#1
Posted: 1/11/06 at 1:35am
Kind of puts it in a nutshell...Are the egos as big as Brooks? Will bring it in at any cost?
Post
Post
PEACE.
#2
Posted: 1/11/06 at 2:03am
Well - if Elton doesn't desire to help I hope he diggs deep into his coffers to keep this open. I still believe they will all pull together and fix this. Every picture of Hugh outside the Theater shows him with LOTS of papers, new scripts & songs I suppose, I feel for him - he has a heavy load right now. Oh well, As they say, It ain't over until Miss S. Jones gets those staples out of her belly, Gains back 200 pounds and sings on key to Barbara Walters - "He left me for a MAN!"
"It is bad enough that people are dying of AIDS, but no one should die of ignorance." -
Elizabeth Taylor
#3
Posted: 1/11/06 at 8:05am
I think Michael was a tad off base when discussing Roth's career. While Beauty and the Beast might not be brilliantly directed - it certainly doesn't indicate a poor track record as a director - the show's still running after 10 years.
And The Opposite of Sex wasn't aborted early at all. In fact, it extended at the Magic Theater in San Francisco but closed a day or two early only because of Halloween (which apparently is a big deal in San Fran) so they cancelled the last 1 or two performances of the extension. As for it not being on Broadway just yet - that's because of them finding an available theater.
And The Opposite of Sex wasn't aborted early at all. In fact, it extended at the Magic Theater in San Francisco but closed a day or two early only because of Halloween (which apparently is a big deal in San Fran) so they cancelled the last 1 or two performances of the extension. As for it not being on Broadway just yet - that's because of them finding an available theater.
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" - Willy Wonka
#4
Posted: 1/11/06 at 11:05am
I also feel he was off about both Crawford and Wildhorn.
Yeah, Crawford was in a bad show, but it will never stop him from returning to Broadway because, (drumroll here) HE IS MICHAEL CRAWFORD!!!!.
Wildhorn has never had any respect from critics in the past and it has never stopped him. He will be back, probably with a good show that the critics are going to pan before even seeing it because HE IS FRANK WILDHORN, the destroyer of Broadway.
I usually like Riedel's articles but this one is a little premature.
Yeah, Crawford was in a bad show, but it will never stop him from returning to Broadway because, (drumroll here) HE IS MICHAEL CRAWFORD!!!!.
Wildhorn has never had any respect from critics in the past and it has never stopped him. He will be back, probably with a good show that the critics are going to pan before even seeing it because HE IS FRANK WILDHORN, the destroyer of Broadway.
I usually like Riedel's articles but this one is a little premature.
David walked into the valley
With a stone clutched in his hand
He was only a boy
But he knew someone must take a stand
There will always be a valley
Always mountains one must scale
There will always be perilous waters
Which someone must sail
-Into the Fire
Scarlet Pimpernel
#5
Posted: 1/11/06 at 11:32am
Why would they rehire Roth if he was fired from Aida?
It does not sound as if Riedel saw the show himself. He is just reporting on the reaction so far.
It does not sound as if Riedel saw the show himself. He is just reporting on the reaction so far.
PEACE.
#6
Posted: 1/11/06 at 11:32am
Well, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST has certainly had a huge run, but the show was panned by most of the press - with most pointing out Roth's direction as the major offender. If the show's run depended on reviews alone, it would have closed quickly. LESTAT doesn't have such a built in audience - so I wouldn't be surprised if they brought in somebody else to at least doctor the show.
#7
Posted: 1/11/06 at 11:41am
Fair enough MB.. but consider - Roth's ONLY Broadway credit as director is Beauty and the Beast. And stating his track record on Broadway is poor is a bit misleading. A qualification of sort would be required to make the statement hold water as in "his only project on broadway, BATB, received negative reviews for his direction" or something similar.
Stating his track record is poor and stating his one and only Broadway project to date which has over 10 years under its belt (regardless of why) is a bit skewed at best.
Then throwing in the "cherry" about OOS just proved a double "wrong."
Stating his track record is poor and stating his one and only Broadway project to date which has over 10 years under its belt (regardless of why) is a bit skewed at best.
Then throwing in the "cherry" about OOS just proved a double "wrong."
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" - Willy Wonka
Updated On: 1/11/06 at 11:41 AM
#8
Posted: 1/11/06 at 11:50am
Don't always agree with Reidel or his methods but this time He has hit the stake on the head!
My $ is on Roth being replaced and Crawford did more to hurt his Broadway career than be in a bad show, bad behavior, yet he still has a lof of followers.
My $ is on Roth being replaced and Crawford did more to hurt his Broadway career than be in a bad show, bad behavior, yet he still has a lof of followers.
