Posted: 4/11/16 at 11:08am
This is thinking pretty far in advance, but would Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812 be considered a new musical or a revival? Because as far as I know, the off Broadway and the ART productions were fairly different.
Posted: 4/11/16 at 11:10am
New musical. It's the same production team behind the original version, they've just re-worked it so that it could transfer to proscenium. Kind of like how they re-worked Fun Home from the Public so that it could be in the round on Broadway.
Posted: 4/11/16 at 3:27pm
I'm not sure why you'd think it might be considered a revival? Those only fall into two categories: revivals of shows that have been on Bway before and shows that while perhaps NOT being on b'way, have been around a long enough time to qualify as a "classic" (see Cinderella)
Comet doesn't hit either of these categories.
Posted: 4/11/16 at 3:31pm
dramamama611 said: "I'm not sure why you'd think it might be considered a revival? Those only fall into two categories: revivals of shows that have been on Bway before and shows that while perhaps NOT being on b'way, have been around a long enough time to qualify as a "classic" (see Cinderella)
Comet doesn't hit either of these categories.
"
I'm not sure why you have to be so snarky about it. It was an honest question.
Updated On: 4/11/16 at 03:31 PM
Posted: 4/11/16 at 3:42pm
...was dramamama being snarky? I think she was being more informative than anything else.
Posted: 4/11/16 at 3:51pm
No snark at all..curious as why you'd have thought otherwise. Sorry if you took it any other way.
Updated On: 4/11/16 at 03:51 PM
Posted: 4/13/16 at 12:13am
Wasn't Hedwig opened in Off-Broadway back in 1998 yet in 2014 it was considered a Revival? The original poster had a good question.
I also wonder whether Shuffle Along would be considered a revival or a new musical.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 12:35am
hedwig is a perfect example of a musical that, while never presented on Broadway, had been around for many years and done in every community theater, college and summer stock in the coutry and would therefore not qualify as a New Musical. Shuffle Along is not a revival of that musical but a new musical about the making of and historical significance of that musical.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 12:41am
The Shuffle Along determination hasn't been made yet. The way they originally marketed it sounded like they were presenting the whole original musical with just a few additional details about to background, and if that were the case it sounded like it could've been a revival to me. But based on what I've heard that's not the case and they really don't show the original musical at all. Haven't seen it, and I certainly am far from the most knowledgeable on these boards about this topic, but it sure doesn't sound like a revival to me. We'll know in a f ew weeks.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 12:42am
Wow this app is terrible.
Updated On: 4/13/16 at 12:42 AM
Posted: 4/13/16 at 2:01am
Stranger things have happened.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 9:05am
Wick3 said: "Wasn't Hedwig opened in Off-Broadway back in 1998 yet in 2014 it was considered a Revival? The original poster had a good question.
I also wonder whether Shuffle Along would be considered a revival or a new musical.
"
The difference here is the amount of time Hedwig was around. By the time it hit B'way, it was a well known entity. It was able to be performed all over the place, and it was. Natasha, et al is NOT in that same category. There have been a few versions of it in NY, and now the ART version, soon to be the B'way premier.
The fact that it has gone through changes has nothing to do with whether or not it is a revival. Very few shows move from off b'way to B'way without any changes....often major ones.
No one said the OP asked a bad question...I simply asked WHY she thought it might be considered a revival.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 9:27am
ChiTheaterFan said: "The Shuffle Along determination hasn't been made yet. The way they originally marketed it sounded like they were presenting the whole original musical with just a few additional details about to background, and if that were the case it sounded like it could've been a revival to me. But based on what I've heard that's not the case and they really don't show the original musical at all. Haven't seen it, and I certainly am far from the most knowledgeable on these boards about this topic, but it sure doesn't sound like a revival to me. We'll know in a f ew weeks.
"
Shuffle Along was never marketing themselves as a "revival". That is something the general public did on their own. They are in fact a new musical. And will be considered in the new musical category.
Updated On: 4/13/16 at 09:27 AM
Posted: 4/13/16 at 9:48am
I think The Visit makes for the best comparison. It had been around for a long time (over 10 years) before it finally hit Broadway, but it was still not a classic because it wasn't exactly licensed out for community theater/ summer stock/ high schools, and hence hadn't been seen much. Every production revised the material, specifically the book, heavily.
It did qualify for New Musical, and so will Natasha and Incredibly Long Name.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 5:49pm
I just came across this blog, which is long and rambley, but has some interesting quotes from a few different press releases: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cara-joy-david/spring-broadway-entry-shu_b_8021322.html
The original release said it was “a musical about the events that led to the creation of the groundbreaking Eubie Blake-Noble Sissle musical Shuffle Along.”....But then I saw the latest release, announcing some stellar additional casting, which came complete with an introduction stating: “Please note that when classifying the show, it is more accurate to call it a revival than a new musical.”
I remember discussion on here when the press releases first started calling the show a revival that it seemed pretty clear Scott Rudin was campaigning for the show to be ruled a revival so he did not have to compete with HAMILTON, but reports from people who have seen it say it is pretty clearly a new musical. I guess we will see how the Tony committee rules.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:05pm
There is 0% chance of it being ruled a revival. Literally 0%.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:18pm
Why wasn't finding neverland considered a revival? It had a production in London, but then it came in with a new creative team behind it.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:21pm
Call_me_jorge said: "Why wasn't finding neverland considered a revival? It had a production in London, but then it came in with a new creative team behind it."
?????
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:26pm
^Jbroadway said it has to have the same production team to be new, finding neverland had a totally different team by the time it reached Broadway.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:33pm
I don't know the exact rule as it relates to productions from the West End, but shows have always moved back and forth across the pond and were considered "new" on each shore for awards purposes. Maybe that has changed now, but I wouldn't include London in mamadrama's definition above re numerous community and stock productions.
As for Hedwig, it was even adapted into a film between its off-Broadway and Broadway openings. I think the committee's decision was clear.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:43pm
Numerous articles prior to performances said things like the show "presents both the 1921 musical itself, and additionally details the events that catalyzed the songwriting team of Noble Sissle and Eubie Blake, and librettists F.E. Miller and Aubrey Lyles to create this ground-breaking work."
https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Breaking-News-Billy-Porter-Brian-Stokes-Mitchell-and-More-Join-Audra-McDonald-in-Musical-Revival-SHUFFLE-ALONG-20150809
Many others said similar things that made it sound like the original musical would be presented, and they were just adding scenes about the making of it. Other news sources also said it was being billed as a revival. However those were all from that same time frame. It doesn't seem like they ended up going that way and I haven't seen similar descriptions since performances actually began. But there definitely were numerous items in the press that made it sound as though the producers were, at some point, billing it as a revival.
Havent seen it yet, but from what I've heard I'd be very surprised to see it deemed a revival. If they had really just presented the original work and just added a few "backstage" or "making of" scenes sure.
Posted: 4/13/16 at 6:53pm
Call_me_jorge said: "^Jbroadway said it has to have the same production team to be new, finding neverland had a totally different team by the time it reached Broadway.
"
That's not how I interpret what he said, at all.
Ill repeat this again....there are two ways a show is a revival: it was on Broadway previously OR it falls under the classics rule: a show that has been produced often as is widely known. A show only seen in another country wouldn't qualify. It doesn't matter if the production or artistic team are the same.
Posted: 4/14/16 at 1:41am
The Finding Neverland example confuses me because all the songs were not only new but by different composers. Now I'm curious, at what point would a show be considered an actual different show?
