SomethingPeculiar said: "There's no chance in heck that Olivo or Tveit is getting replaced after that love-letter from Ben Brantley."
I'm not being snarky about this. I'm honestly curious. Does the enthusiastic blessing of The New York Times lead theater critic matter that much? I guess it used to, and perhaps the decline in the number of critics might makes the Times more important. But the musical is based on a known quantity, albeit one that many people have forgotten or haven't seen since 2001. (I saw it last year for the first time in a long time, ironically enough, on a cross-country flight from New York City after seeing several Broadway shows.) People are going to really want to see it or they won't.
Does the status of Olivo and Tveit suddenly change, assuming they want to go to Broadway with the show, because the New York Times raved about the show and them? It's certainly not going to hurt the performers, and will only increase the buzz about Moulin Rouge. But the descriptions I've seen (and I haven't seen the musical) make it seem like the show is the star - the familiar songs, set design, choreography, high energy, love it or hate it. Admittedly, the dynamic between the actors playing Christian and Satine is very important to its success, but that's been one of the main criticisms I've read. As near as I can can tell, Ben Brantley isn't always the consensus opinion. He loved Groundhog Day, and that didn't matter.
Other folks who know more than I do about the dynamics of the Times and out-of-town previews of hyped shows - Any insights?