#9
Posted: 1/11/06 at 7:09pm
Reidel makes his living pontificating snide remarks and induendo. This is no different. Regarding Lestate, I doubt it's any different than any other show that gets an out-of-town preview and then gets a load of retooling. We will have to see what transpires when it gets here, and whether the tinkering bodes good or ill for the show.
"And the postman sighed as he scratched his head, you really rather thought she ought to be dead..."
#10
Posted: 1/11/06 at 7:55pm
Craig, I think you're dead-on. Riedel may even have made some potentially libellous charges here, as he wrote some serious false accusations about Roth. BatB is now in its 12th year, Opposite got pretty good reviews in SF, and is still on tap to come to NYC, and Lestat has just had 3 weeks of out-of-town previews. There are multiple reasons behind Aida's change of team, and they were not necessarily all for the better. For Riedel to call Roth a third-rate director for creating the sixth-longest-running show on Bway is just astounding...
Riedel did attend the SF opening of Lestat, and was seen at the party afterwards, so he took advantage of the hospitality offered him by the producers, yet produced a one-sided and seriously destructive column about the show and its director.
Really he's just dealing in falsity and negative gossip - sure it's entertaining sometimes, but in this case I think he went too far...
Riedel did attend the SF opening of Lestat, and was seen at the party afterwards, so he took advantage of the hospitality offered him by the producers, yet produced a one-sided and seriously destructive column about the show and its director.
Really he's just dealing in falsity and negative gossip - sure it's entertaining sometimes, but in this case I think he went too far...
#11
Posted: 1/11/06 at 7:58pm
Um, actually, Wildhorn kept getting back on Broadway because he had a rich Dutch producer pouring money into his shows. Now that that business relationship has broken up, we'll see if he gets a show on Broadway again.
#12
Posted: 1/11/06 at 9:46pm
Umm is anyone surprised? It's the Post! That's what they deal in. It's all crap. I don't read any of it. I just thought I'd throw out a comment. Just because it runs, doesn't mean it's good work. That just means people wanna see it. It being Beauty and the Beast, well they've got a built in audience really. They can cash in on the movie. I'm not saying Reidel is right. I suppose it depends on how you define success. As far as artists go, we could care less about money. My guess is that Beauty and the Beast is an artistic failure. Now we do live in America, so your idea could be if it makes money. I mean it's not a flop if it makes money. Interesting that's how a show is determined sucessful.
#13
Posted: 1/12/06 at 12:21am
Yes the Post is crap, but Riedel's the only Broadway columnist around (until Winchell is reincarnated...), so he is read by a lot of people, even if his writing is fiction.
Broadway is where art meets commerce - it's not the British National Theatre or Shakespeare in the Park. To be successful there, it has to be artistic and commercially appealing. BatB wouldn't be the long-time hit it is, movie or no, if audiences weren't being transported to another world in experiencing that story. To call it an artistic failure doesn't make sense at all...
Broadway is where art meets commerce - it's not the British National Theatre or Shakespeare in the Park. To be successful there, it has to be artistic and commercially appealing. BatB wouldn't be the long-time hit it is, movie or no, if audiences weren't being transported to another world in experiencing that story. To call it an artistic failure doesn't make sense at all...
#14
Posted: 1/12/06 at 1:20am
Yes it does. It makes total sense. Another example, Mamma Mia! most people who are in the artistic community hardly think it's art. Now it's doing VERY well. Why? People nowdays want a nastalgic fix. It's fun, but not art. Before anyone says anything, I do think you can have fun AND art. Mamma Mia isn't art. The people who go generally have heard things and know the music. They say "ohh that's the Abba show. I Love them. Let's Go". Same with Beauty people are saying "Ohh what can I take my kid to. Beauty and the Beast was a nice film. Let's go". Theatrical transportation doesn't equal great art. I mean people were transported and taken on a journey with IN MY LIFE too, but that was hardly a success in any sense. There are a lot of shows that are enjoyable that aren't great art.
I seperate commerce and art when talking success. I mean with your definition of success, Assassins, Passion, West Side Story, the original CHicago and the like are all failures because they weren't financial successes. But they certainly were artistic ones. I think the 2 are seperate and it depends on how you approach them.
I personally think there should be a National Theatre here. A LOT of countries have it. Of course when you start cutting arts programs in schools across the country, the hope of a NAtional theatre sorta gets squashed.
I seperate commerce and art when talking success. I mean with your definition of success, Assassins, Passion, West Side Story, the original CHicago and the like are all failures because they weren't financial successes. But they certainly were artistic ones. I think the 2 are seperate and it depends on how you approach them.
I personally think there should be a National Theatre here. A LOT of countries have it. Of course when you start cutting arts programs in schools across the country, the hope of a NAtional theatre sorta gets squashed.
