Riedel on vultures circling ‘Great Comet’- Page 7

[Hellob]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:22am

Cape Twirl of Doom said: "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.

 

 

"

I think it meant uppity n word 

[bear88]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 3:39am

The Forbes essay raises one excellent point even as it seemed to fall apart at the end when it came to making realistic recommendations.

The Kagans' handling of the Onaodowan's early dismissal was clumsy and clueless. The subsequent apologies managed to be both groveling and cringeworthy, annoying everyone. The absence of a minority voice in the room definitely did make things worse, and Dave Malloy has conceded as much.

But it was only 'worse' because they hired Onaodowan in the first place. And that was only a problem because the show was not the huge, award-winning hit they were hoping it would be. Instead, it turned to be an expensive cult musical that did well with a star and can't survive without one. Isn't that like most Broadway musicals and virtually every Broadway play?

It seems silly to have to point out the obvious, that Broadway audiences are very, very white. Even Shuffle Along, with its tremendous collection of African American stars, played to a nearly all-white audience when I saw it last year. And when its name star had to leave, Scott Rudin closed the show. Rudin isn't going to play along with any sort of demands or conditions. He will just close the show, and get a lot less grief than the apologetic Kagans.

The future of Broadway is probably just more star vehicles, inexpensive musicals, jukebox shows, movie adaptations, and revivals. I'm glad I was lucky enough to see Great Comet when I did. I do worry that we won't see the likes of it for a while. And that seems like a tragedy, even if you didn't like the show.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 8:31am

"The future of Broadway is probably just more star vehicles, inexpensive musicals, jukebox shows, movie adaptations, and revivals. I'm glad I was lucky enough to see Great Comet when I did. I do worry that we won't see the likes of it for a while. And that seems like a tragedy, even if you didn't like the show. "

What is wrong with inexpensive musicals? I would love it if there were more shows like "Dear Evan Hansen" and "Next To Normal" for example.  As for "Great Comet", I have not seen it but would love to have it run longer.  The problem with a show like that is when a huge star making their Broadway debut is in it most of the attention goes to the star and not the overall show. This then translates to the general public that if there is no major star, the show is not worth seeing. While that is not true, it is hard to change people's minds when that is the perception. It is all economics why the majority of shows are jukebox musical, movie adaptations and revivals and that is why I try to support original shows on Broadway as much as possible, 

[MVintheheartland]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 9:58am

"What is wrong with inexpensive musicals? I would love it if there were more shows like "Dear Evan Hansen" and "Next To Normal" for example."

Totally agree. And I am still hanging in there, hoping somebody will take the role of Pierre. I have a ticket for end of August, I'm not going to ask for a refund. I don't really care if it's a superstar or "just" somebody with great talent and a great singer. 

 

 

[SarahNYC2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:03am

MVintheheartland said: ""What is wrong with inexpensive musicals? I would love it if there were more shows like "Dear Evan Hansen" and "Next To Normal" for example."

Totally agree. And I am still hanging in there, hoping somebody will take the role of Pierre. I have a ticket for end of August, I'm not going to ask for a refund. I don't really care if it's a superstar or "just" somebody with great talent and a great singer. 
 

I hope you get to see it. Having seen it with both Josh and Oak I can tell you the show is not make or break with who plays Pierre. As others have said Pierre is actually more a minor character. The show itself is spectacular. Both my daughter and I loved it both times. I doubt it will be playing next summer when we are both in NYC together,, but if it was we'd see it again no matter who was Pierre.
 

 

 

"

 

[bisous3]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:11am

Those tweets by Casal and Erivo - and the subsequent attention they received- were the primary reason this whole thing went down the way it did. Look at "Chicago".  "Big name" leads have been going in and out of that show forever without any backlash whatsoever in regard to the race of the replacements.  Yes, they ended Oak's contract early (he's being paid... hell, I wish MY boss would toss me a few weeks paid vacation) but I am shocked that Erivo is either too naive to realize that ticket sales dictate everything or she just didn't think before she wrote what she did. I'm assuming it's the latter. 

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:11am

VintageSnarker asked:  "Are you saying the audiences for Great Comet should be more diverse because the cast is more diverse? "

Vintage, I never said "should" anything.  I will analogize it to a community church closing b/c of no attendees. Community members might express outrage, but what did they do to keep the church alive?  Did they attend services or support the church financially?

