Riedel: Groff turns down HAIR because of the $$ (and some unrelated PAL JOEY stuff, too)
#2
Posted: 12/17/08 at 8:56am
Groff did not win the Tony...they need to get their facts straight.
If you hide from yourself, be someone else for someone else's sake, that would be the greatest mistake - bare
#3
Posted: 12/17/08 at 8:58am
When has Riedel ever let facts stand in his way?
#4
Posted: 12/17/08 at 9:25am
Ok, the PAL JOEY thing is getting old.
I think this show would have flopped but now everyone is talking about it because the lead got fired and it turned into a gossip story.
Ok, WHO is behind this one? It's now to the point that they are *asking* to be written about.
I think this show would have flopped but now everyone is talking about it because the lead got fired and it turned into a gossip story.
Ok, WHO is behind this one? It's now to the point that they are *asking* to be written about.
#5
Posted: 12/17/08 at 9:41am
Interesting: ALL WORKING FOR SCALE?? In the "spirit" of the 60's???? Are they kidding? Good for Groff for taking a stand.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#6
Posted: 12/17/08 at 9:47am
Yes, good for his giant ego giving someone else a job they deserve. I know there are literally thousands of actors that would love to play the role, for scale.
#7
Posted: 12/17/08 at 10:53am
Hell, I'd do the role for a Klondike bar.
"There is no problem so big that it cannot be run away from."
~ Charles M. Schulz
#8
Posted: 12/17/08 at 10:56am
There are enough desperate actors out there that every show in New York could be cast with actors working for scale. That's justifiable how, exactly?
The lead of a show does harder work and more scarce work than an ensemble member - you need to pay for that scarcity. Spirit of the 60s, my ass.
I think it absolutely sucks that Hair can't raise enough money right now, because the Central Park production was sensational. But this is a for-profit Broadway run we're talking about now, even if it did originate at the Public. It has very little to do with the collectivist hippie ethos at this point, if it ever did. The Public wants to use this to make money, and good on them - they'll need it to fund more offbeat productions, educational programs, and other money losers.
The lead of a show does harder work and more scarce work than an ensemble member - you need to pay for that scarcity. Spirit of the 60s, my ass.
I think it absolutely sucks that Hair can't raise enough money right now, because the Central Park production was sensational. But this is a for-profit Broadway run we're talking about now, even if it did originate at the Public. It has very little to do with the collectivist hippie ethos at this point, if it ever did. The Public wants to use this to make money, and good on them - they'll need it to fund more offbeat productions, educational programs, and other money losers.
Updated On: 12/17/08 at 10:56 AM
#9
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:18am
To Liz I. McCain:
Everything the above posters said is true. That said, I offer you my talent in exchange for one (1) Klondike bar. Non-refundable, one time only payment. Think about that. Pay some ACTOR scale, or pay a random message board poster who can prove he has the talent via the wonder that is the computer one measly Klondike bar? This could be the wave of the future, to say nothing of making a nice dent in your budget so you can raise the money a little more easily.
Everything the above posters said is true. That said, I offer you my talent in exchange for one (1) Klondike bar. Non-refundable, one time only payment. Think about that. Pay some ACTOR scale, or pay a random message board poster who can prove he has the talent via the wonder that is the computer one measly Klondike bar? This could be the wave of the future, to say nothing of making a nice dent in your budget so you can raise the money a little more easily.
"There is no problem so big that it cannot be run away from."
~ Charles M. Schulz
#10
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:26am
The lead of a show does harder work
Yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and call MAJOR bull**** on that one. They may have more individual stage time, but harder work? Not always, and in fact, very rarely.
Yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and call MAJOR bull**** on that one. They may have more individual stage time, but harder work? Not always, and in fact, very rarely.
#11
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:26am
I was under the impression that Groff couldn't do the show because it clashed with some previous commitments. Like a major motion picture and the premiere of Craig Lucas' new play.
Reidel is SUCH a douche.
Reidel is SUCH a douche.
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
~ Muhammad Ali
#12
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:27am
I think he's right that if they're going to go "in the spirit of the '60's" then the ticket prices ought to reflect that as well.
Updated On: 12/17/08 at 11:27 AM
#13
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:31am
The movie's done filming and the Lucas play will be closed by the time Hair would be starting (or perhaps I should say would have been starting).
My understanding is that there were several reasons why Groff decided not to do it.
My understanding is that there were several reasons why Groff decided not to do it.
