The numbers concerning "A Tale of Two Cities " are scary- Page 2

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 2:49pm

"This thread really smells of agenda to me. Eagleman."

And that smacks of paranoia to me.

What agenda could I have and if I had one why would I use it on a forum that can have no appreciable effect on the show's success--or failure. Whatever I've opined about the show is sugary compared to a lot of the bile I read on this forum.

Yes, I still think it was ill-advised to initially allow people to hear much of the score on a website.

No, I wouldn't invest in a show with a first-time composer/lyricist, and a first-time director unless, let's say, I had a veteran producer watching over things.

Yes, I till would want an out-of-town run in Toronto, Boston, or Chicago first
and no I would not change my mind about cutting "Until Tomorrow" because it's ammo for the criitcs.

And for one last "no", I don't think, considering the above, that it was the wisest choice, to let Miss S. sink or swim on her own with a project this huge.

It's realllllllly hard to get one person to get one of the three right (book, music, lyrics) to have someone have to do all three is really asking a lot.

For what it's worth, you could take every reference to this show I made and it wouldn't add up to 1/10th of one of the "First preview 'reviews' " that have really blasted this thing.

Agenda?

I think it's time to adjust your thorazine drip.

And you might nose around and see if you can ask the backers of the show if they're not just a little worried about the $3,000,000 advance.

If I have an agenda it would be against the high rollers at Disney who can sink $20,000,000 into a show like Tarzan and if it busts they just go back to plan b--it wouldn't be against a woman who has almost, and yet may still beat incredible odds.













Updated On: 8/24/08 at 02:49 PM

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 3:13pm

Does anyone know what "really" happened to the original director?

[esparza 333]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 4:26pm

The scary thing about these recent failed epics is that they had inexperienced producers that many will say killed the show( Pirate Queen anyone?). In the the case of Tale they not only have inexperienced producers, there main creative team is all inexperienced (not including the design team). Pirate Queen however had a famous songwriting pair and a tony winning director and still flopped. That was an advantage they had that Two Cities does not have. However it is really making a web presence and seems to have an excellent publicity team. And judging from what the reviews on this board are saying it is way better than the Pirate Queen and it seems it is getting great buzz during the intermissions. Like many posters have already said word of mouth can make a show sky rocket. I know i am only comparing Two Cities to Pirate Queen but I feel these two are very similar in budget and in the sense of the historical drama genre they both are linked too. I predict Tale will do better because of word of mouth and the fact that it is such a famous novel. And You never know what the critics will say. Does anybody know what Billy Elliot's budget is?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 4:43pm

THE PIRATE QUEEN was much more epic than TALE, and had a better score. For some reason the inside word on Broadway, as Reidel hinted at, is that this will bomb. And the producer and writer will take the blame.

[scaryclowns223]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 4:52pm

The director in Florida was the artistic director at Asolo Rep- Michael D Edwards. I imagine that a contractual clause led to him directing it, and I can definitely see why he wouldn't come to New York- he has a steady job and a theatre in Sarasota that he needs to take care of.

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 5:07pm

Does anybody know what Billy Elliot's budget is?

I believe it was $18.5 million

I'm sure the weekly expense is much more, too, for BE as they have to hire multiple Billys, Michaels, as well as the ballet girls, making a total of 50 actors. The orchestra is around 10 musicians, I believe, which is rather small. But it I think Billy Elliot is the "biggest" show to open this season.


When there are alternating casts for chorus members, do they still get paid the full minimum?

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 8:35pm

One of the problems that a musical such as ""A Tale of Two Cities" faces is that to date one reads of conflicting feelings about the show. Robert finds it a wonderful musical; a second attendee at a premier walks out at intermission.

We do have a very small sample here but small samples sometimes correlate to the results of much larger ones. (We've all sat in front of televisions on election night and heard "With 10% of precincts reporting we are declaring Tom Ridge the winner in Pennsylvania--and he does win.)

It seems...seems...there is a chance that critics may be similarly predisposed and come in with "mixed reviews". Independent of word or mouth, once critics weigh in with a split decision, to counter the deleterious effect of negative reviews, a larger
part of the revenues from ticket sales have to be put into advertising, which has a
trickle down effect, the most problematic is that theater owners can be incredibly impatient.

Mary Zimmerman's Tony winning "Metamorphoses" had earned out, paid it's investors back in an incredibly short time, was playing to full houses in January, but was still closed when the theater owner exercised a contractual right to do so if the
production missed selling the pre-agreed number of ticket for ONE WEEK --which it did in January after the holiday crush. The theater owner thought he was sitting on a hotter property written by the master-playwright-du-jour which would star Helen
Hunt.

