Riedel on vultures circling ‘Great Comet’ — Page 4

as usual lots of wrong info here from folks who aren't bothered to know something before they say something. That said, in this case there are so many variables it is inconceivable anyone actually knows much of anything. For starters there is Riedel's general index of reliability which is at best 50%. We then have a recoupment percentage that we don't know what it refers to. (Likely, what Riedel means is the distribution percentage which bears no relation.) Finally, we have a putatively projected nut that we don't know where it comes from (offering papers? a work of fiction at this point) or what it includes. (If as I suspect, Groban's deal has him paid under the line then he may well have gotten $150k a week that would need to be added to the $700k as well as other under the line payments.) But I reiterate, I don't know, and neither does anyone else who doesn't pause because of their ignorance.

bdn223 said: "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.



"

There's no info whatsoever on whether Oak was ever offered to finish his original run, and it's certainly not a confirmed fact.

Hmm, anyone think that the big elephant in the room is that Pierre simply isn't a meaty enough part to attract A-list actors and singers? I mean Josh Groban was obviously a big "win" for the producers but it's not a very long or showy role. The marketing for TGC made it seem bigger than it was, but the actual role involves a lot of sitting in a sort of pit onstage, but Natasha, Anatole, Sonya, etc. are all arguably bigger and meatier roles.

HogansHero said: "I think Oak's employment chances with stupid producers have diminished severely, but does anyone seriously think Jeffrey Seller would hesitate to hire Oak again? or Scott Rudin? etc etc

Folks here have short memories. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to process what Riedel says against the backdrop of what Kagan said in his first comments in this debacle."

I think a lot of it is people wanting his career to be over.

raddersons said: "poisonivy2 said: "Hmm, anyone think that the big elephant in the room is that Pierre simply isn't a meaty enough part to attract A-list actors and singers? I mean Josh Groban was obviously a big "win" for the producers but it's not a very long or showy role. The marketing for TGC made it seem bigger than it was, but the actual role involves a lot of sitting in a sort of pit onstage, but Natasha, Anatole, Sonya, etc. are all arguably bigger and meatier roles."

Yeah...actors pray for lead roles where you don't have to kill yourself to succeed and be the star. If I were an A-lister looking to make a splash on Broadway, Pierre would be ideal.



"

evic said: "Ervin should have kept her Tony mouth shut along with everyone else who immediately chimed in with the race card bull****. They are partly responsible for the show's demise if they close. Oak seems like he needs to stop being a UN if the stories of his screaming at the director are true.

Who is Ervin and do please spell out what you mean by UN.

rosscoe(au) said: "So it was never the producers at fault.....Racism towards white people at its finest



"

I'm going to go ahead and ask you to apologize for that comment, and give "why there is no such thing as reverse racism" a quick google

But if the producers still wanted him out...wouldn't Rafael Casal of tweeted about it by now?

"have", not "of"

But if the producers still wanted him out...wouldn't Rafael Casal have tweeted about it by now?

I think a lot of it is people wanting his career to be over.

I agree. I never did like Riedel.

As an investor, I have received 15% of my investment back, so the 20% number is generous. All other speculation that the show has recouped or even returned 50% are simply baseless.

GeorgeandDot said: "He's 65 years old and I know him well and he's always been a sensitive soul. I can see where this whole situation became to far too much for him."

Which is a pity, because his reaction wasn't based on the truth.

bdn223 said: "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. "

Oak was in a situation where he had 2 choices: 1. Make a public statement saying that he is "fully accepting of the situation, that it's a routine fact of Broadway life and that he will do all the publicity with Patinkin and most of all, that this, of course, has nothing to do with race. And kindly ask the people to stop saying that". Or 2. Have private get-togethers in dressing rooms with Casal, ignoring the producers, and not make a statement at all and being completely influenced by race thinkers and basically screwing the show and his colleagues.

He chose the second option. Of course he can't continue his run. Then he would lose face to his racial influencers/"friends".

The producers should not apologize for anything.

Updated On: 8/4/17 at 03:45 PM

OK kids, I hope you all had fun. Now a reality check.

Oak was the problem. He wasn't selling any tickets. The show was going to have to close when Ingrid left because of that, unless a savior (white or otherwise) came along. The savior didn't pan out. Why would Oak be brought back? How does his not coming back mean people will be unemployed if the show was gonna close if he had not been canned?

Causation, people. Think for once in your lives.

bisous3 said: "Dave28282 said:
The producers should not apologize for anything.



"

I believe herein lies the problem. If they would have not been apologetic about a white man replacing an African American man who replaced a white man I think they'd all be a lot better off. Ticket sales over ride everything, contrary to Ms. Erivo's Tweet.



"

Which leads me to the following thought: If the producers are so sensitive and subservient that they even apologize for something that should not at all be apologized for, because all they did was treating him like any other broadway actor/human being. Basically, they apologized for not calling him out on his race in this situation. Which is absurd. Because if the producers in any way do feel they should treat him differently based on race, then I begin to wonder if it may have played a part in giving him the role in the first place.

Why are the producers and Patinkin so subordinate about false racism claims? Because they both handled in a way that was not based on truth.