Riedel on vultures circling ‘Great Comet’- Page 8

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:08pm

JustAnotherNewYorker said: "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)"

I'm sure they were thinking about the next star, because they clearly realized that's what they needed. So yes, Oak accelerated the closing, I agree with that. It's also the negativity that didn't help.

 

[gymman]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:24pm

I agree with Ripped Man about Benton; she is beautiful and sings well, but lacks star power. The idea of her as Eliza in MFL is most odd to me. I never believed her acting for a moment, and her playing against Lucas' swing understudy created a sexless and chemistry-free couple.

[mullein]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 12:54pm

Hellob said: "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 

 

"

Well at least there's someone on this board who's honest about what they mean and doesn't coach their racism in vague language LOL

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 1:01pm

I can recognize that Great Comet had producing issues and its weekly nut is too high to run without a star or Tony wins or something else to boost the box office. And I can still hate Casal and find all the nonsense (not productive discussion and constructive debate though again I did enjoy reading Azudi's thoughts) horrible and depressing. Those are two separate, valid thoughts. I don't think the hoopla is making them close but I still don't like it. 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:11pm

I was away for a week with limited Internet access.  It boggles the mind that this is not only still an issue, but that it has escalated to the extent that it has, and that ultimately a lot of talented people could lose their jobs. 

There are so many sad things about this, but for the moment I'm focusing on the fact that Broadway shows need film/TV stars to sell tickets.  It's not just Comet; we're seeing the same thing in the Dolly threads; i.e., the concern that without a Bette-level star, the show is toast.  Is it inconceivable that a show survives just by virtue of the fact that everyone loves it and the actors are phenomenal?  I guess I'm dreaming.

[SarahNYC2]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:25pm

Rumpelstiltskin said: "I was away for a week with limited Internet access.  It boggles the mind that this is not only still an issue, but that it has escalated to the extent that it has, and that ultimately a lot of talented people could lose their jobs. 

There are so many sad things about this, but for the moment I'm focusing on the fact that Broadway shows need film/TV stars to sell tickets.  It's not just Comet; we're seeing the same thing in the Dolly threads; i.e., the concern that without a Bette-level star, the show is toast.  Is it inconceivable that a show survives just by virtue of the fact that everyone loves it and the actors are phenomenal?  I guess I'm dreaming.

Good point. My friend and i were talking with the woman next to me at Bandstand. First we talked about TGC and Josh and Oak. Then somehow Hello Dolly came up. I said I saw it with DM. The woman said she saw with both and liked DM better. I have no way to compare but I know I saw a great show, a talented actress and cast and it's not like I am lamenting seeing an inferior show because Bette wasn't in it.

 

"

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:46pm

David10086 said: "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," 

Those are made up "facts" and 100% contrary to what happened. You are relying on what an unreliable gossip columnist said, based on an anonymous source that may know nothing more than you do. What we DO know is that there was nothing for Oak to "understand" except that he was fired. There was nothing for him to go along with. The producers were within their rights to fire him and they have paid dearly for exercising those rights. Because they are idiots. The producers never said what you said they said. They said they fired him from the remainder of his contract. And they therefore had to pay him the liquidated damages under that contract, which vested immediately under the terms of the provision. And the only statement Oak ever made was that he would not rejoin the show in the future after Kagan insanely suggested it. (Insane, mind you, because it makes no sense to bring back someone who you are saying is making your show unsustainable. 

As I said before, think things through, people, and stop making sh*t up. I was accused of being arrogant for saying that, but to me arrogance is insisting on something that is factually wrong.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:50pm

Updated On: 8/5/17 at 02:50 PM

[carnzee]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:58pm

Rumpelstiltskin said: "  Is it inconceivable that a show survives just by virtue of the fact that everyone loves it and the actors are phenomenal?  I guess I'm dreaming.

 

"It's not inconcievable at all. Just look at Come From Away, Dear Evan, The Humans, School of Rock, The Lion King, etc.

No need to dream!  

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 2:59pm

@bear88,

I don't think the lesson is "Don't invest in crazy projects that challenge what people expect on Broadway." I think it is don't invest in projects that are not well thought out. Hamilton was a crazy project that challenged what people expect on Broadway. So was DEH, Fun Home etc etc. And for each of those shows, there were sizable threads on here explaining to everyone why those shows were crazy ideas. But they weren't. Because they were well thought out. It is not some newfangled notion that Comet made no sense as it was being produced. I and quite a few others said that pretty much from day one, and for my part I very much liked the show downtown so I had nothing against the material. 