#14
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:31am
All I'm saying is give me one Klondike bar and I'll knock this thing out of the park. The ball's in your court, Liz.
"There is no problem so big that it cannot be run away from."
~ Charles M. Schulz
#15
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:40am
The lead of a show does harder work and more scarce work than an ensemble member - you need to pay for that scarcity. Spirit of the 60s, my ass.
When RENT opened on Broadway, (and I assume for the length of its run) every cast member had the same pay. They knew that they were a team and the ensemble worked just as hard as the leads and without any one of them, the show would not work. It's unusual, but it's not unheard of.
When RENT opened on Broadway, (and I assume for the length of its run) every cast member had the same pay. They knew that they were a team and the ensemble worked just as hard as the leads and without any one of them, the show would not work. It's unusual, but it's not unheard of.
Nothing matters but knowing nothing matters. ~ Wicked
Everything in life is only for now. ~ Avenue Q
There is no future, there is no past. I live this moment as my last. ~ Rent
"He's a tramp, but I love him."
Everything in life is only for now. ~ Avenue Q
There is no future, there is no past. I live this moment as my last. ~ Rent
#16
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:57am
What was scale in the 60's?
www.thebreastcancersite.com
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
A click for life.
mamie4 5/14/03
#17
Posted: 12/17/08 at 11:58am
I hope HAIR doesn't become another GODSPELL...
#18
Posted: 12/17/08 at 12:25pm
When RENT opened on Broadway, (and I assume for the length of its run) every cast member had the same pay. They knew that they were a team and the ensemble worked just as hard as the leads and without any one of them, the show would not work. It's unusual, but it's not unheard of.
You're delusional if you think that Rapp and Pascal worked for scale when they returned, or are going to work for scale on the new national tour.
You're delusional if you think that Rapp and Pascal worked for scale when they returned, or are going to work for scale on the new national tour.
#19
Posted: 12/17/08 at 12:33pm
Patti LuPone once joked that the title of her autobiography would be:
"And Never EVER Work for Scale!"
#20
Posted: 12/17/08 at 12:55pm
You're delusional if you think that Rapp and Pascal worked for scale when they returned, or are going to work for scale on the new national tour.
What exactly is your point? Rapp and Pascal are legitimate stars now, far more than the other actors they'll be sharing the stage with--in roles they famously originated, to boot. Hell, when they returned to Broadway the show's entire ad campaign centered around them...of course they should be making more money now. But that was not the case when Rent opened in 1996, so Yero's point still stands.
Jonathan Groff, Tony nominee though he is, was far from any sort of headliner in this summer's Hair and we shouldn't think of him as one now. His career is still starting out, and Hair is still an ensemble piece. I certainly don't hold anything against him for leaving Hair is he feels there's better money to be made elsewhere (he's probably right), but he isn't really the star of the show...he's more like what the principals in the OBC of Rent were to the rest of the ensemble in 1996, as Yero said.
So...I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
What exactly is your point? Rapp and Pascal are legitimate stars now, far more than the other actors they'll be sharing the stage with--in roles they famously originated, to boot. Hell, when they returned to Broadway the show's entire ad campaign centered around them...of course they should be making more money now. But that was not the case when Rent opened in 1996, so Yero's point still stands.
Jonathan Groff, Tony nominee though he is, was far from any sort of headliner in this summer's Hair and we shouldn't think of him as one now. His career is still starting out, and Hair is still an ensemble piece. I certainly don't hold anything against him for leaving Hair is he feels there's better money to be made elsewhere (he's probably right), but he isn't really the star of the show...he's more like what the principals in the OBC of Rent were to the rest of the ensemble in 1996, as Yero said.
So...I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
"If there is going to be a restoration fee, there should also be a Renaissance fee, a Middle Ages fee and a Dark Ages fee. Someone must have men in the back room making up names, euphemisms for profit."
(Emanuel Azenberg)
Updated On: 12/17/08 at 12:55 PM
#21
Posted: 12/17/08 at 1:02pm
Why should he be expected to work for scale?
Is this a charity event?
Is this a charity event?
#22
Posted: 12/17/08 at 1:04pm
No one in their right mind would contend that Groff should get paid like Anthony Rapp would in a show today - but I also don't think it's unreasonable for him to expect to be paid higher than scale.
Also, we need to separate the idea of everyone being paid the same from everyone being paid scale - was the latter situation what happened with Rent? I'm genuinely curious.