Zimmerman's critical and popular hit was closed and as suspected the Gods of the Street bodyslammed the theater owner by making quick work of the hit-that-never-was.

As ludicrous as it may sound, it takes more than superb writing, great performances, and stunning sets, to give a show a shot. There are primary, secondary, and tertiary variables in the equation, many of which cannot be anticipated.

It's my understanding the man and woman who were the principle catalsyts of this show met while performing in Les Miserables. "A Tale of Two Cities", if I'm correct, is there first Broadway production. It's tough enough for a guy like Cameron McIntosh to get it right but every now and then someone comes from out of nowhere and gets it right ("The Drowsy Chaperone", "Crazy for You"). There's just enough smoke here to reasonably conjecture that there may be a few hot coals ready to ignite.

If I were to give an objective synopsis of what I've HEARD so far, I'd have to say more than a few people are really high on the show, others not so much, and that could mean something but the only way one could know for themselves is by buying a ticket.


Updated On: 8/23/08 at 08:35 PM

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 9:48pm

Eagleman wrote:
It's my understanding the man and woman … if I'm correct, is there first Broadway production. It's tough enough… someone comes from out of nowhere and gets it right ("The Drowsy Chaperone", "Crazy for You")…

You are too thoughtful a writer, Eagleman, to write “there first…” when you meant “their first…” And really, “Crazy for You” came out of nowhere? That’s Gershwin, right? There’s something potentially “surefire” about constructing a new musical around that music, don’t you think?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 10:02pm

And look what happened to LIFE (x) 3.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 10:48pm

Too thoughtful? I don't think so--just prone to erring with homonyms. It might be a cognitive deficit of sorts for all I know.

“Crazy for You” did come out of nowhere In a manner of speaking.

As a young boy Roger Horchow's mother was something of a socialite who was a modest piano player.

One day Horchow heard sublime music coming from the study and saw a young man playing as he smoked a cigar. He was introduced to George Gershwin and at that moment his life changed.

Although his claim to fame was establishing the prestigious Horshow Collection in the 70's ( a luxury mail-order catalogue which he sold to Neiman Marcus in 198,
his dream was to produce on a Gershwin musical one day but he would not do so unless he felt he had a surefire hit. He studied Gershwin's musicals and did not believe any of them would rise to his demand of certainty. Somehow, the idea came to him of using song's from several of Gershwin's catalogue for a new musical. Although it had been inspired by "Girl Crazy" it was far enough afield from that show to merit status as a "new musical".

When I suggested it came out nowhere, I meant Roger Horshow did. He had never produced on Broadway before, nor for that matter, anywhere else. He was a complete novice who employed the same business acumen with which he had created "The Horshow Collection" to develop "Crazy for You" , which was followed in 2000 by an acclaimed revival of "Kiss me Kate, and recently, by "Curtains".





Updated On: 8/23/08 at 10:48 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 11:00pm

That's horrible about Metamorphoses! And what happened to LIFE?

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 11:08pm

I think "Life" closed" before it's limited run was up. '

Zimmerman was back with "The Notebooks of Leonardo DaVinci" but it never caught on like her sumptiously staged collection of Ovid's tales.

I was hopeful "Silk" would come to New York but it hasn't.

"Metamorphoses" has done very well regionally and when they employ the New York staging it is always sublime.

[whatever2]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 11:22pm

> We do have a very small sample here but small samples sometimes correlate to the results of much larger ones. (We've all sat in front of televisions on election night and heard "With 10% of precincts reporting we are declaring Tom Ridge the winner in Pennsylvania--and he does win.)

sorry, man ... that's just sloppy math.

if by "small sample" you mean "statistically invalid sample", then a representative result is a coincidence, not a correlation.

when a news organization projects a winner, they are basing their projection on their day's worth of statistically valid (or so they hope!) exit polling, not on a small (read: statistically invalid) percentage of returns reported after polls close.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 11:23pm

No. Life (x) 3 played through its limited run. It had announced a one week extension, but had to retract it when one of the actors had a conflict for the extension week. Comparing the two shows, Life (x) 3 performed at a consistently higher gross and average ticket price than Metamorphoses (save for Christmas week and its closing week). I also believe Life (x) 3 recouped its investment.

[EugLoven]

Posted: 8/23/08 at 11:47pm

Don't have much to say on this subject, but want to just tip my hat to Eagleman. You're a great writer and reason-er.

[alterego]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 2:20am

This show seemed outdated to me when it was announced. I thought we'd left all these pop - eretta shows back in the 1990's?

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 5:31am

"sorry, man ... that's just sloppy math."