The lesson here is the first one you mentioned. And you'll notice that it's a lesson most of the smart money figured out in advance.

[David10086]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 3:11pm

Dave28282 said: "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.

"

Very good points. And I agree with you - thinking the race card would 'play out better' rather than being fired from the cast due to lackluster ticket sales.

 

As for the point that he 'can't ' come back - I think it's more of he 'won't' come back - big difference. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 3:24pm

@David10086 " As for the point that he 'can't ' come back - I think it's more of he 'won't' come back - big difference." 

Actually, if you pay attention to the FACTS, you will discover that it makes no sense that they would want him back. Kagan's stoopid platitude was just that, and everyone knows it. Come back to what? A closed show?

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:44pm

Oooooohhhh... I hope I never see the understudy....not that he is bad, but chemistry is everything and Lucas is hard to replace.

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/5/17 at 11:51pm

Bottom line to all of this..... if show closes, many will lose out never having seen it....

Were the producer's stupid...perhaps...we can toss all the blame around....

All I can see is a fun show with a lot of good folks closing b/c of a lot of nonsense.

I can only hope they'll find someone to keep it going....In this day and time, we need fun stuff...If nothing else, my thanks to the performers who gave it their all.

[bear88]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 3:32am

HogansHero said: "@bear88,

I don't think the lesson is "Don't invest in crazy projects that challenge what people expect on Broadway." I think it is don't invest in projects that are not well thought out. Hamilton was a crazy project that challenged what people expect on Broadway. So was DEH, Fun Home etc etc. And for each of those shows, there were sizable threads on here explaining to everyone why those shows were crazy ideas. But they weren't. Because they were well thought out. It is not some newfangled notion that Comet made no sense as it was being produced. I and quite a few others said that pretty much from day one, and for my part I very much liked the show downtown so I had nothing against the material. 

The lesson here is the first one you mentioned. And you'll notice that it's a lesson most of the smart money figured out in advance.

So HogansHero, here's my question. The Kagans badly mishandled the Onaodowan/Patinkin situation, and came off looking disingenuous and dense in the process, so I'm easily persuaded that they did plenty of other stupid things in the months and years beforehand - the sort of mistakes that rich, enthusiastic but inexperienced producers are certainly more likely to make.

But was the first mistake trying to turn Great Comet into a big, expensive Broadway show in the first place? Was this show doomed from the start? Would a shrewd producer have been able to make it a financially viable musical, or would a shrewd producer passed on the project, especially such a lavish project? 

You correctly point out that other productions that might have seemed crazy turned into successes, or in the case of Hamilton, a money-printing machine. But the analogies you mention don't seem quite right. Fun Home had a natural Broadway audience, at least, and a small cast of nobodies. Dear Evan Hansen also had a small cast of nobodies, with the minor exception of Ben Platt, who wasn't really a star until the musical. Come From Away, same thing. All of those shows had much greater margins for error because of lower costs and no dependence on stars.

I don't know about Hamilton's costs, but it didn't really have stars either and had to have been one of the most shrewdly marketed shows in Broadway history. And regardless, only a complete fool would count on their show becoming a Hamilton-style phenomenon.

Comet is, as Malloy himself wrote, a "weird show" that wasn't going to appeal to everyone. The producers and creators seemed aware of this, and they brought in Josh Groban to try to address that problem. But they knew from the start that Groban was only going to be around until early July. They knew months before the Tonys that they weren't going to win the only award that counted, Best Musical. The producers knew their costs and temporarily pushed out Brittain Ashford in favor of Ingrid Michaelson to boost the box office after Groban left. They only hired Onaodowan as Pierre for a couple of months, leaving everyone with the impression there was some sort of plan to hire a star for the fall. 

I'm curious about the obvious miscalculations here - not necessarily the ones I'm mentioning - that set up the show to fail, long before the current crisis. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 8:37am

Hoganshero:

"The producers were within their rights to fire him and they have paid dearly for exercising those rights. Because they are idiots."

 

The bottom line here. Cutting through all the supposition and innuendo.   

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 8:58am

Rumpelstiltskin said re: needing tv/movie stars 4 show to survive and shows not relying on Bway actors: " I guess I'm dreaming."

