Scott Rudin is returning to Broadway — Page 10

OhHiii said: "SmokeyLady said: "Has anyone questioned Laurie Metcalfe as to why she is ok with being in this? Maybe I shouldn’t go see anything she does anymore."

She doesn’t really owe that to anyone. She’s doing her work. That’s it. Sometimes it’s just that simple."

Trump sycophants are “just doing their work”. Nazis were “just doing their work”. I realize these are very extreme and wild comparisons, but point them out because no one MADE her agree to work with Rudin. She is celebrated and successful and could work with other producers but chooses to work with Rudin.

you’re right - she doesn’t owe us an explanation. But she’s not “just doing her work”.

PipingHotPiccolo said: "whatever2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "


Right, we will never know what actually happened there because there was no investigation, no charges (criminal OR civil) etc. So that tells gives me (and I think most attorneys) pause before calling this guy a criminal for being a total prick, which is not a crime in the State of New York, the same way all employment is at-will and *every industry* has horrible people in them who make life extremely unpleasant for underlings.

This is no defense of Scott Rudin as a person, but the reason you see the ice melting for him now is because of a slow return to "wait, is he a criminal or not?" For lawyers the distinction is important. For anonymous people on the internet, i get it, not so much.

And the comparison to MJ is ridiculous- no one is making a production ABOUT Rudin, lauding him, or even ignoring his misdeeds. MJ Is a celebration of someone who I cant say much more about because the overlords here will delete any such comment."

funny, as an attorney licensed to practice in three jurisdictions, my first thought was: out-of-court settlement.

and is the bar here really so low as "convicted criminal"??

Call_me_jorge said: "BJR said: "Y’all is this the same industry that didn’t ask anyone involved in MJ about, well, MJ? Who would be asking Metcalf about Rudin?"

Michael Jackson is dead and the money goes to his estate, i.e. his children."

The press did ask people involved in MJ about it, at least to some extent. Playwright Lynn Nottage said she thought Wade Robson and James Safechuck were telling the truth about being abused by Jackson, but she has no way of 100% knowing, and she's not judge and jury.

Personally, I think that answer is morally flawed and self-serving. There's a different burden of proof for criminal charges and choosing to make a musical aggrandizing an alleged pedophile. But the question was asked and answered.

Regarding Rudin being a totally different situation from MJ because Jackson is dead, that's true in someways but not others. Jackson's kids, who did nothing wrong might be beneficiaries of Jackson's estate, but the estate is also in active litigation around the alleged child abuse. For example, Wade Robson and James Safechuck have civil suits against the estate set to go to trial in 2026.

The biggest reason I personally won't see MJ is because the profits can be used to fight sexual abuse victims in court.

Metcalf has been part of the Steppenwolf production of this play long before Rudin was involved so not sure why people think she chose to work with Rudin when she was already part of the production.
The cast and creative team wanted to bring this production to Broadway.

What I don’t understand is how come no other producer was able to get investors to bring this to Broadway. How did Rudin get involved? Was he invited to be a lead producer because they know he can rally enough investors to bring this to NYC?

As long as Rudin can get investors to back him up, unfortunately he will be in power. :/ Blame the investors.

Ok then blame Barry Diller for bringing Rudin back to Broadway.

whatever2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "whatever2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "


Right, we will never know what actually happened there because there was no investigation, no charges (criminal OR civil) etc. So that tells gives me (and I think most attorneys) pause before calling this guy a criminal for being a total prick, which is not a crime in the State of New York, the same way all employment is at-will and *every industry* has horrible people in them who make life extremely unpleasant for underlings.

This is no defense of Scott Rudin as a person, but the reason you see the ice melting for him now is because of a slow return to "wait, is he a criminal or not?" For lawyers the distinction is important. For anonymous people on the internet, i get it, not so much.