Oh, for Christ's sake. If it's not some anal-retentive reading a post with a red pencil to tick off a spelling error it's another one treating a post like he's editing a peer-reviewed journal.

Here's the bottom line: certain observations have been made about the show by a
small group. The essential question is, "Will there be a critical difference in
what has been observed (mixed reviews) and what one can reasonably expect will be the case with the critics: mixed reviews?

It's called probability THEORY for a reason.

Hypothetically, the show could have to date played to only one person and that person could come away with a view that ultimately reflects the opinions of thousands,

And insofar as your rebuttal of the election night early call goes, try peddling that
to John Kerry. They were popping champagne corks at his headquarters by three in the afternoon.

Nothing in your Beltway beancounting changes the facts: the show has elicited markedly different opinions from the five or 10 people on this board who have seen it, and has already, for one reason or another, caused similar conflicting feelings about going to see the show in a similar number of people who haven't.

It is reasonable to assume--and one doesn't need to crunch numbers to do this--to suggest, based on the ambivalence expressed on this board, that the critics will probably reflect the opinions of those have seen it in previews.

Precedent, not coefficients of correlation, Z-scores, or Chi Square tests, is going to dictate the future of this show and the well-established precedent is that theater owners are going to want advanced ticket sales for this show much farther north of
$3,000,000--and pretty soon.

Marry Zimmerman had won the MacArthur Award, the buzz was thunderous, and those who had seen it Off-Broadway rhapsodized about "Metamorphoses". Even
having the numbers couldn't help the show because of one lousy, predictable week
that hurt every show but "Mamma Mia".'

It didn't matter that the theater accountant looked up from his adding machine and said, "We'll make real money on this thing." All the theater owner saw was Helen Hunt who he thought could make more for him than Mary.

Perhaps you should ditch the photorealism and look at this situation a little bit more impressionistically.

[winston89]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 8:56am

Eagelman, I am sorry to say that none of what your saying really matters at this point. The show has yet to play a week of preview performances, and yet your giving it an early death. I think that your answering questions that only time can really tell. We will see what happens as time goes on. Keep in mind that ticket sales for a lot of shows aren't good in previews. They usually pick up once reviews come out. There are a lot of shows that didn't sell well in previews, yet did so once the reviews came out.

I think that you can't really compare this to something like The Pirate Queen. Aside from getting bad reviews, The Pirate Queen was generally not really well liked by the audience either. No one knows about the kind of reviews this show will get, but the buzz from this show from people who have been going is positive.


I think it was bad form on Riedel's part to say that this show will have an early death. At the time of his column about theatres to put the possible revival of hair in, he spoke about how the Hirschfeld should be open soon. It was only 3 days after Two Cities started previews when he stated that. Now, I am not at all the biggest Riedel fan out there. But, it is just a bad move to give a show an early death without giving it a chance. It came off like he had a personal vendetta against this show since day one.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 9:50am

How many times are you going to say "early death" ???

this consistent defending is getting old, winston. this is why I view you as a SCHILL for this show... you just don't give up!

[whatever2]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 10:29am

so let me be sure i understand this: anyone who disagrees with eagleman is either paranoid, anal-retentive, or hyper-technical?

dude, you have taken an aggressively pessimistic view of a show that's been in previews for all of a week -- seems to me you're *inviting* other perspectives.

fwiw, i don't believe (or didn't intend) for my point to be entirely hyper-technical. one of your main points appears to be that the reviews/buzz/whatever has been mixed ... i think that assessment is premature.

if you want to say "right now, this show needs fantastic buzz, and im not seeing it on these boards", that's one thing (i suspect you would get some disagreement on such a point but it's within the zone of reason) ... but to try to draw any conclusions about a show's chances from one week's worth of posts on bww.com is folly.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 12:24pm

"so let me be sure i understand this: anyone who disagrees with eagleman is either paranoid, anal-retentive, or hyper-technical? "

Of course not. Only those individuals who are paranoid or anal-retentive. I'm not sure what hyper-technical is.

In the former group would be those pathetic individuals, for instance, who point a bony finger and bellow "shill", without any evidence whatsoever, whenever someone who is a first-time poster, or with only a few posts, rhapsodizes about a production that many do not like.

In the second group I would place those people who, not knowing even if English is a person's first language, or whether or not they may be visually handicapped or for any other reason, jump on spelling mistakes or malapropisms and give the poster the cyber equivalent of a rap on the knuckles with a ruler.

Then, there is the a third group not mentioned by you: the hypocritical: those are individuals who curiously silent and who wink at vicious diatribes of the show that declare it "beyond mediocrity...truly bad...", (and that) "their act one finale is a cheesy, second-rate ripoff... " but who find it odious when other posters point out
certain things that could be injurious to the show's health.