But in any case, if you want to pay your whole cast the Broadway equivalent of minimum wage, it's still ridiculous to call it "in the spirit of Hair" or whatever the hell, when this is a money-making enterprise being staged in a for-profit context. I mean, if you're going to go there, at least have the courage of your convictions - put all the box office gross in a pool and give everyone some equal percentage of it, from the director to the actors to the stagehands to the producers. Now that would be collectivist.
Or hey, you can just say, "We're paying everyone in the ensemble scale because we're having a hard time capitalizing." That might lose you your lead, but at least it makes some freaking sense.
Also, we need to separate the idea of everyone being paid the same from everyone being paid scale - was the latter situation what happened with Rent? I'm genuinely curious.
But in any case, if you want to pay your whole cast the Broadway equivalent of minimum wage, it's still ridiculous to call it "in the spirit of Hair" or whatever the hell, when this is a money-making enterprise being staged in a for-profit context. I mean, if you're going to go there, at least have the courage of your convictions - put all the box office gross in a pool and give everyone some equal percentage of it, from the director to the actors to the stagehands to the producers. Now that would be collectivist.
Or hey, you can just say, "We're paying everyone in the ensemble scale because we're having a hard time capitalizing." That might lose you your lead, but at least it makes some freaking sense.
Updated On: 12/17/08 at 01:04 PM
#23
Posted: 12/17/08 at 1:43pm
What exactly is your point? Rapp and Pascal are legitimate stars now, far more than the other actors they'll be sharing the stage with--in roles they famously originated, to boot.
Re-read what Yero wrote. He stated, "When RENT opened on Broadway, (and I assume for the length of its run) every cast member had the same pay.
Emphasis mine. There is simply no way that for the length of its run, every cast member in Rent made the same amount of money. You really think that when they started to stunt cast, the likes of Drew Lachey, Scary Spice, and Joey Fatone all made the same amount of money as the kid in the ensemble making his Broadway debut? Highly, highly doubtful.
And no, Groff should not be making the same amount of money as Rapp or Pascal is now, that wasn't my point. My point is that the producers wanting everyone to work for scale "in the spirit of the show" is b.s. As has been pointed in the thread, this is a for profit venture. If the goal is to make money, why should the cast, particularly the lead, work for less money? In the spirit of the show, ticket prices should be a lot lower.
Re-read what Yero wrote. He stated, "When RENT opened on Broadway, (and I assume for the length of its run) every cast member had the same pay.
Emphasis mine. There is simply no way that for the length of its run, every cast member in Rent made the same amount of money. You really think that when they started to stunt cast, the likes of Drew Lachey, Scary Spice, and Joey Fatone all made the same amount of money as the kid in the ensemble making his Broadway debut? Highly, highly doubtful.
And no, Groff should not be making the same amount of money as Rapp or Pascal is now, that wasn't my point. My point is that the producers wanting everyone to work for scale "in the spirit of the show" is b.s. As has been pointed in the thread, this is a for profit venture. If the goal is to make money, why should the cast, particularly the lead, work for less money? In the spirit of the show, ticket prices should be a lot lower.
#24
Posted: 12/17/08 at 3:14pm
Groff is well known enough now and a big enough asset to Hair that asking him to play for scale is a little insulting, especially since he was so well received in the park. I can totally understand that.
As for Pal Joey, I'm finally seeing it tonight so hopefully I'll get a better sense of what everyone is gossiping about.
As for Pal Joey, I'm finally seeing it tonight so hopefully I'll get a better sense of what everyone is gossiping about.
#25
Posted: 12/17/08 at 4:30pm
No one being paid any more than anyone else in the cast is called a 'favored nations contract'. It would not be out of line for the 6-8 main principals of Hair (or Rent for that matter) to all be on favored nations deals.
I do think it would be out of line for everyone to be on a favored-nations-at-scale deal. Can agents collect commission on scale salaries? It was not the case back in the day.
However be careful how the word "star" is used. A star sells tickets and sells a lot of them. Someone playing a lead is not always a star. They may be well known within the business but stars also last.
In the original Hair, Rado and Ragni may have made scale in 1968 as actors, but they were also collecting author royalties.
I do think it would be out of line for everyone to be on a favored-nations-at-scale deal. Can agents collect commission on scale salaries? It was not the case back in the day.
However be careful how the word "star" is used. A star sells tickets and sells a lot of them. Someone playing a lead is not always a star. They may be well known within the business but stars also last.
In the original Hair, Rado and Ragni may have made scale in 1968 as actors, but they were also collecting author royalties.
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true. And that would be unacceptable."
--Carrie Fisher
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95