Roger Rees to Replace Nathan Lane in THE ADDAMS FAMILY 3/2011 — Page 2

Wow. This discussion is going everywhere.

1) Earning a Tony doesn't make you a household name. True. But I don't think anyone claimed that?

Personally, I think if you are a theater person, Roger Rees is a name you would know. If not, you should know it.

2) I was just on the phone with my mother while reading the board, so I asked her (a prime example of a tourist) who Nathan Lane was. She had no clue. I asked her who Roger Rees was. She had no clue. So whatever that tells you, there you have it.

3) Nathan Lane is extremely popular in the theater circle. Moreso than Rees. A lot more so. Thus Lane is a name that sells tickets. But he is not a household name.

---

Did you not read what I wrote Bettyboy? Rees isn't known because of his Tony. In fact, most people who know him (aka his TV fanbase) probably don't even know he won a Tony. They know him from his long-running roles on various TV shows. Nathan Lane is a talk-show guest because of his theatre credits and nothing more.

Pointless. Having Rees join the show is not intended to drive ticket sales through the roof. It is to replace an actor. Nothing more.

If they wanted a name, they would have gotten a name.

---

The role I remember Rees from is the Sheriff of Rottingham in "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" :)

---

I kinda wish it would close when Nathan and Bebe opted out. Are they going to turn ADDAMS into THE PRODUCERS by beating the show to death with multiple replacements (that won't really help the box office much)?

---

aaah yes!! I knew his name sounded familiar! Robin Hood Men in Tights!!! thanks for the memory jolt! haha

I hear what Quizking is saying and from an artistic point of view I agree -- except that they hired a very talented, charismatic actor to take over from Nathan so I'm actually encouraged by the choice. They are hardly "beating the show to death with multiple replacements".

As an aside, replacing stars in Broadway shows with other stars or even quasi-stars is a long-standing tradition going back decades. It's not always done successfully, and I agree that one needs to have standards, but I'm not sure why the mere act of replacing the original stars seems troubling. If I'm misunderstanding your intent (Quizking), my apologies in advance.

Lastly, I would note that Broadway is a business. The show has a fiduciary obligation to its investors and unless the show has paid back by the time Nathan leaves, I can certainly understand why they would at least take a shot at continuing the run long enough to give them a chance at recouping. If they start to lose money steadily, there's a similarly good argument to close the show. But to not even try to run seems unnecessarily drastic. Furthermore, it can be argued that the ongoing Broadway run will aide the tour that has been announced to open in new Orleans in September 2011 and vice versa. Another reason to continue the run. Finally, a respectable Broadway run will likely also impact interest in the show internationally. Yet another reason to try and make a go of it with replacement actors rather than just folding up shop at the first sign of a challenge.

But then again, I'm in the minority of people who liked the show and I'm therefore happy to have it stay as long as it can.

---

I took what Quizking said as QUITE negative: I kinda wish it would close when Nathan and Bebe opted out. Are they going to turn ADDAMS into THE PRODUCERS by beating the show to death with multiple replacements (that won't really help the box office much)?

Should ONLY the originals ever play parts? Replacements can never be good? Just because someone is "known" does that mean they can't be a great choice for a part? Shows SHOULDN'T last as long as the public is still buying tickets? ONE replacement is beating a show to death? Are the "stars" the only reason the show exists? How would the box office be helped by closing a show just because a star exits? The show was never to be a limited engagement, nor was it ever billed as the Nathan Lane/Bebe Neuwirth Spectacular.

I'm not talking about THIS show neccessarily, but any show. I just want to see a great show (not saying this is, as I have no interest in it at all) with great performers. I don't care if they are known or not.

---

I saw Roger Rees in Waiting For Godot in London a few months ago and he plays younger than his age, even when trying to look old. He can sing a bit - witness A Man of No Importance where he did quite well.

As for replacing Nathan Lane, no one can. I expect the humor quotient of the show to drop precipitously. That said, Rees is a good actor and an interesting choice. We shall now see if this show has legs.

---

Roger Rees is a well-known, highly respected actor with a lengthy and high-profile resumé. If you don't know that, you're either a child who has yet to actually explore anything that's happened in the theatre other than Wicked or Lion King, or you're a village idiot.

i don't know who he is...but i genuinly wish him luck in the role! he and Bebe will have chemistry which will be great to see!

really excited about this cast change if i'm honest =)

The show will limp through the summer and close Labor Day weekend.

Nathan Lane is not a household name, but he is a known actor--because of things like The Birdcage and Frasier, and for lending his iconic voice to Lion King and Stewart Little. People know who he is, especially if they know theatre (and especially since The Producers).