And the comparison to MJ is ridiculous- no one is making a production ABOUT Rudin, lauding him, or even ignoring his misdeeds. MJ Is a celebration of someone who I cant say much more about because the overlords here will delete any such comment."

funny, as an attorney licensed to practice in three jurisdictions, my first thought was: out-of-court settlement.

and is the bar here really so low as "convicted criminal"??"

this made me laugh out loud. i pointed out that as miserable a person Rudin is, he is not a criminal, an important distinction that seems to get lost--he was never accused of anything that crossed a line into something actionable in either criminal or even civil court.

i get the usual pushback---but hes mean! how can mean people be allowed to mean!!--from the usual children, and now we've landed at "ok hes not a criminal but hes still bad anyway"--which was my point to start.

i dont know what industries you all work in, but talented powerful people in media, medicine, law, education, PR, everywhere, often get away with nasty behavior. pretending that makes them irredeemably criminal makes most people (like Laurie Metcalf apparently) roll their eyes. The guys a prick. Hes good at what he does. Lets grow up? or nah

PipingHotPiccolo said: "whatever2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "whatever2 said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "


Right, we will never know what actually happened there because there was no investigation, no charges (criminal OR civil) etc. So that tells gives me (and I think most attorneys) pause before calling this guy a criminal for being a total prick, which is not a crime in the State of New York, the same way all employment is at-will and *every industry* has horrible people in them who make life extremely unpleasant for underlings.

This is no defense of Scott Rudin as a person, but the reason you see the ice melting for him now is because of a slow return to "wait, is he a criminal or not?" For lawyers the distinction is important. For anonymous people on the internet, i get it, not so much.

And the comparison to MJ is ridiculous- no one is making a production ABOUT Rudin, lauding him, or even ignoring his misdeeds. MJ Is a celebration of someone who I cant say much more about because the overlords here will delete any such comment."

funny, as an attorney licensed to practice in three jurisdictions, my first thought was: out-of-court settlement.

and is the bar here really so low as "convicted criminal"??"

this made me laugh out loud. i pointed out that as miserable a person Rudin is, he is not a criminal, an important distinction that seems to get lost--he was never accused of anything that crossed a line into something actionable in either criminal or even civil court.

i get the usual pushback---but hes mean! how can mean people be allowed to mean!!--from the usual children, and now we've landed at "ok hes not a criminal but hes still bad anyway"--which was my point to start.

i dont know what industries you all work in, but talented powerful people in media, medicine, law, education, PR, everywhere, often get away with nasty behavior. pretending that makes them irredeemably criminal makes most people (like Laurie Metcalf apparently) roll their eyes. The guys a prick. Hes good at what he does. Lets grow up? or nah"

I know of no industry where anyone could get away with smashing a computer monitor on somebody's hand. Except apparently this one.

PipingHotPiccolo said: "this made me laugh out loud. i pointed out that as miserable a person Rudin is, he is not a criminal, an important distinction that seems to get lost--he was never accused of anything that crossed a line into something actionable in either criminal or even civil court."

Rudin is not a convicted criminal but it's not accurate to say he never did anything that crossed the line legally. He threw a stapler at an assistant. In 2017, a man in Long Island was charged with assault for throwing a stapler at a restaurant employee. Rudin threw a baked potato at an assistant's head. Earlier this year, a man in Pennsylvania plead guilty to assault for throwing a potato at a boy.

The vast majority of things that are legally actionable, aren't brought to court for any number of reasons, and I don't have a clue if Rudin could have been convicted of assault. But 100% he crossed the line beyond just being a mean boss.

Updated On: 7/9/25 at 12:06 PM

Steppenwolf "not producing" the transfer is a purely symbolic thing. The nonprofit originating theatre is rarely involved with a Broadway transfer in a major way. Attend some meetings, weigh in on artwork, an option (but not obligation) to raise or invest additional money into a transfer, receive some reports, but that's about it. The level of involvement the theatre has is often up to the lead producer, and it may be consistent with how other Rudin transfers functioned (A View From The Bridge, The Humans, This Is Our Youth, etc).

Steppenwolf will still receive money from the production and may still be billed above the title on the Playbill. But from a PR standpoint and as a nonprofit that receives some public funding, I get why they're making that symbolic announcement.

Updated On: 7/12/25 at 12:06 PM

Out on the east end last weekend amongst our friends in the industry overheard that he's planning a musical (which one not disclosed) for the '27-28 season!

Updated On: 7/12/25 at 03:05 PM

MAME starring Academy Award and multi-Emmy Award winner Allison Janney.