Posted: 3/7/17 at 8:14pm
http://nypost.com/2017/03/07/robert-evans-tempestuous-hollywood-tenure-takes-the-stage/
Would love to see this happen.
Posted: 3/8/17 at 12:25am
I guess the time for being baffled at Riedel's lack of credibility should long have passed. He clearly just publishes spin that producers want to see in print. All the facts he provides *could* have led him to write one of his bitchy "here's a flop in the making" columns: a first-time playwright adapting his own book (uh-oh), a book about his own life (double uh-oh), cancels a week of previews to do rewrities, which he's sending from another country because he's unable to travel. But Riedel's conclusion? Next stop: Broadway. "If the critics approve." As editors like to say, "there's a lot riding on that 'if'".
Posted: 3/8/17 at 1:04am
"Riedel's lack of credibility should long have passed. He clearly just publishes spin that producers want to see in print."
Oh yeah, the producers of Spider-Man and Addams Family and any number of others were thrilled with the spin he put on their productions.
Posted: 3/8/17 at 1:59am
Echo...didn't you just give him a no win situation? You don't like the way he did put it...a possible bway run, but you also slammed his flop route.
Posted: 3/8/17 at 7:43am
The Kid Stays in the Picture is the definitive Hollywood autobiography. Evans has become a larger than life personality. After starring in a couple of B pictures, he got the head job at Paramount at a time when the studio was about to close. He took the studio from last to first.
His legacy in Hollywood is such that his audio recording of his book is required listening for any in the industry.
My biggest concern is the director. After The Encounter, I'm not exactly sure he's the right match for the material.
At the end of the day, I believe Riedel is correct with saying money is no object. If Broccoli wants the show to transfer, it will.
Posted: 3/8/17 at 3:53pm
dramamama611 said: "Echo...didn't you just give him a no win situation? You don't like the way he did put it...a possible bway run, but you also slammed his flop route.
Mama - you have a point. But in my defense, I'm not exactly saying I'd complain no matter what Riedel wrote. I'm just tired of his two go-to columns: "bitchy-bitchy-flop-flop-flop" and "I'm declaring this show the next Broadway hit, based soley on what its producer whispered in my ear." There's a long, long list of shows he's endlessly trashed, and an almost-as-long list of shows he's confidently told us will sweep the Tonys which then, sadly (no sarcasm there) never go anywhere. In other words, I could (pointlessly) post this critique every week; I only picked this week because his column reads as "10 reasons this show is clearly in trouble"*, but his conclusion is "see you at the Booth!" (with, naturally, a swipe at that theatre's current tenant).
Obviously, I should just stop reading Riedel. Or rieding Readel.
*The only real news in the column was that the reason the show cancelled previews was to add material. Who cancels previews to add material? Adding, cutting during previews - of course; that's the whole idea. If somebody tells you they cancelled previews because the first act wasn't long enough, you... naturally publish that, as fact, in the New York Post