My message is if one truly believes in a cause, what have they done to support it? Actions speak louder than words.  Without question discrimination exists. But instead of just posting outrage on social media, get up and take action.  Picket the theater, buy a ticket, organize something. 

B'way productions are a tug of war b/w the monied producers/investors and the actors who they consider the "help."  TGC producer Hagen is a former partner at a Wall St hedge fund. Investors seek a return on their $. To them, actors are stocks or options to trade for the best $ return.  Until the financial source changes, this will continue.  Again, to a producer money talks and all else walks.  

Amalie's star Phillipa Soo couldn't keep the ticket sales up despite her Hamilton performances.  I've seen the show with Groban, Malloy, and Oak.  As the old saying goes, Groban is a hard act to follow.  

 

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:14am

Brave Sir Robin stated:  "If LCT doesn't snatch up Denee Benton for MY FAIR LADY, I'd be surprised."

Totally agree.  She has that sweet & fragile but strong persona. At least she displayed that in Comet. Plus a great voice.  

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:20am

bisous3 said: "Yes, they ended Oak's contract early (he's being paid... hell, I wish MY boss would toss me a few weeks paid vacation) but I am shocked that Erivo is either too naive to realize that ticket sales dictate everything or she just didn't think before she wrote what she did. I'm assuming it's the latter. "

Maybe Oak realized that he had screwed things up already, because the producers weren't happy with him in the first place and he supposedly had falling outs with the director, etc. Maybe they already thought of ending his contract early, regardless of the whole big-name fuss that came later. Maybe that's why Oak let the race hell break loose without making a statement against it, and actually chose the side of the race obsessives, maybe he felt that this way he could make a statement to the black community by playing the victim, embracing the race card (knowing he could not save his contract anyway) and give the producers a kick after too.

If this is not the case, and the producers really wanted him back after the 3 week replacement, then it's even worse, because then all the fuss was only about stepping aside for 3 weeks and then Oak's refusal to return is based on him losing face to the black community, after not making a statement against the false race claims, but actually meeting with these people and ignoring the producers, so he could never come back then and face those people again and keep his believability.

 

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 10:20 AM

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:21am

COME FROM AWAY is having no problem selling tickets without a name in it.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:21am

But can we blame producers for wanting some return on investment? They're the ones investing millions to bring the show to life so we can all complain about it on here.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:22am

good post, bear88. re this show's failure and "the future" I wouldn't read much into this. Why? because as I have said Comet was designed to fail, and then marketed to fail. Some people seem to think that Oak (and Erivo etc) have taken a hit but of all the producers I have spoken to this past week or so, the main thing I am hearing is about the hole the Kagans have dug for themselves in the community.

This might be a good time, in light of the "stars" essentiality issue that there are no rules. Some shows need stars, some shows (Hamilton and Book of Mormon being the poster children but by no means the exceptions) don't. And again I point out that with a big star, Comet STILL failed. Groban left with the investors STILL owed most of their investment. That's an abject failure.

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 10:22 AM

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:25am

George&Dot stated: "As for My Fair Lady casting Denee Benton, it's not happening even though she's a much better choice than who they're going with."

Absolutely agreed.  Here is a classic example of the Mandy/Oak problem.  Producer Clive Davis picked Anne Hathaway, a movie star, to lead in MFL.  Good acting skills, but mediocre voice.  Yet they bring in the heavies to carry the show b/c the investors can "sell" a movie star w/little effort.

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:32am

ACL stated: "COME FROM AWAY is having no problem selling tickets without a name in it."

That's b/c the show is simple with great music.  Anyone could play it.  TGC Composer/writer Dave Malloy said his show is "weird and needs a name to carry it." The opening number has lyrics that say essentially "you have to study up a little bit if you want to keep with the plot."  

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:33am

HogansHero said: "Some people seem to think that Oak (and Erivo etc) have taken a hit but of all the producers I have spoken to this past week or so, the main thing I am hearing is about the hole the Kagans have dug for themselves in the community.
"

Any producer can replace anyone they like, and they have. The only hole they have dug was hiring Oak.

Nothing else.

