TUTS "Hardbody" Unauthorized Changes- Page 3
TUTS "Hardbody" Unauthorized Changes
TUTS #50
Posted: 6/20/14 at 8:49pmThe idea that drag is not related directly to sexuality obviously was important to Fierstein, or else I don't think he would have followed Kinky Boots with a play about heterosexual drag queens. Perhaps the spat with Porter was just the spark he needed.
TUTS #51
Posted: 6/20/14 at 9:11pm
"Harvey's interviews have said that Lola is asexual, so the attraction would presumably be romantic but not sexual. That is exactly what i said in my first message above (asexual and heteroromantic)."
If it were that important to Harvey, he would've been clear in the script.
He didn't. Because it's not important to the story at all. Lola's sexuality is irrelevant to the plot. Played gay, played straight, played neither- the show is, essentially, the same.
If you think this is even in the realm of comparability to the TUTS situation, you're wrong.
TUTS #52
Posted: 6/20/14 at 9:20pm
I have to agree with qolbinau. "Hey Amanda Green, please come see the Houston premiere of your show! By the way, I made some changes, hope you don't mind!"
I don't know if it's arrogance, being oblivious to what obtaining performance rights means, or just total disregard for what another artist has written, but this is just sad. It goes beyond insulting the original piece. You can't just change something to make it work better for you or how you think it should ho--especially if it's based on a true story! This is not a piece that's a fairy tale. It's based on real people and their experiences. Those can't be changed without creating something totally new, which is what Lumpkin has done.
TUTS is a very well respected regional theater. They're known across the country. This is a black mark against them.
What happens for the people in the middle? The actors, musicians, crew etc.? I'm assuming they've lost whatever amount is left on their contract, since they're not putting on the show, or does some kind of huge not-your-fault clause exist in contracts (I'm guessing no)?
TUTS #53
Posted: 6/21/14 at 12:23amThe theatre will have a bond with Equity that may have to be invaded in order to pay the actors if the theatre cannot.
TUTS #54
Posted: 6/21/14 at 8:37amAs a playwright I would be horrified if I watched a production of my work to find it rewritten or changed without my permission. We are currently working on a new version of Charles Busch Psycho Beach Party to merge together the play and movie version as it's something I have always believed would work well. Before we even discussed the idea further we contacted Charles who gave us the green light and had told us to send it to him once it's finished and he will also help out by taking a pass at it. This idiot needs to be shown the door.
TUTS #55
Posted: 6/21/14 at 11:24am
"The theatre will have a bond with Equity that may have to be invaded in order to pay the actors if the theatre cannot."
Though the bond will not pay out the full contract. It will cover the length of time the actors need to get contractually between the posting of the closing notice and the actual closing date, usually one or two weeks.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/9/04
TUTS #56
Posted: 6/21/14 at 11:37amBravo, songanddanceman! I'd love to see the finished product, but alas I'm across the pond. Charles is a wonderful man - so happy he gave you his blessings!
TUTS #57
Posted: 6/21/14 at 11:47amIn this case, this was just a run of 10 days. The theatre will have, in theory, already budgeted their salaries.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/4/07
TUTS #58
Posted: 6/21/14 at 12:26pm
And I believe that only 3 or 4 performances had to be cancelled. It is unlikely that anyone (other than the theater) will lose anything.
I hope to see TUTS announce this dolt's departure soon.
TUTS #59
Posted: 6/21/14 at 12:35pm
I was looking forward to seeing this show tonight. As a Houston theatre goer and a somewhat regular attendee of TUTS productions, I am very disappointed. I am also less-inclined to give TUTS my money to fund Bruce Lumpkin's massive ego and equally massive screw-ups. For the sake of the company and the sake of the art, I hope the board fires him immediately. He knows better. Also, President and CEO John Breckenridge's role in this debacle should be questioned as well. If he knew Lumpkin was changing the show, he should be let go as well. Ain't nobody got time for this kind of stupidity.
Lumpkin's refusal to take responsibility for his actions, at least as evidenced by Sherman's post, is astounding, as is Carol Hall's account of her phone conversation with him. I wonder if there will be any ramifications for the upcoming production of WHOREHOUSE.
