Posted: 9/21/17 at 8:07pm
http://nypost.com/2017/09/21/investor-demands-answers-from-shuttered-great-comet/
I'll believe another production happens when I see it.
Updated On: 9/21/17 at 08:07 PM
Posted: 9/21/17 at 8:14pm
Yes and yes and yes. I've been saying the same damn thing since I heard it only recouped that much...something is SO not right.
And even if this staging of the show COULD tour, I don't think it will, or even HOW it would. The theater was literally built into the show, can't really tour that around. But I agree, I won't believe this will tour or transfer anywhere until I see it.
Posted: 9/21/17 at 8:15pm
Who is Kagan trying to kid?
Tour? Hahahahaha.
Posted: 9/21/17 at 8:18pm
I always said it'll do well in europe
And I am still not 100% sure a tour will go forward - I will believe it when I see it, but I hope so because I'd love to see it again
Posted: 9/21/17 at 8:35pm
This is a boring subject. What is the real story about Betsy Wolfe?
Posted: 9/21/17 at 10:05pm
Couldn't it just your with a proscineum stage set? I would imagine most touring markets aren't familiar with the Imperial staging anyway. Let them run up and down the aisles. It'll be thrilling in a new way. Right ?
Posted: 9/21/17 at 10:14pm
It could easily tour as a proscenium staging with on stage seating similar to the performance on the Tony awards. That was my first thought when I saw their performance. That a tour may look something like that. There’s probably not enough money or interest to allow that to happen though.
Posted: 9/21/17 at 10:25pm
Yeah, it's not a hard show to tour. Just because it was immersive in NYC doesn't mean it can't be that way on tour. The set will have to stage in a proscenium format, which is fine, and the cast can go into the audience and do their pre-show stuff and whatever. If ALL the show has going for it is the immersive fact, then it wasn't that great of a show, ya know? I think it's stronger than that.
Posted: 9/21/17 at 11:21pm
For selfish reasons, I hope this doesn't tour. Most touring venues would be horrible for this amazing show. I hope it's available to regional theatres soon. Anyone of the great theatres in the DC area- including Arena, Studio or Signature would work magic with it.
Updated On: 9/21/17 at 11:21 PM
Posted: 9/22/17 at 12:09am
RippedMan said: "The set will have to stage in a proscenium format, which is fine, and the cast can go into the audience and do their pre-show stuff and whatever."
Part of the magic of the original immersion wasn't just the actors running around the aisles, though; it was the extra platforms three inches away, with one snaking through the orchestra; the little tables next to you that dimmed and brightened to the music; the whole Imperial Theatre being draped in red, dotted with chandeliers and lights, and adorned with a boat-load of framed pictures; the varying platforms and stairs going everywhere so that your eyes hardly stay on one level; and of course, all of the onstage seating. You immediately felt like you walked into something grand when you entered the doors.
Now of course, most tour productions can't do what the original did. I'd be very curious to see what they can do with Great Comet on tour other than actors just running up and down the aisles. I'm quite excited to see if it could happen!
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:02am
If Starlight Express found a way to tour...
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:10am
If they go the Starlight Express route we’ll see the Great Comet with 3D film sequences and the audience will have to be alerted to put on their “safety goggles.” No thanks.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:25am
I'm just saying the design/direction is great, but the show itself is greater. It will be just fine w/o the red drapes on the back walls.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 3:09am
What do they hope to gain with this audit? Don't they all sign papers that indemnify the lead producer? Unless he did something illegal I do not think they can sue for damages. Howard Kagan may have screwed this up, but he's no Garth Drabinsky (as far as I know...).
Posted: 9/22/17 at 3:58am
So on my birthday, when I got the Great Comet cast recording as a gift, I am also greeted with news both depressingly familiar and theoretically exciting for people like me.
Disclaimer: I don't really know anything about theater finances, and I have no inside knowledge about anything. If I'm way off base, it won't be the first time.
Riedel's story doesn't tell us much we don't already know. The Times reported about the audit last month, and Riedel adds little on that front. Howard Kagan doesn't want the bad publicity of the audit, saying it would hurt the chances of getting investors for a national and international tour (London! Asia!). But wouldn't investors be scared about putting cash into a show that just lost a lot of money despite mostly excellent reviews and an impassioned following, with a producer who has failed twice?
Even the idea of a national tour seems pretty iffy. The word "likely" does an awful lot of work in Kagan's email quoted in the story. Now, I've said before that Carole Shorenstein Hays' Curran Theater would be a very likely destination for any Great Comet tour, because Shorenstein Hays is a producer of the Broadway show and the Curran needs the occasional big show to fill its lovely, refurbished theater.
I should know the dynamics of the San Francisco theater world better, but the Curran seems like it's in a strange position, competing with SHN for the big shows (it got Fun Home because Hays was a producer of that, and will finish the year with Bright Star) but in too large a theater to play ACT's game of counterprogramming with quirky or classic shows. Rachel Chavkin is coming to San Francisco, but to direct a touring production of the unusual play Small Mouth Sounds. Tickets for that production, at a small venue, are going pretty fast.
That's not even counting the Berkeley Rep, currently selling out its 600-seat theater for Ain't Too Proud, the Temptations jukebox musical, and preparing for its own revival of Angels in America next year while offering new plays.
But a thought crossed my mind as I read the story. Even the Curran, at 1,600-plus seats, is too big for the musical Comet needs to be to actually make money. It could probably work in San Francisco, and I would certainly see it again, but I don't need the expensive extravaganza I enjoyed at the Imperial. In most cities, the show would be stuck in even larger facilities.
