The Music Man should do the right thing and postpone/cancel the run now — Page 3

Call_me_jorge said: "I don’t understand this. A show can run 20 years and never earn a penny and I’d consider it a flop. Not making money = flop. Running a long time while not making money, just means it was hemorrhaging money probably."

I always assumed it usually implied that the show made slightly above its weekly nut for a long while, but not enough to add up to the capitalization amount. For instance, if a hypothetical musical cost $10 million to mount, and it was clearing $10,000 a week, it would make sense to keep it running indefinitely - but it would have to keep that up for twenty years to make a profit.

kdogg36 said: "Call_me_jorge said: "I don’t understand this. A show can run 20 years and never earn a penny and I’d consider it a flop. Not making money = flop. Running a long time while not making money, just means it was hemorrhaging money probably."

I always assumed it usually implied that the show made slightly above its weekly nut for a long while, but not enough to add up to the capitalization amount. For instance, if a hypothetical musical cost $10 million to mount, and it was clearing $10,000 a week, it would make sense to keep it running indefinitely - but it would haveto keep that up for twenty years to make a profit."

Exactly. And didn't Memphis recoup the week it closed?

dwirth said: "blaxx said: "akhoya87 said: "Did not mean to turn this into a Jackman v. Norm Lewis discussion. I was really rooting for Jessie, anyway. I like Sutton Foster just fine, but my desire to go see this is a solid "meh" (and Hugh Jackman moves the needle for me more than Sutton Foster does)."

The show itself wouldn't survive without a massive star, especially not at the Winter Garden. The last Broadway revival was a big flop; no way it would never turn a profit with Broadway stars alone."

Oh, please, the last revival ran 20 months - and through 9/11. That'snot a flop by any reasonable definition - unless Bierko's wonderful (Preston-channeling.... i know, I know...)performance just wasn't your thing. Did it make money? Maybe not.. but no flop. Dance A Little Closer was a flop. Into The Light was a flop. Honeymoon in Vegas was (sadly) a flop."

It's a business, love. If you invest 5 coins into a business and at the end you only have 3 coins, your business flopped. It doesn't matter if Bierko made you hot for 10 years straight, the business that brought you the spectacle flopped.

It's called math, look it up!

Updated On: 5/17/20 at 01:38 AM

rg7759 said: "I wasn't going to boycott but if Beetlejuice is willing & able to continue and the music man still prevents it by refusing to switch theaters, then I think a boycott is necessary"

You should boycott by not buying a ticket to The Music Man. That'll show them.

BWAY Baby2 said: "I hate to face this- but is today different from yesterday- or tomorrow? I have tickets to MM- and would love to see it. But, realistically, until a vaccine or treatment- it will not go on. It would have been a huge hit and a wonderful gift to BWAY- as was Dolly with Bette- but how can it go on if things stay like this? They say a vaccine in 12-18 months- maybe- and a treatment also looks to be nowhere near a sure thing. So, as much as I hate to admit it- the life I have been leading since mid-March will continue indefinitely until this virus can be effectively treated. I hate to say end of story- because I love theater, movies, concerts, restaurants, travel, social occasions-not to mention haircuts- but in clear eyed moments- that is what it looks like to me."

Broadway is not going to wait for a vaccine to reopen. Should they wait for a vaccine? That's a completely valid argument and not at all what I'm commenting on here. But a billion dollar industry with hundreds of thousands of people currently unemployed is not going to just say "well, we can't work for 2 years". It's still entirely possible they reopen in September. Maybe it's not until January or March. But there is absolutely no way they're going to wait until Fall 2021 or Spring 2022 which seem like the realistic time a vaccine may end up being available. It's wonderful that everyone is thinking about health and safety right now and I truly hope that continues. But the reality is, sooner or later the push to get the economy restarted again is going to get so strong that even the staunchest opponents of reopening are going to cave to the pressure. I mean, look at how much everyone is protesting and complaining right now and it's only been two months. After six months? Right or wrong, things are going to reopen. Which is why I completely understand why Music Man or any other show this fall is not cancelling or refunding yet.

Broadway61004 said:
Broadway is not going to wait for a vaccine to reopen. Should they wait for a vaccine? That's a completely valid argument and not at all what I'm commenting on here. But a billion dollar industry with hundreds of thousands of people currently unemployed is not going to just say "well, we can't work for 2 years". It's still entirely possible they reopen in September. Maybe it's not until January or March. But there is absolutely no way they're going to wait until Fall 2021 or Spring 2022 which seem like the realistic time a vaccine may end up being available. It's wonderful that everyone is thinking about health and safety right now and I truly hope that continues. But the reality is, sooner or later the push to get the economy restarted again is going to get so strong that even the staunchest opponents of reopening are going to cave to the pressure. I mean, look at how much everyone is protesting and complaining right now and it's only been two months. After six months? Right or wrong, things are going to reopen. Which is why I completely understand why Music Man or any other show this fall is not cancelling or refunding yet."