#15
Posted: 1/12/06 at 2:48am
No, your definition still doesn't make sense - and what is this artistic community of yours anyway? Are you a member, but the rest of us aren't?
Mamma Mia is a horrible show, but it survives because it is built on the timeless music of Abba that is itself wonderful and very artistic. I happen to think BatB is a pretty good show, and if it wasn't artistic on some level, there is just no way it would survive this long and find an audience, including repeat visitors (and it's not because of the movie - that came out 15 years ago...)
In some ways, I agree with you - you can go for artistic success without needing to be a hit on Broadway. The problem is that Broadway is one of the ultimate meeting-points of art and commerce, in my view - and you have to have both to make it work there.
Actually I love all the shows you mentioned, and especially Sondheim, and would go to hear him open an envelope, but how many new works, or even previous successes, of his can be found on Broadway now? The problem is that a lot of his work is not very accessible by a more commercial audience, and so they aren't put on. Artistic purity alone is not enough to work on Broadway.
Mamma Mia is a horrible show, but it survives because it is built on the timeless music of Abba that is itself wonderful and very artistic. I happen to think BatB is a pretty good show, and if it wasn't artistic on some level, there is just no way it would survive this long and find an audience, including repeat visitors (and it's not because of the movie - that came out 15 years ago...)
In some ways, I agree with you - you can go for artistic success without needing to be a hit on Broadway. The problem is that Broadway is one of the ultimate meeting-points of art and commerce, in my view - and you have to have both to make it work there.
Actually I love all the shows you mentioned, and especially Sondheim, and would go to hear him open an envelope, but how many new works, or even previous successes, of his can be found on Broadway now? The problem is that a lot of his work is not very accessible by a more commercial audience, and so they aren't put on. Artistic purity alone is not enough to work on Broadway.
#16
Posted: 1/12/06 at 10:22am
ART isn't easy
and one's man's ART is another man's soup can
Reidel don't like Disney but calling BEAUTY 3rd rate was unfair
and one's man's ART is another man's soup can
Reidel don't like Disney but calling BEAUTY 3rd rate was unfair
#17
Posted: 1/12/06 at 1:08pm
We have different views on art. I expect different things from theatre than you do. I think that's what it comes don to.
I find it interesting that you say my definition doesn't work when I didn't attempt to define anything. I just said it's totally valuable to make money on an artistic failure. I was pointing out a flaw in your definition of success. I don't have a defintion for success. My whole point was that success is defined different ways. I don't disagree that the GOAL of Broadway is to make an artistically and finanacially viable piece of theatre. But my issue was that's how you define success. I was merely saying that you can have success without half of the equation. I don't think BATB is art and yes I do believe that people are going back because of the movie AND word of mouth. I mean as far as children's shows what do you have left now? Basically the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Tourist everywhere know Disney. They won't know Spelling Bee or Piazza. I guarentee most of the people going to see BATB are out-of -towners. It's familiar is the point. Same thing with CATS. I hardly think that's a good show, without a BIG movie. Why did people go? BEcause it is KNOWN world wide, not because it's a great show. It's the 2nd longest running show in history.
As far as this artisic community I'm talking about goes; I thought it was fairly obvious I was speaking of the theatrical community (set designers, costumers, composers, directors etc). I didn't once make it sound like I was part of something you or anyone else wasn't of. As a matter of fact in a previous post in refering to artists I said we, not I. And for the record, there's plenty of Sondheim being produced on Broadway, esp in the last 5 years or so.
I find it interesting that you say my definition doesn't work when I didn't attempt to define anything. I just said it's totally valuable to make money on an artistic failure. I was pointing out a flaw in your definition of success. I don't have a defintion for success. My whole point was that success is defined different ways. I don't disagree that the GOAL of Broadway is to make an artistically and finanacially viable piece of theatre. But my issue was that's how you define success. I was merely saying that you can have success without half of the equation. I don't think BATB is art and yes I do believe that people are going back because of the movie AND word of mouth. I mean as far as children's shows what do you have left now? Basically the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. Tourist everywhere know Disney. They won't know Spelling Bee or Piazza. I guarentee most of the people going to see BATB are out-of -towners. It's familiar is the point. Same thing with CATS. I hardly think that's a good show, without a BIG movie. Why did people go? BEcause it is KNOWN world wide, not because it's a great show. It's the 2nd longest running show in history.
As far as this artisic community I'm talking about goes; I thought it was fairly obvious I was speaking of the theatrical community (set designers, costumers, composers, directors etc). I didn't once make it sound like I was part of something you or anyone else wasn't of. As a matter of fact in a previous post in refering to artists I said we, not I. And for the record, there's plenty of Sondheim being produced on Broadway, esp in the last 5 years or so.