It would be great to see an intimate version of Great Comet, the one that captured the imagination of so many people (including Kagan himself, apparently) when it was in a small space. The musical and its presentation is fantastic, and while I enjoyed the bells and whistles that made it such a unique experience, I would be just as happy with a modest production that was performed well. A show like that might actually do well even if it never made a fortune. Outside of a few major markets, I doubt a standard national tour will make money any more than the Broadway version did.
Maybe it will be a big hit in Europe. But Kagan seems awfully ambitious for someone who just lost his investors an awful lot of money and is still playing damage control.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 11:05am
The way to tour this is a cirque style tent . . . like what they did next to the imperial. Would allow to keep the staging, which I think is one of the best things about the show - and would allow for unique presentation techniques - reaching our to unconvetional touring audiences.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 11:09am
^^renting vacant lots throughout the country to put tents in is a lot harder than you'd think.
EDIT: Although I do wish this was possible.
Updated On: 9/22/17 at 11:09 AM
Posted: 9/22/17 at 11:37am
CATSNYrevival said: "If they go the Starlight Express route we’ll see the Great Comet with 3D film sequences and the audience will have to be alerted to put on their “safety goggles.” No thanks."
The tour I saw in, Gosh it must have been about 1990 didn't have 3D projections and safety goggles, though it was one of the first shows I remember seeing that used a video projection component. They built a kind of 'mini ramp' that went through the first few rows of the orchestra (kind of like a passerelle) which the cast skated on. It was, no doubt, a heavy compromise to the experience of the show in a sit-down theatre, but they did it. I could imagine Comet doing something similar -- some onstage seating and a few ramps through the orchestra section. For cost reasons, this would need to be able to be booked into traditional theatre houses. Broadway Across America and the other national tour booking companies wouldn't be able to book this as a tent event.
The rest of the Riedel story is essentially about the shock investors can have when they see all their money go up in flames on a Broadway musical. I have no doubt that everything on the production was 'above board' and totally legit and the audit will reveal that. There are probably a lot of things in the budget that are just 'bad producing' decisions, but that doesn't make them illegal. Plenty of shows have run for years on Broadway and not recouped. This isn't anything new. Buyer beware.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 12:18pm
I think someone here mentioned a show that toured in a tent (Peter Pan?). It apparently lost a fortune. If that's wrong, please correct me. But the logistics of renting empty lots, in town after town, doesn't sound feasible.
I laugh ruefully at the idea that Howard Kagan can successfully promote a show to people interested in unconventional theater. He spent a lot of money refurbishing a Broadway theater to award-winning acclaim, with a well-reviewed show that had been around New York City for years, and he couldn't reach that audience. (I would argue that he didn't really try, but perhaps that audience just isn't big enough for Great Comet.) Why would anything change on tour? Tour audiences are even more likely to look for name brand shows, especially in large theaters across the country.
Now I can imagine a scaled-down show touring successfully in a few major markets - San Francisco, Chicago, LA. And it may be better received in London and Europe. I just have trouble imagining a full-scale national tour making money. Its future probably lies in smaller, regional productions and at colleges.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 12:27pm
Most tours go through subscriber based houses. Next, year will be a big year for a lot of theatres, Hamilton and Dear Evan Hansen will be on tour go through some of these houses. So that could potentially help smaller shows or weird shows like Great Comet succeed in those houses. Since you have to subscribe to the entire season and not one show, and if someone is looking for that Hamilton and Dear Evan Hansen ticket, they would need to buy the whole package which could potentially include Great Comet.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 12:41pm
The PETER PAN tent event was produced by something called 360. It began life in the UK and I believe had some nice success there. It played a few major cities in the US - San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC and I think did okay business, but the model for setting up the tent, etc meant it needed to play longer in each city than there really was an audience. I seem to recall it closing prematurely. And it was a non Union production...
There have certainly been stranger shows than COMET to have full tours. I don't think its that crazy a proposition for it touring in more or less a proscenium set up with a few immersive touches.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:12pm
Fair points, Call_me_jorge and QueenAlice. Being part of a season package with Dear Evan Hansen or, especially, Hamilton, will solve at least some of the issues. Subscribers have seen odder shows than Great Comet. The problem with national tours is that they are often staged in very large facilities. And while I loved the version I saw at the Imperial, I am increasingly convinced that a more intimate, less expensive version is its best chance at a future in the U.S.
There is no reason why a modified proscenium show couldn't work. And for me, a fan of the show, I will take what I can get. I'm a ticket buyer, not an investor.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:48pm
A few thoughts:
1. A tent tour is not that difficult: multiple circuses worked out the logistics decades ago.
2. Existing subscriptions could be the basis for the tent shows.
3. Both of the above assume that there is the wherewithal for this to tour.
4. While many here seem myopically tethered to the Imperial setup, this show reached its highest and best form in a tent, under circumstances that make a tent in most cities seem like a walk in the park.
5. There is no way this tour would succeed with the Kagans attached. The best bet is to divest and let someone else try to rehabilitate the property. They will of course get subsidiary rights income from that.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:48pm
Without the investors, there wouldn't be a ticket for you to purchase. You seem to forget that.
Posted: 9/22/17 at 1:49pm
Bear - when you say "I am increasingly convinced that a more intimate, less expensive version is its best chance at a future in the U.S" - do you mean financially? Because small productions of anything mean less seating capacity and less viability for profit.
As it is, any tour of COMET would have to scale way back on cast size along with the scenic elements to be potentially profitable. But it started small and a smart director like Rachel Chavkin could probably pull from all the versions the show has had, and re-invent something for traditional touring houses that would be interesting.
If you mean the future 'artistic' afterlife of the piece, then that may be so, though I think this is a show that will be done by a handful of colleges and regional theatres in the next couple of years but won't really catch on as a staple. Think something like GRAND HOTEL.