Agree with this 100%. I do think Music Man will likely postpone till the spring, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that some Broadway/Off Broadway/Opera/Ballet will surface at some point this fall, not to mention regionals around the country.

Jackman has CHARISMA- he has got IT- whatever that is- it is chemistry with the audience- you can't bottle it or fake it- he has it in spades- that is just the way it is for very few performers- he might not be the most talented- or handsomest or most versatile performer- no one says he is- but he is a crowd pleaser- and he is a combination of a lot of traits that add up to something electric.Not everyone feels it- nor do they feel it for Barbra- or Gaga- or Springsteen- but when you got it, you got it.

djoko84 said: "sparksatmidnight said: "If the money for a ticket will make that much a difference in your life you should probably save it in the first place. They're following the Broadway League and New York instructions."



Are you kidding me with this post? When I paid over $400 for my tickets, people weren't losing jobs, getting sick, and dying. People may not have needed the money then, but we certainly need it now."

And I assume that when you paid over $400.00 for those tickets you had the money to spend or budgeted it. If not, that is not the fault of the show. It is yours. They are not responsible for your CHOICE to spend that money. So now you have to wait. And I doubt complaining here is going to get you a refund any faster.

Updated On: 5/18/20 at 12:50 AM

Jarethan said: "joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

Jackman gave one of the best musical comedy performances by a male that I have seen in 55 years, right up there with Richard Kiley in La Mancha, Christopher Plummer in Cyrano (a flop but a magnificent performance), Nathan Lane in The Producers, and probably Ben Platt. Heis perfect for the role of Harold Hill and has more charisma on-stage than just about anyone I can think of. I find that interesting, since I think he has very littlecharisma on film. There may be good replacements, e.g., NPH, but I can think of no one who would be as right to open the production."
Bragging rights about Kiley - may I share that

Back to the topic of Jackman -- one of the most flattering praise of Hugh during TBFO came from the late multi-Oscar winner for screenwriting, William Goldman --

https://variety.com/2003/film/columns/screen-trade-standout-perfs-for-a-young-decade-1117895301/
November 9, 2003 5:00AM PT
Screen Trade: Standout perfs for a young decade
By William Goldman

There have been a shocking number of sensational performances this year, which is the subject under discussion today
I have gushed more than usual here; forgive me, but I ain’t done yet. I want to talk about a new subject for me and it is this: Which man and which woman will be the stars of the next decade?
>
>
OK. For my male star, I jump mediums and 3,000 miles.

I have gone to the theater for 60-some years. And yes, I was there for Brando in ’47 in “Streetcar.” I was there for Merman in the legendary gypsy run-through of “Gypsy.” But nothing prepared me for Hugh Jackman.

“The Boy From Oz” — about songwriter and singer Peter Allen — is not close to being a wonderful musical. It’s not even all that good. But it mattereth not, because Jackman is visible pretty much all the time. And what a blessing that he chose at this point in his movie career to come back to the stage. And please let him do it again.

For now what we must all do is get our asses to the Imperial Theater on West 45th Street — there, now you know everything — and just watch him.

What Jackman does inside that structure is only this: He can sing with anyone you ever heard on the legitimate stage, he can hoof like crazy, he is funny and most surprising of all, maybe, is that he is vulnerable and sad. Plus courteous, kind, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent."

Have you seen Bad Education? SPOILER ALERT!

He is aged up with makeup, wears a prosthetic paunch, has an unflattering hairstyle...but his portrayal of the real-life school superintendent, Frank Tassone, who was involved in the largest school embezzlement scandal in US history, is very charismatic so much so that the audience almost forgives him when he is uncovered as the true sociopath. Dramatically speaking, top critics (RottenTomatoes rating @ 94%) say it his best-career performance because he gives it a very nuanced and very layered performance.

Updated On: 5/18/20 at 03:34 AM

joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

I’ve always thought Hugh’s voice was pretty average and a bit too nasal, but I do get why Hugh is a huge name because he does have oodles of charisma and charm.

The thing that sometimes bothers me though is that some broadway fans hold broadway stars to such high exacting standards when it comes to their singing prowess, and yet then give a pass to certain performers who can’t really sing that well (IMO obviously). I’m thinking James Corden lol!

I wasn't really a Jackman fan.

Then I saw "The River" and fortunately (and unfortunately) will gladly throw my money at anything he's in. I may not be as enthralled with his work in musical theatre as I am in films and plays, but what he did in that play was nothing short of a feat- to see him in this will be an event. And with Jayne Houdyshell and Jefferson Mays? I'm so there.