If they had hired a sensible human being we would have had Patinkin now and there would have been no problem and a more successful show.(at least longer running and more profit and no negativity).

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 10:33 AM

[Rainah]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 10:44am

Come From Away also has significantly lower operating costs than Comet. A 700k week for Come From Away is still significant profit, Comet would be in the red. It was always going to be a huge, ridiculous, glorious, go-big-or-go-home show. And they're just... not quite making it. 

 

And on another matter, who says people can't financially support Oak/the show AND be critical of it on social media? My partner and I paid full price for premium tickets, just to see Oak (I'd seen the show before) and travelled from Canada to see the show. It was no small expense, but we were that keen on it. She was so excited when Oak was announced, and now we're just praying we'll be able to get down there again and see it before it closes.

[David10086]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:01am

Here's what bothers me in this latest chain of events:

The producers claim that Oak was understanding with the changes they were needing to make with Patinkin to keep the show afloat, and went along with the plan - even acknowledging the plan he may be re-joining in the future,

Then Cassal visits with him, Erwin and a few others get into the act, and now he's with them - claiming racism, and he was treated unfairly.

Seems like he's easily persuaded for a 30 year old actor. I could see if he was a kid or a 'young adult' but at 30? 

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:08am

Dave28282 said: "HogansHero said: "Some people seem to think that Oak (and Erivo etc) have taken a hit but of all the producers I have spoken to this past week or so, the main thing I am hearing is about the hole the Kagans have dug for themselves in the community.
"

Any producer can replace anyone they like, and they have. The only hole they have dug was hiring Oak.

Nothing else.

If they had hired a sensible human being we would have had Patinkin now and there would have been no problem and a more successful show.(at least longer running and more profit and no negativity)."

Yet they still would be a financial failure, just less of a failure. Hogan is  right: this show was set up to be a failure...or a hit. With its cost structure and capitalizing prior losses there's no middle ground. GHD probably too. The producers should have known this and found an a-lister to replace Groban, or better figured out how to make the show a bit cheaper 

Now look at the new hits this year: CFA and DEH. Both are relatively inexpensive, not really star vehicles ( Been Platt becoming a start notwithstanding) and could potentially have made a profit even of the didn't become big hits. They had a much better chance from the beginning

I'm not happy with what Oak did, but the show going down wasn't a single point of failure that can be laid at his feet

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 11:08 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:12am

HogansHero said: "good post, bear88. re this show's failure and "the future" I wouldn't read much into this. Why? because as I have said Comet was designed to fail, and then marketed to fail. Some people seem to think that Oak (and Erivo etc) have taken a hit but of all the producers I have spoken to this past week or so, the main thing I am hearing is about the hole the Kagans have dug for themselves in the community.

This might be a good time, in light of the "stars" essentiality issue that there are no rules. Some shows need stars, some shows (Hamilton and Book of Mormon being the poster children but by no means the exceptions) don't. And again I point out that with a big star, Comet STILL failed. Groban left with the investors STILL owed most of their investment. That's an abject failure.

"

Fair points. The lesson from all of this may simply be that the Kagans are idiots. I suspect that's going to be the lesson. But it will also be, 'Don't invest in crazy projects that challenge what people expect on Broadway.' That's what I find unfortunate.

By the way, I have nothing at all against musicals that are inexpensive to stage with small casts. Two of my favorite shows in recent years are Fun Home and Hedwig. But when an 'inexpensive' show becomes a success, like Dear Evan Hansen, they're not inexpensive for me, the ticket buyer. They're inexpensive for the producers.

I am far more interested in seeing inexpensive, original musicals than in the other categories I mentioned. I just think it's too bad that the lessons likely to come out of this will likely include, 'Don't bother with a big, original, risky musical on Broadway unless Lin-Manuel Miranda is writing it.'

I will concede that the fact that I very much enjoyed Great Comet, from the creators to the ensemble, is influencing my reaction. The impact for most of the players in this depressing drama is probably nil.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:18am

David10086 said: "Here's what bothers me in this latest chain of events:

The producers claim that Oak was understanding with the changes they were needing to make with Patinkin to keep the show afloat, and went along with the plan - even acknowledging the plan he may be re-joining in the future,"

Maybe Oak was understanding with the fact that he needed to leave anyway? Maybe he already knew the producers didn't want him to re-join because of the events that happened before and Oak knew that? He played along because he didn't want it to look like he was fired based on the producers being unhappy with him, and so he thought the race card would play out better for him. Then he could play the victim role without reproach. Without people questioning his attitude, performance or behaviour backstage. Because clearly he never went along with the plan in reality.