Yes, you are.  Need an extra blanket?  Gonna be a long snooze.  The days of just Bway actors appears over in favor of transplanted Hollywood in limited run shows.

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 9:12am

Bear88 said:"The producers and creators seemed aware of this, and they brought in Josh Groban to try to address that problem."

On Groban's last day and a cast toast to him, cast members--particularly Lucas Steele aka Anatole, said Groban saw their show at the Tent and wanted to be a part of it. Per Steele, Groban "made the calls to" get the show on Bway.  Guess Malloy is right that it was a show that needed a star to pull it off.

Would be great if at the last minute  they pilled a "star" rabbit out of a hat to keep it going.  Would be a riot if it was Mandy.

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 9:24am

And how is this Rafael Casal so influential?  I have several Comet Playbills and his name is absent in all including the substitute inserts.   None of the other cast members spoke up.  They must be loving Casal who pulled the rug out from under them all.  

[Sunny11]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 9:34am

JayElle said: "Rumpelstiltskin said re: needing tv/movie stars 4 show to survive and shows not relying on Bway actors: " I guess I'm dreaming."

Yes, you are.  Need an extra blanket?  Gonna be a long snooze.  The days of just Bway actors appears over in favor of transplanted Hollywood in limited run shows.

"

Hollywood actors are just actors. How is it that a popstar like Harry Styles can star in a big movie like Dunkirk and be celebrated for showing versatility but when a Hollywood actor goes to Broadway they are stealing someone else's rightful job? 

[MVintheheartland]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 10:05am

JayElle said: "And how is this Rafael Casal so influential?  I have several Comet Playbills and his name is absent in all including the substitute inserts.   None of the other cast members spoke up.  They must be loving Casal who pulled the rug out from under them all.  

I don't know the guy, but he better be looking behind him. As for Josh Groban, to be honest, I had only vaguely heard of him. However, I sure knew who oak was, having seen him in Hamilton. I guess I really am a Broadway nerd (or as much as one can be when from the heartland). 

 

"

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 10:37am

@bear88 "But was the first mistake trying to turn Great Comet into a big, expensive Broadway show in the first place? Was this show doomed from the start? Would a shrewd producer have been able to make it a financially viable musical, or would a shrewd producer passed on the project, especially such a lavish project? " 

Yes I think the show had birth defects. Is it possible someone smarter could have taken that baby and nurtured it to health? Maybe, though few if any were inclined to try. But these things can't be viewed in isolation, and the Kagans here (as in On the Town, in very close parallel) took almost no steps to address the very big challenges they faced, and of course took many missteps that made things even worse. One could say that engaging Groban was intended to address these challenges, but it (for various reasons) did not and ended up just saddling an already overexpensive-to-run show with an additional 6 figure expense. As others have said, if you have a big star, you have to recoup during their tenure (a la Midler). A shrewd producer uses a star to create the hottest ticket in town; Comet never was, not even a little. The math here is that with Groban the show would need a year and a half to recoup. I don't know what the Kagans were thinking-my guess is they were not thinking at all-but assuming you can bring in a string of replacements to sustain things is just not sensible. One produces not just down the middle but at the margins, and it is easy to die in the margins. For the second show in a row, the Kagans ignored the margins. Add mishandling the middle and you have no chance. The only chance this show had to succeed was to focus like a laser beam on marketing its biggest asset (again, a la Midler) and then pray you didn't over-estimate its size. 

[JayElle]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 2:07pm

Sunny11 said, "but when a Hollywood actor goes to Broadway they are stealing someone else's rightful job?"

Never suggested anyone was stealing anything. Theater has become absurdly expensive for investors and patrons.  Investors rightfully want a return on their $ and will seek the means to recover the expense.. Come From Away is bargain basement with a minimal set of dining room chairs.  Smart.  The focus is the show, not a name.

 

[PaulWom]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 2:18pm

Oak is suddenly on a twitter spree thanking people in the show. Lol, I've seen this move before ... I worked w many an actor who was insufferable to the entire cast and crew , only to start giving everyone gifts and praise when they figured out ppl were talking about them behind their back. 

Updated On: 8/6/17 at 02:18 PM

[PaulWom]

Posted: 8/6/17 at 2:25pm

Just my opinion, but if he were comfortable with his own story, he wouldn't need to go around covering his tracks