were inventive in their own right: not least of which for their use of modern and less Broadway-standard music (emo rock for BBAJ, hip-hop for Hamilton).
However, I believe Hamilton deserves the higher praise for originality. As I said in another post, Miranda has seamlessly incorporated hip-hop (...not just rap), a most American of musical creations, into a Broadway show (another distinctively American creation). That it tells the story of roughly 30 years of American history in just under 3 hours makes it that much more remarkable.
...and those songs...
...and Thayne (sorry, little crush going on over here...)
However, I believe Hamilton deserves the higher praise for originality. As I said in another post, Miranda has seamlessly incorporated hip-hop (...not just rap), a most American of musical creations, into a Broadway show (another distinctively American creation). That it tells the story of roughly 30 years of American history in just under 3 hours makes it that much more remarkable.
...and those songs...
...and Thayne (sorry, little crush going on over here...)
#46
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:40am
Bloody Bloody should have canceled their extensions and transferred to Broadway immediately... it needed TONY love to survive on Broadway, and couldn't make it through the harsh winter season without it. FUN HOME also should have transferred immediately to Broadway... they were smart to wait until the spring and up until now they were a shoe in for BEST MUSICAL... but they lost a lot of their buzz as well and the year since they closed has not seemed to bring them any new fans the way they thought it might.
I think that learning from both of these instances they should make the choice to cancel the extensions and transfer immediately in the same fashion as RENT... in fact it feels that there hasn't been a show with this kind of enormous buzz since RENT... bad news for FUN HOME which needed to win BEST MUSICAL to make their money back.
In regards to RIEDEL: this story is not something he invented... it has most likely been fed to him directly from Jeffrey Seller himself to test the waters and see what the buzz is.
My vote is move HAMILTON... and yes, I feel terrible that FUN HOME won't be winning BEST MUSICAL as I hoped since last year... If it came down to it, I would vote for HAMILTON.
I think that learning from both of these instances they should make the choice to cancel the extensions and transfer immediately in the same fashion as RENT... in fact it feels that there hasn't been a show with this kind of enormous buzz since RENT... bad news for FUN HOME which needed to win BEST MUSICAL to make their money back.
In regards to RIEDEL: this story is not something he invented... it has most likely been fed to him directly from Jeffrey Seller himself to test the waters and see what the buzz is.
My vote is move HAMILTON... and yes, I feel terrible that FUN HOME won't be winning BEST MUSICAL as I hoped since last year... If it came down to it, I would vote for HAMILTON.
Updated On: 2/20/15 at 11:40 AM
#47
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:41am
'I would like a more boffo ending'
I think it's the most beautiful, moving ending of any musical since SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE.
In fact, the last 30 minutes from (SPOILERS) death of Hamilton's son and eventual reconciliation with his wife to the information we get about Eliza during the finale left me quietly weeping the entire time. My sweater was wet. No...the ending wasn't boffo...but it was perfect.
I think it's the most beautiful, moving ending of any musical since SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE.
In fact, the last 30 minutes from (SPOILERS) death of Hamilton's son and eventual reconciliation with his wife to the information we get about Eliza during the finale left me quietly weeping the entire time. My sweater was wet. No...the ending wasn't boffo...but it was perfect.
#48
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:41am
Yes, the show doesn't go in depth in some of Hamilton's troubling ideas: his impressive 6 hour pitch at the Constitutional Convention argued for presidents and senators for life and he wrote numerous times for an adoption of some sort of English-inspired aristocracy. He also fervently wished for war with France during the Adams administration- their disagreement led to Hamilton undermining President Adams with a cabinet packed with Hamilton supporters acting as his proxies in the administration. Their falling out led to Hamilton publishing a screed against Adams, which generally weakened the Federalist party to such a point that it was no longer viable in 1800. Hamilton also was involved in behind-the-scenes deals in the election of 1796, again to undermine Adams.
The creation of a National Bank and the assumption of states' debts also led to rampant speculation and much swindling, including that of Revolutionary veterans. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and their allies had every right to be suspicious of Hamilton- even if it did turn out that Hamilton most likely did not engage in such business himself.