#18
Posted: 1/12/06 at 1:59pm
regardless of the argument of art/success, etc (which is valid) - Reidel's use of BatB as "proof" of Roth's bad track record is misleading at the very least. That can't be argued regardless of how you feel about the show. If Roth's only broadway show was Amour, In My Life, Dance of the Vampires, Blonde in the Thunderbird, etc - then he'd definitely have a "point".
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" - Willy Wonka
#19
Posted: 1/12/06 at 3:00pm
well I think Reidel's foolish a lot of times. I think most people will concede that. Personally I don't think people should be reporting on out of town shows. I mean if people are going to do that, they might as well just open up in NY. I think it's grossly unfair to give a hint as to what Lestat is like at all. These people need time and an environment to fix things.
#20
Posted: 1/12/06 at 3:27pm
Well, I don't think it's unfair to report on a show that is open and has been reviewed -- especially in a major theatre city like San Francisco. It's unfair to talk about the fact that the reviews are negative? It would be one thing if this was some invitation only private out of town workshop, but this is a show that's open and running and charging premium prices and is heading into New York very soon with tickets on sale now for the New York engagement at $110 a piece. Why is it unfair to warn us consumers about the current state of the show so we can decide whether or not we still want to spend that kind of money on a show with apparently such deep problems?
Who knows, maybe they can fix all of the problems prior to the New York opening (Tharp was able to with Movin Out). But whether they can or not, I can't see why Riedel reporting the fact that the show is in trouble is some how a bad thing. It's no secret -- read any of the reviews or the posts on this this or the other theatre message boards. Heck, even the creative team itself was willing to go on the record and talk about the show's problems. If even the producers are discussing it publicly then why is it wrong for Riedel to report about it?
Who knows, maybe they can fix all of the problems prior to the New York opening (Tharp was able to with Movin Out). But whether they can or not, I can't see why Riedel reporting the fact that the show is in trouble is some how a bad thing. It's no secret -- read any of the reviews or the posts on this this or the other theatre message boards. Heck, even the creative team itself was willing to go on the record and talk about the show's problems. If even the producers are discussing it publicly then why is it wrong for Riedel to report about it?
"What a story........ everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end." -- Birdie
[http://margochanning.broadwayworld.com/]
"The Devil Be Hittin' Me" -- Whitney
#21
Posted: 1/12/06 at 3:52pm
roth did not get fired from Aida in the sense he was sacked for what he had created.
he was removed in a panic by the producers who totally blew it with that decision.
and as a result that show had a limited run.
my belief is that if roth and company remained on board with Aida it will still have
a broadway life. Disney theatrical screwed up.
and thus the show is closed.
what i saw in atlanta was certainly much better then what ultimately ended up in new york.
and people should not remark on what happen to roth in the aida situation because it is not public knowledge what really happened and there fore it is only hearsay and conjecture and those type arguments are immediately dismissable because they are not based on facts.
he was removed in a panic by the producers who totally blew it with that decision.
and as a result that show had a limited run.
my belief is that if roth and company remained on board with Aida it will still have
a broadway life. Disney theatrical screwed up.
and thus the show is closed.
what i saw in atlanta was certainly much better then what ultimately ended up in new york.
and people should not remark on what happen to roth in the aida situation because it is not public knowledge what really happened and there fore it is only hearsay and conjecture and those type arguments are immediately dismissable because they are not based on facts.
#22
Posted: 1/12/06 at 6:34pm
I don't see how Aida had a limited run, it played for four years. My ex saw it during try-outs and said it was disastrous so he never saw it on Broadway. I don't know much about Roth, but this show needs some major work because the San Francisco reviews were the kind that would keep a show from Broadway for a while until all issues are worked out or until the idea dies out.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#23
Posted: 1/12/06 at 6:44pm
Sorry - off topic, but what was wrong with movin' out in its out of town tryout and what city did it tryout in?
#24
Posted: 1/12/06 at 8:03pm
toto2 don't use words like Libel if you don't know what they mean, especially in the legal sense. You people get carried away from an article by THE NEW YORK POST, come on, get over it, see the play, i'm sure it will be a suckfest, before the vultures and obnoxious brats come after me, yes i saw it, and it sucked even worse than that article claims. But so goes it. Can't do two Vampire Chronicles in one (God have mercy) musical. Unless they build up the Lestat's love, real love for Louis and Nicholas, this show will be ignoring the homoerotic tones of the source material which will be a shame, it's not like Tom Cruise is starring in this production.
#25
Posted: 1/12/06 at 8:06pm
He seems to take glee in reporting bad news. He apparently gets his jollies this way
Poster Emeritus
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95