The fact that he can't come back is either that the producers don't want him anymore or that he can't lose face to the people he chose sides with.

 

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 11:18 AM

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:23am

Rainah said, "And on another matter, who says people can't financially support Oak/the show AND be critical of it on social media?"

Of course anyone can be critical on social media. My point is for those who complain the loudest on social media, what have they done to help keep it afloat other than complain about racism.

I've seen the show multiple times from different seats with Groban, Malloy, & Oak at the helm. I would rate them in that order. But it was Oak's first week and I tossed it up to  needing a break-in period. I never understood the draw to Ingrid. I actually liked Brittain better.  And I found each show to be a lot of fun.

Something must've been going on prior to this Mandy/Oak fuss. On Groan's last day, I picked up my tkt at the box office.  I casually mentioned to the window agent that I saw Oak in Hamilton but couldn't see him in Pierre's role b/c his singing & acting style was so different from Groban.  I also told her I planned to see Oak anyway.

She asked me to stay at the window. I thought something was wrong w/tkt.  She brought over a tall man and asked me to repeat what I said about Oak.  I did.  He had a blank look w/no response. I saw producer Hagen's pic  this week and realized that was the man.  I didn't understand at the time why she did that.  Even before Oak got on the stage, something was going on that had bad vibes.

What a shame all of it happened.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:36am

bear88 said: "
Fair points. The lesson from all of this may simply be that the Kagans are idiots. I suspect that's going to be the lesson. But it will also be, 'Don't invest in crazy projects that challenge what people expect on Broadway.' That's what I find unfortunate."

I disagree with this. They might have been surrounded by people making a lot of noise about racial diversity and maybe thought that by casting Oak, all that noise would translate to ticket sales, but unfortunately it did not and stayed just noise. (maybe they were also influenced by Hamilton). At least they've tried. Then they realized they really need a star name. They went for it. How could they have known that hysteria would kick in when all they did was a routine fact of Broadway life? And that the actor in question would even pick sides with the people wanting to take the show down? 

Don't invest in crazy people is the only lesson here.

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 11:36 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:42am

JustAnotherNewYorker said: "I'm not happy with what Oak did, but the show going down wasn't a single point of failure that can be laid at his feet"

I think it can. He could have stopped all this negativity from the beginning by making a statement. He didn't.

I don't know the reason why he immediately decided he can't come back, but it's either that the producers did't want him anymore in the first place or that he can't lose face to the people he chose sides with.

In any case, he accelerated the sinking of the show immensely.

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 11:42 AM

[behindthescenes2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:48am

This is how cocksure, self-absorbed, megalomaniac actors, Casal, and weak-minded, insecure, and frankly not professionally capable actors, who've been horribly miscast because they are unable to assess their own artist limitations, Mr. Oak, can get together and because of their misguided self-righteousness and ego, bring down a show, jeopardizing the livelihood of many other people all for the sake of showing these producers who is really in charge. These two axe heads show be worried about how other producers and investors will perceive there sanctimonious asses the next time the audition for a show and if their agents will even be allowed to say, "How about....?", without the vibrations of resounding laughter firmly and demonstrively shut the door and lock it. In otherwords, these two are absolutely stupid and publicly made it obvious 

[JustAnotherNewYorker]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:57am

Dave28282 said: "JustAnotherNewYorker said: "I'm not happy with what Oak did, but the show going down wasn't a single point of failure that can be laid at his feet"

I think it can. He could have stopped all this negativity from the beginning by making a statement. He didn't.

I don't know the reason why he immediately decided he can't come back, but it's either that the producers did't want him anymore in the first place or that he can't lose face to the people he chose sides with.

In any case, he accelerated the sinking of the show immensely."

I don't agree. Unless you think they would have had a star lined up for September, this just accelerated the closing. It was still going down, just in a whimper, not a bang (with apologies to T.S. Eliot)