But those omissions do not bother me, since the show is not attempting to present Hamilton as some sort of saint. Particularly savvy is Miranda's handling of the Whiskey Rebellion, which was without a doubt a somewhat troubling show of force by Washington, egged on by Hamilton; Miranda directly compares it to the British treatment of the colonies.
The creation of a National Bank and the assumption of states' debts also led to rampant speculation and much swindling, including that of Revolutionary veterans. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and their allies had every right to be suspicious of Hamilton- even if it did turn out that Hamilton most likely did not engage in such business himself.
But those omissions do not bother me, since the show is not attempting to present Hamilton as some sort of saint. Particularly savvy is Miranda's handling of the Whiskey Rebellion, which was without a doubt a somewhat troubling show of force by Washington, egged on by Hamilton; Miranda directly compares it to the British treatment of the colonies.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 2/20/15 at 11:41 AM
#49
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:52am
Objectively, Riedel is totally right (aside from trying to stir the pot).
I don't have an actual opinion of what they should do, but here are a couple of variables I haven't seen mentioned:
1) There are still 18 shows set to open in the remainder of the season. Your competition hasn't been reviewed or seen by the majority of Broadway people. (American in Paris, Shoulda Been You, Fun Home, Neverland etc.) It's easy to say "It's going to "sweep" against Honeymoon and Hollar, but a little more difficult to make a case against the (actual) unknown.
2) The Tony voters are dominated by presenters. They like to award shows that can tour. That doesn't mean that every winner is picked with this assumption (i.e. Gentleman's Guide wins over Aladdin), but you have to always remember that the voters are not necessarily going to pick something strictly for it's artistic quality. It, like everything else, is political and everyone has different motivations.
3) Closing, flipping the theatre, loading in, rehearsing, preview, and open in the amount of time proposed is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but very difficult. It would really have to go seamlessly. Opening this season seems like the right move in this moment, but really there are plenty of reasons to wait. Opening on your timeline, prepared and polished would be just as attractive as riding this wave.
So now you have a decision to make. Do you capitalize on the momentum, or do you wait and make a calculated move next season. It'll be interesting to see the decision made and what motivated it.
What does my gut say? They probably try and open this season.
What should they probably do? Wait.
I don't have an actual opinion of what they should do, but here are a couple of variables I haven't seen mentioned:
1) There are still 18 shows set to open in the remainder of the season. Your competition hasn't been reviewed or seen by the majority of Broadway people. (American in Paris, Shoulda Been You, Fun Home, Neverland etc.) It's easy to say "It's going to "sweep" against Honeymoon and Hollar, but a little more difficult to make a case against the (actual) unknown.
2) The Tony voters are dominated by presenters. They like to award shows that can tour. That doesn't mean that every winner is picked with this assumption (i.e. Gentleman's Guide wins over Aladdin), but you have to always remember that the voters are not necessarily going to pick something strictly for it's artistic quality. It, like everything else, is political and everyone has different motivations.
3) Closing, flipping the theatre, loading in, rehearsing, preview, and open in the amount of time proposed is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but very difficult. It would really have to go seamlessly. Opening this season seems like the right move in this moment, but really there are plenty of reasons to wait. Opening on your timeline, prepared and polished would be just as attractive as riding this wave.
So now you have a decision to make. Do you capitalize on the momentum, or do you wait and make a calculated move next season. It'll be interesting to see the decision made and what motivated it.
What does my gut say? They probably try and open this season.
What should they probably do? Wait.
#50
Posted: 2/20/15 at 11:54am
Kad, the President and Senators being termed for life is something I was waiting to see brought up in the show, as was the tension with Adams, but I agree that as a piece of theatre it works without that information. Like I said, LMM clearly set out to tell a specific story and he's telling that story note-perfectly, and I'd rather see a great show with historical omissions than an overstuffed history lesson.
I agree that he handled the Whiskey Rebellion very well, in general, I really liked his characterization of Washington and Hamilton's relationship.
I agree that he handled the Whiskey Rebellion very well, in general, I really liked his characterization of Washington and Hamilton's relationship.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95