As to Lumpkin's refusing to answer Sherman's question, "Having signed a license agreement for the show, did you believe you had the legal and ethical right to make the changes you did?": it is a simple yes or no question. One answer requires Lumpkin to acknowledge that he messed up big time, and it sounds like he will not do that. The other answer would bring him only more ridicule for being arrogant and conceited. I would respect him a little if he had taken a stand either way.
It is a very sad situation all around.
TUTS #60
Posted: 6/21/14 at 12:39pm
B.Lumpkin
Broadway Star Joined: 11/2/13
TUTS #61
Posted: 6/21/14 at 12:57pmBruce Lumpkin is also an elitist douchebag, so it's really hard to feel sorry for him.
TUTS #62
Posted: 6/25/14 at 11:47am
As to Lumpkin's refusing to answer Sherman's question, "Having signed a license agreement for the show, did you believe you had the legal and ethical right to make the changes you did?": it is a simple yes or no question. One answer requires Lumpkin to acknowledge that he messed up big time, and it sounds like he will not do that. The other answer would bring him only more ridicule for being arrogant and conceited. I would respect him a little if he had taken a stand either way.
He sounds like an arrogant ****who should be fired but, to be fair, that's exactly the kind of question any lawyer would advise you NOT to answer, because it could affect any legal actions against him that the board or the authors might pursue.
Does anyone know anything about the production of Whorehouse? Has it happened yet? Was the song included?
TUTS #64
Posted: 6/25/14 at 12:14pm
This is a moral riddle that I just adore - I think creative artists' rights are sacrosanct. Interpretive artists are in the wrong when they think it's their job to change ("improve") the creative artists' work. If the interpretive artists thinks they are more creative than the creative artists, they should have the guts to create their own work (and then deal with other interpretive artists' disrespect of it).
However: I found Hands On A Hardbody to be such an awful piece or writing in every way, one that couldn't even run an month, I can't bring myself to care about what anyone does to it.
A paradox worthy of Spock...
TUTS #65
Posted: 6/25/14 at 12:50pmThe production of Best Little Whorehouse is next month- if I see it I'll be sure to let you know if they include the song
TUTS #66
Posted: 6/25/14 at 12:51pmBwayboi. You should, as a regular theatre goer of TUTS, write call or email a letter requesting his firing or resignation.
TUTS #67
Posted: 6/25/14 at 1:30pm
Interpretive artists should respect the intentions of the creative artists, but should be allowed to contact them and petition for or suggest changes. This is a collaborative art form, and a flexible one, but consent is the issue here.
Also, I firmly believe that a piece in the public domain is fair game for anyone and anything. Some people believe that these pieces are even more "sacred" than newer, less established ones, but I believe the public domain exists to be experimented with and plundered. But that's not the issue here.
TUTS #68
Posted: 6/25/14 at 1:35pmOf course - no matter what aesthetic opinion anyone has about assaulting public domain works (like writing simply awful musical versions of Jane Eyre or A Tale of Two Cities), legally, anyone may do whatever they like to them.
TUTS #69
Posted: 6/26/14 at 12:29pmI would assume that for every bastardization there is a successful adaptation or reimagining, and ten successful or unsuccessful productions that just land on absolutely no one's radar.
TUTS #70
Posted: 6/26/14 at 1:19pm
In this case, he invited the writers to be surprised by his "improvements" on opening night.
TUTS #71
Posted: 10/10/15 at 3:26pm
More than one year later and Mr. Lumpkin ("Don't you agree I made it better"
is apparently still Artistic Director at TUTS. Now THAT'S unbelievable.
TUTS #72
Posted: 10/10/15 at 3:59pm
I have a friend who claims he saw a production of OLIVER! where Nancy lived and ended up killing Bill Sykes. He said it was kinda like the end of DIE HARD where Alan Rickman pops up from under the blanket. I guess Nancy did that.
Joined: 12/31/69
TUTS #74
Posted: 10/10/15 at 4:04pm
Ive thought about this before. If i would up a production of Chicago, could i cut the dreadful song "A Little Bit of Good" out? Its a black hole in the middle of a brilliant near perfect musical
Videos
