Sort of Insider "Sweet Charity" News

You know what I love. People expect the show to be perfect on its first out of town preview week.

Did we really need this thread to say Christina and the rest of the cast aren't good. GOD GIVE THEM SOME TIME.

Ljay.... we know it's a preview.....

I'm just saying that it was interesting to hear from someone whose been with the rehearsal process of the show.

Take the stick out!!

ljay, I guess I've never understood why they can't be perfect on opening night. I mean, they've been practicing and performing previews for two months. It's not like it's a new show and they're making changes and cuts. Should a show be ready on it's opening night?

---

Oh no, I totally understand what goes on with these shows. It's just that they get paid $1200 a week to be perfect. I totally empathize with last-minute switches and things, but it's their job to be ready for opening night. Not just the actors, but everyone: the musicians, the crew, the producers, everyone.

---

This isn't about opening night, though. They've just started previews, so I don't see what the issue is.

If the show hasn't opened yet, then that's an entire different issue. It's totally normal for things not to totally work in previews, because that's what they're there for: to make sure things run smoothly, to see audience reaction, etc.

---

Sorry folks, but as I have said on other threads, SWEET CHARITY was not a very good show to begin with, it never was.

Why on earth do the producers think they could make money outta this show when there are greeeeeeeeeat shows out there to be revived?

It is odd they are reviving a show that got mixed reviews its first go round and mixed reviews in its most recent Broadway revival. At neither time was the show a moneymaker.

I keep wondering, with all the great properties out there, why would they think they could make money on a show that was not really very enjoyable and not terribly successful to begin with?

p.s. to Tenorific,,,,,,you sent me a private message and asked me to respond, but the system here says you don't accept private messages? Sorry.

---

Updated On: 2/16/05 at 10:55 AM

I was wondering when WISHIHADATONY would chime in...

I think the Weisslers chose it because they have had great success reviving another Fosse show, and because it can be a good star vehicle if you get the right performer. (Whether they have or not remains to be seen, I suppose.) And whatever problems are in the book, it is a score with a lot of classic songs in it. Big Spender and If My Friends Could See Me Now are probably two of the most recognizable showtunes. (I knew the latter song way before I knew it was even from a show!)

---

I hope the revival is thrilling and everyone loves it very much. Part of being on the board is sharing experiences. I have had SWEET CHARITY experiences and am simply making you aware, sorry if offending anyone. I genuinely don't mean to and am truly sorry for the repetitiveness, etc....

Sometimes we look towards what we read here to help guide us with our theatergoing purchases, etc..........

No one wants a magnificent new revival of a Broadway musical more than I do...I hope the show is redone to the point where it is amazing, the critics love it, the audiences love it and it has a long run, makes a fortune and spawns numerous national tours and other productions. I genuinely do. I adore Neil Simon and am in love with the work of Cy Coleman.

Hopefully the new creative team will fix the previoius problems with the show and win an armful of Tonys!

---

Eight lines and a lovely paycheck.

---

Yes. People can express their views & opinions on this board. But WISH says the same exact thing in EVERY Sweet Charity thread. I am so sick of it, and so are others. I can tell you exactly what he is going to say. We get it point, we actually got his point weeks ago!

I can't speak for other postings as I haven't read any. I just find people are quick to jump all over someone for posting thoughts and opinions and GOD FORBID a thread is started that may have been created previously.

---