Tim Rice vs. Webber- Page 2

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 3:35am

Good point about distance, Eric. Although tourist dollars may comprise a huge percentage of Broadway revenues, Broadway tickets make up only a small percentage of tourist expenditures. And I do think the Brits take theater MUCH more seriously than most Americans (and good for them)!

Reality casting shows weren't the first instances where shows suffered for the sake of PR. That began with star casting--which dates back at least to Ancient Greece, I believe.

[peachesr82]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 4:25am

The musical itself has always had a certain level of controversy around it though hasn't it? While I agree they're walking a fine line, with the whole 'you could be Jesus' thing (I'm facinated to see how they will exit the show each week)there will always be people who are offened by something and TV seems to attract the professionally offended.
I understand Tim Rice's concern about it being tacky but if his concern is truly over talent then I think he should just wait and see to be honest. I'm sure like Lee Mead, there will probably be a number of West End performers lining up to audition for this. There have been a number of these types of shows now and you would hope that the majority of people who will tune into the show each week,and more importantly the ones who pick up the phone and vote, are theatre goers and have seen enough to be able to make some kind of educated judgement.
Of course, it;s all about publicity for the show and like someone else said, they've all made money but you know, if this type of show gets a few more people to take notice of theatre, maybe go see a musical for the first time then really I can't complain.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 5:05am

I agree it will be great if new people are drawn to live theater.

But why is it we can't seem to watch a variety show any more unless we're voting for a winner? I realize talent shows aren't new, on TV or off. But other than SNL and the occasional PBS pledge drive, reality contest shows are about all we have.

"Electing" singers and dancers strikes me as silly. Why is it so important to us?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 10:09am

The US Grease show was different IMHO and didn't seem to raise any real interest in Grease itself...

Honestly, I think that revival would have flopped if it weren't for the TV show. It was a bland by-the-numbers revival that received scathing reviews with no stars attached. The 90s production was the first revival of the show and constant stunt-casting brought in nostalgic fans. The 2007 revival had a $17M advance, recouped in a year (the length of the Osnes and Crumm contracts), and closed six months after the leads were replaced. To get even more specific, I think Osnes was the main attraction. Even the critics liked her when they liked little else of the production.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 2:21pm

Thanks for the numbers, Matt. I admit I watched YOU'RE THE ONE THAT I WANT.

I'm not convinced this trend actually makes for good theater, but If I had lived within commuting distance of NYC, I probably would have seen the show out of curiosity, at least. "Slacker Danny", indeed!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 3:20pm

Lloyd Webber

[random person 112]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 3:28pm

Oh no rice anyday.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/24/12 at 8:05pm

I don't believe JCS ever had as much controversy in the UK as it initially did in the US--and that seems largely gone now anyway.

Gaveston I'm not sure I fully agree with you that the Brits take theatre more *seriously*, but I did notice when I was there that the idea of friends going out for a night of theatre is much more common than in North America (who knows, it may have to do with kids growing up with pantos, or the fact that in the UK so many popular tv and movie actors also work in theatre partly because they're all based in London--no Hollywood/New York divide, etc). Of course this is probably also partly why the UK seems to like some pretty questionable "fun night out" jukebox style shows than the US.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 6:48am

Yes, Eric, I think those are factors, but the English have been relatively fanatical about theater since the 16th century. It may have to do with their love affair with language, since the novel seems to be their other great art form.

I'm sure it helps that almost everyone in England is within convenient driving distance of a professional or semi-professional theater. That isn't true everywhere in the States.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 7:12am

I think it would be pretty hilarious to have this whole tacky reality show to "find the next Jesus," only to have Tim Rice veto the winner.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 8:06am

I think most of you are missing Rice's point. He's not objecting to the public casting spectacle show, he objects to it when it comes to casting Jesus because he thinks "You're not Jesus!" "Which one will be the Son of Man?' "Which one of our hopefuls will be King of the Jews" "Which one of our bottom two Christs will Lord Andrew resurrect?' and other parallel expressions we've heard for Maria, Nancy, etc., would be absolutely tacky.

I'm not a Christian but I have to agree with Rice that this would be nausea-inducing. The premise lends itself more to a 10 minute raunchy parody than a series.



Updated On: 1/25/12 at 08:06 AM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/25/12 at 10:51am

I've a feeling they already thought about all that and are not particularly interested in offending or alienating the audience.

In the article, Rice objects to the show completely and states that he doesn't want it to happen at all and has the option to veto the casting decision.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/26/12 at 2:47am

Yes (I could be wrong but) I seriously suspect they'll go out of their way not to say phrases like "Sorry, you are not Jesus Christ".

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/26/12 at 7:09am

I'm so tired of game shows. That's what 99 percent of these "reality shows" are ... game shows.

There is nothing "real" about them. They all have a prize at the end of the competition, and they want viewers to help pick the winner. That's an interactive game, not "real life," by any stretch of the imagination. "The Price Is Right" is just as real.

For a general public who can't handle actors singing in movies because it's "just not realistic," they sure don't have the slightest grip on reality.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/26/12 at 11:24pm

I think it was, of all places, Ent Weekly that said there really should be a division between the formats. Of course very very few "reality shows" fit that critera, but even a contest like The Bachelor is different from the Idol format which really are simply an updated version of the variety show (albeit usually not as fun).

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 2:37pm

I'm so tired of game shows. That's what 99 percent of these "reality shows" are ... game shows.

I couldn't agree more, b12b! I never understood why talent shows weren't called just that. SURVIVOR and the like can be called game shows. And the term "reality show" can be reserved for extended documentaries (with the caveat that most are highly and artificially manipulated).

I guess the Emmys now make some distinction for contests, but it's hard to see how AI is similar to BIG BROTHER.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 2:57pm

I'm sorry...but the searches for Maria and Joseph were DAMN GOOD TELEVISION. It was kind of brilliant, watching dreams die right in front of you. I was obsessed with these shows when they showed them on BBCAmerica. Had no interest, alas, in the Oz show...cause really. Come now.

But the Jesus search? Yes please. Plus, I always love the difference between the Brits and the Americans. The Brits always seem to pick an experienced actor. Americans always pick the cicus side show (OK...not ALWAYS...but still).

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 3:01pm

Game shows always consisted of a single episode with a prize at the end and filmed in a studio with an audience. When Survivor and Big Brother came about, it was something very different from that and the other aspects of "reality" TV were emerging simultaneously, so they were grouped together. The Emmys has since designated categories for identifying the new breed of television shows including Reality Competition Series, which includes Idol with Big Brother because they are both competitions for a prize at the end. Makes sense to me.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 7:04pm

I think SURVIVOR and AI are as different as MAD MEN and MODERN FAMILY.

More so, actually, but I admit the Emmys already have too many categories.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/27/12 at 7:23pm

"You could be the next Jesus". Oh my God, Faye Dunaway's character in NETWORK couldn't come up with this sh*t.

I can't wait to hear the rejections for this. Things like:

"I'm not hearing any kind of water-into-wine in your vibrato."

and

"You need to turn the other cheek...to another profession"

and

"You can't play Jesus. You're black."

Viva reality TV!