Riedel on vultures circling ‘Great Comet’- Page 3

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:14am

^Unnamed sources as to not damage their careers as others here have noted. You can't get black balled if they don't know who you are. In any case, it's time to let this go and wait for an announcement. Endless speculation and gossip does nothing- buy a damn ticket.We here will never know the truth, we weren't there.  There seems to be evidence to point to both sides being at fault here.  All that having been said, i fail to see how the part has a stigma attached to it at this point- Oak has formally withdrawn any future with it as has Mandy- someone can step in, name or not, rent needs to be paid and food needs to be put on the table- i don't buy there's no one that wants to do this. Tell me who to call, I'll be more then willing to do it! 

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:19am

^ Post Josh's exit it seems like Oak and the name recognition of Hamilton was the plan- when it backfired, there was no plan B and that's how we've gotten here. They should've realized after Amelie shuttered, someone having been in Hamilton wasn't a guaranteed sales plan.

[Up In One]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:20am

neonlightsxo said: "Fighting with Rachel Chavkin? Is that part true?

 

"I don't believe they've only returned 20% of the investment. Some basic calculations prove that even with advertising/marketing accounted for, they've returned over 50% of the investment."

No way. Your math doesn't check out.

I agree, I was thinking they were getting close to recoupment - 41 weeks at 700k = 28M  Gross total on this site has them at 45M to date. Simple math shows 16M profit, but nothing is simple so at least 50% is right.

"

 

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:20am

"They should've realized after Amelie shuttered, someone having been in Hamilton wasn't a guaranteed sales plan."

They should've realized Hamilton stars were never a guaranteed sales plan from the beginning.

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:24am

The entertainment industry is a business of egos as well- someone can be one way in public and another way in the rehearsal room and behind closed doors. Either way, attention is attention and Oak is certainly in the spotlight for this hub bub, right or wrong, more then he ever was for his performance.  When he actually exits the show and doesn't have to face the cast night after night, it will be interesting to see the statements he issues about this experience. 

[Up In One]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:30am

I think this is all saving face publicity for bad producing - they knew they had The Josh Grobin Show on their hands from the walk outs and the no sales when he was out. To think Oak would pull like Josh is absurd. They should have been mining for a Josh equivalent from the day they signed Grobin. Mandy was a band aid for a few weeks and I wonder what the uptick was in advance sales for the one day he was officially announced?  If it was non-existent even more reason for him to step away.   

Updated On: 8/4/17 at 10:30 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:41am

Up In One said: "neonlightsxo said: "Fighting with Rachel Chavkin? Is that part true?

 

"I don't believe they've only returned 20% of the investment. Some basic calculations prove that even with advertising/marketing accounted for, they've returned over 50% of the investment."

No way. Your math doesn't check out.

I agree, I was thinking they were getting close to recoupment - 41 weeks at 700k = 28M  Gross total on this site has them at 45M to date. Simple math shows 16M profit, but nothing is simple so at least 50% is right.

"

 

Well, your $700k figure is off by about $100-$150k to start.... So, try fixing that. 

[oncemorewithfeeling2]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:51am

Oak has always started his playbill bio with either "My name is Oak and I have done stuff" or "Shake and Bake." It's not an ego thing for this show.

[M.O.A.I.]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:56am

I heard from a friend who knows an associate producer on the show (no idea who) that the producers and crew were dissatisfied with Oak, and that he had vowed to learn the accordion but simply didn't. Thus the late start. Apparently not very professional, but this is all hearsay.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 10:59am

neonlightsxo said: "Fighting with Rachel Chavkin? Is that part true?

 

"I don't believe they've only returned 20% of the investment. Some basic calculations prove that even with advertising/marketing accounted for, they've returned over 50% of the investment."

No way. Your math doesn't check out.

 

If his numbers are anywhere near representative of the reality, these producers must be the most oblivious since Garth Drabinsky.  Here they had a show that they must have known was not going to appeal to a broad audience -- don't get mad at me, the same could be said for virtually all of Sondheim (composer / lyricist's) work.  

Assuming they even did a back of the envelope assessment of timeline to return of investment, they must have assumed the entire Groban period -- of about a whole months, mind you -- would be selling out with many tickets sold at Hamilton / Hello Dolly premium prices, once it got going.  Who would do that?  

At this point, I am sure their balloon must be mostly deflated.  I personally can't see one scenario in which they return much more of their investment, if Reidel's numbers are anywhere near correct (and the one that smells the most to me is the weekly running cost), so whatever has been returned is about it.  So, how invested are they in keeping people employed until they are evicted from the theatre?  Will be interested to see what happens, but I am betting that they won't put up with the stress for long if nothing they do is going to be enough to return any significant percentage of their investment.

The biggest message from this has to be to understand, based on how much the weekly nut is, how long the show is going to take to return its investment at grosses that don't involve more than a handful of premium seats per performance (unless you have Bette Midler in a revival of the perfect show for her); and if it is going to take years, go back to the drawing board.  Of course, this also applied when Show Boat opened in 1927.

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:03am

Liza's Headband said: "Well, your $700k figure is off by about $100-$150k to start.... So, try fixing that."

Well, that was the number in Riedel's column...

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:04am

Riedel is incorrect, which should surprise absolutely no one.