You did not find such comments offensive or "aggressive"?

How about the people who piled on the poster who asked a simple question about the playbill--or the condescension of the person who suggested to another poster that they were musically illiterate by not understanding the meaning of
"crescendo?"

Where was your righteous indignation, then? Or are ad hominem attacks made on
posters who ask specific questions genuinely seeking information waved off as good fun?

When "Jill S" called me out for unfairly attributing the word "nihilistic" for the reason she abandoned "Wuthering Heights", I apologized, my response was measured and
respectful. I went so far as telling her that at the end of the day, I hope ATOTC is the feel-good story of the season and that I was pulling for her--in my own way, rather than for Elton John whose life at this point would not change one way or the other if "Billy elliot" wasn't the blockbuster it has been in the U.K.

This has been a too-long way of saying, "Spare me your exasperation."--at least until I see you express at least a modicum of disdain for those who really thrust the dagger deep into the show (or other poster's lack of knowledge) and seem to do so
while taking pleasure in it.

Until then, I'll just assume your consternation is not business, Santino, it's personal.











Updated On: 8/26/08 at 12:24 PM

[JillS]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 1:09pm

And I really do appreciate your apology, Eagleman. My frustration comes from being misquoted or misrepresented. There have already been a few occasions when i've said something like "i never lost hope that we might get to Bway" and it was translated into "I always knew this would be a big success!" People who know me know I'd never say anything like that - but press is usually to reach the people who DON'T know you. Anyway, VERY glad to hear you're pulling for the show. Me and the hundreds of others currently employed by "Tale" are right there with you!

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 2:33pm

Jill, I sincerely regret the presumptiousness I've displayed about your show and your collaborators. It's a trait I'd like to drop. I forget that because I require people I work with to be almost mercilessly candid about my work, that when criticism is unsolicited, more times than not it smacks of arrogance and can be just plain mean.

I'll try again.

If ATOTC is a grand success it could be a seminal moment on Broadway.

It will encourage all the "Davids" trying to match strides with the Golaiths that have dominated Broadway for decades. It will be a teaching tale of the scale of Jonathan Larson's accomplishment with "Rent". As importantly, it will validate something F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in "The Great Gatsby" as the narrator approached Manhattan:

“Anything can happen now that we’ve slid over this bridge; anything at all."

Good luck,

E--



Updated On: 8/24/08 at 02:33 PM

[aspenwheezer]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 6:56pm

I saw the show yesterday afternoon and loved it. As did the very large group of family members (in town for a family reunion)with me. In-laws live in Sarasota so my husband and I saw it there last fall. Changes we liked/didn't like. We preferred the guy who played Dr. Manette in Sarasota. Edelman (?)(sorry, I don't have the playbill with me) seemed a little stiff after the first scene (but really liked his first meeting with Lucy yesterday). Despite having read people's comments about Brandi Burkhardt (sp?)I thought she sang beautifully (although we liked Jessica Rush's belting of without a word better). And it was only the acting of without a word that we felt was lacking in regard to acting. Lazar is much better as Darnay and Mauzy characterizes the seamstress better than what we saw in Sarasota (except that she smiled when it seemed someone going to their death wouldn't be smiling and she bounded up the last few steps as if she was late to her appointment! That was a little odd considering she was on her way to get her head chopped off...). We really enjoyed Toro's performance. The scene where little gaspard (again, apologize for not having the playbill) is killed is particularly moving. Other than what I've mentioned, I felt the performances were very strong. Loved the additions of the horses, guillotine and even the projected giullotine for the seamstress. I did not think that it was a Les Miz II. And several of my group liked it better than Les Miz. We talked a long time over dinner about the various aspects of the show (acting, singing, storyline, meaning, etc) and the overall preception of the show was that it was wonderful. It was nice to see the younger members (teens) of the family excited about an historical piece. My family gives this show many thumbs up.

[Eagleman]

Posted: 8/24/08 at 8:24pm

I'm thinking audiences are beginning, or have already, had enough of sung-through
musicals. Dialogue can be every bit as riveting as music or dance.

I also believe there is an entire generation of theater goers who never saw "Les Miserables" and so there will be no basis for comparison". It's been 23 years since it opened in New York.

I'm always surprised when I talk to high school kids just beginning their love with theater that classics like "The Man of La Mancha", "Le Cage Aux Folles", and "Fiddler on the Roof" are completely unknown to them.

If you stop to think about it, how many musicals running right now are adaptations of classics.

My guess is there will be a vast audience that has not seen Les Miserables or a staging of this kind.