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:10am

If the accordion was the late start reason, interesting Oak said that "they weren't ready" on Twitter when his start date was pushed back- I always thought that was odd and unprofessional. There's no way a show isn't ready for it's next star when they are announced, it doesn't make sense for an announcement to come out if that's the case, and shows are not that disorganized by any stretch- look a GHD and how they got Andrew Call in for Andy's injury, cancelling only one performance to allow for rehearsal.

Updated On: 8/4/17 at 11:10 AM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:11am

(Except that even when Riedel is wrong, there's often a good lot of right in it.)

 

If indeed Oak met with Casal, that just really irks me, because to me that means he either agreed to, or agreed to let, Casal do the dirty work for him.  

[BroadwayMan5]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:12am

I don't know if everything in this article is accurate (the investment, the Chavkin stuff, etc) but I do think Riedel is right about Oak being fine with it at first and then getting swayed by Casal. That really makes the timeline make sense. I had a hard time believing that the producers were that dumb to do it with Oak being upset and I don't think it appeared that way at all at first to anyone involved.

[haterobics]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:15am

Liza's Headband said: "Riedel is incorrect, which should surprise absolutely no one."

Oh, that can also be true.

Once Malloy said the box office gets catastrophically low after Ingrid, that was all the math I needed to hear.

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:17am

Bottom line: money talks; all else walks.  This was never black vs white.  This was always green $  vs  black AND white.  

And many other print sources stated the show long recovered its investment, so 20% sounds suspect.  If true, producers would've replaced Josh.

[sassylash3s]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:32am

M.O.A.I. said: "I heard from a friend who knows an associate producer on the show (no idea who) that the producers and crew were dissatisfied with Oak, and that he had vowed to learn the accordion but simply didn't. Thus the late start. Apparently not very professional, but this is all hearsay."

For what it's worth, I had heard a similar story from a friend in the industry connected to the show.  I wasn't sure whether to believe it at the time, but these reports have me wondering if there may be something to it.  (When I saw Oak it certainly seemed like he was concentrating very hard on his playing, although of course I could  have been projecting!)

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:51am

"And many other print sources stated the show long recovered its investment"

 

What? Nobody said that.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:55am

This is pretty much an expression of the agent theory where people need one person to blame for the consequences caused by interconnected actions that lead to it. People want to blame Comet possibly closing earlier than what people really want all on Oak and the behavior of his supporters when the closing of the show was caused by many things, much of it preceding the hiring of Oak. Ultimately, it's not Oak's fault that the show was so desperate that it needed a star to keep it afloat for a few more weeks.

[Jish]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:55am

sassylash3s said: "M.O.A.I. said: "I heard from a friend who knows an associate producer on the show (no idea who) that the producers and crew were dissatisfied with Oak, and that he had vowed to learn the accordion but simply didn't. Thus the late start. Apparently not very professional, but this is all hearsay."

For what it's worth, I had heard a similar story from a friend in the industry connected to the show.  I wasn't sure whether to believe it at the time, but these reports have me wondering if there may be something to it.  (When I saw Oak it certainly seemed like he was concentrating very hard on his playing, although of course I could  have been projecting!)"

I mean - when I saw Oak his accordion and piano were both pretty rough. He started Dust and Ashes playing incorrect chords seemingly on purpose? It seemed like he was trying to make his "style" of playing be that it may not be correct :)

[bdn223]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 11:58am

Also note the $700k nut is likely without Groban's salary or possibly his cut of the % of gross sales, which likely increased the running costs dramatically during his run.

This article basically ensures Oak will be blacklisted, unless Lin who is an extremely loyal person, writes another show and casts him. Yes most will blame the producers, but I can't imagine a producer of another production even what to risk dealing with the possible drama Oak could bring to a production. 

Lastly I really don't buy the whole "production wasn't ready for me" excuse that Oak used for why his first performance was delayed. Shows are finely run machines, and even if he final costume wasn't ready they would of been able to have a seamstress quickly temporarily tailor one of the understudy costumes to fit him in the mean time. The lack of accordion skills seems the most likely excuse though....  Part of me also wonders if the producers were upset about his inability to grow a beard and thus had to rush to get hair pieces made, as Groban mentioned in several interviews the producers were extremely upset when he trimmed it the day before a press event once. In his Instagram post that announced his delay, his face is very much clean shaven outside of a goatee....and I wonder if they producers wouldn't let him go on without the full beard.  This is just speculation though...

Also does anyone else find it weird that Oak isn't going continue his run through his original contract expiration? I think that speaks wonders to who is the adult in the room. The producers admitted that their execution of the plan wasn't the best, and apologized, and offered to have Oak back. Oak then says he is still definitively leaving on the 13th. If this were still the producers choice of departure date, I'd imagine Oak would have made it known. As far as we know it his choice to take the 3 week paid vacation, and give the middle finger to a troubled production, and the entire cast and crew. 

[bisous3]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 12:00pm

Phillytheatreguy10 said: " i don't buy there's no one that wants to do this. 

 

"

Well, no one who would be considered a box office draw. It's just a negative thing to be associated with and whomever is enough of a draw doesn't want or need to be a part of it. 

[Phillytheatreguy10]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 12:05pm

I don't see it as negative anymore- Oak departed, Mandy departed- no one is losing jobs to who ever the replacement may be.  It's a job at this point, nothing more then any other replacement. The next person would have no responsibility for anything that happened prior to their arrival.

Updated On: 8/4/17 at 12:05 PM

[schubox]

Posted: 8/4/17 at 12:05pm

It would be hard to believe they weren't ready. Wasn't it announced in February? Also there were pictures of him getting fitted for a costume in mid June