Top Broadway Stars- Page 2

[NCGuy]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:25am

This whole thread confuses me...aren't Nathan Lane and Bernadette bigger box office draws on Broadway because of their outside work? Of course they are both huge theater stars with illustrious stage credits, but wouldn't the average tourist catching a show know Nathan Lane because of "The Birdcage" and Bernadette from her movie and tv appearances (or hell, even her Breyers commercials from back in the day)?
Updated On: 7/8/05 at 12:25 AM

[alterego]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:27am

Annie Get Your Gun did not sell out for a year and a half with Peters. Mc Entire boosted the financial status of the show after a string of Peters replacements. I'd guess that the show would have done better from the word go had Mc Entire been the original lead.

I agree that sadly there are no actors who derive their main living from Broadway that are bankable.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:28am

Nathan Lane! He doesn't need movies anymore! He just needs Broderick to make $100,000 a week!

Updated On: 7/8/05 at 12:28 AM

[alterego]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:33am

I was just about so agree and say Nathan Lane then I remembered The Frogs.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:34am

The Frogs was a sold out engagement because of the Lincoln Center subscribers.

[alterego]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:45am

From the grosses I remember it rarely sold out.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 1:17am

shneb...I know.

"All right - I give on the "non-Hollywood" - but I still say then that this disqualifies Bernadette because she HAS done Hollywood. Or are we not putting that qualifier on it?"

Both of you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying Broderick and SJP are mostly known because of their hollywod work, while Peters is known because she is a theatre star.

[shlamdiddly]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 1:26am

I wouldn't necessarily say Broderick is most well known for his film work. He is well known for Ferris Buller. When you say Mathew Borderick though the first thing that comes to mind is The Producers, Broadway,, and NYC.

[jam_man]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 1:36am

Be nice when I say this, but would anyone agree with me if I said, to an extent, Brian Stokes Mitchell? I mean, he's done minimal Hollywood stuff (Trapper John and Fresh Prince, that's about it), but in the theatre, he can just say "I'd like to do Man of La Mancha sometime," and it happens. And I know the first thing that comes to mind when I hear his name is, "I see his face..."


Of course, the second thing that comes to mind is, "What in the world ethnicity is he?" :)

[sassypanz]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 2:11am

Ummm. Kristy Cates!!!!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 2:55am

The Frogs had attendance in the 80s and 90s for most of its run. Had it wanted to extend, because of another show booked at the Beaumont, it would have had to move to a commercial house which would have been a very expensive proposition.

Simply looking at the salaries that Broadway producers are willing to pay for them based on their perceived box office impact (all make at least $25 to 50K per week plus a percentage of box office), Bernadette Peters (who has never had a real film career), Nathan Lane (who is NOT a Hollywood star -- The Birdcage is the only film of his that did anything at the box office), Matthew Broderick (who's days as a Hollywood "name" are 20 years in the past -- put him above the title of a major film now and watch it flop immediately), and Bebe Neuwirth (a minor, but memorable player on "Cheers") are some of the few non-Hollywood stars who have a bit of clout at the box office. Simply looking at the insane advances that Lane and Broderick have generated for the "Odd Couple" revival ($20 million and counting) verifies this.

Man of La Mancha was a major flop at the box office, running only 9 months and losing its entire advance. Mitchell has no box office power at this point.

Perhaps the story would be different now after all those years on "Sex and the City" but the last time Sarah Jessica Parker headlined a show on Broadway -- "Once Upon a Mattress" -- it flopped after about six months.

Updated On: 7/8/05 at 02:55 AM

[cserannie]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 2:56am

or the John Lithgow - Norbert Leo Butz couple.

[jam_man]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 3:07am

Just to give him his fair due, Nathan Lane was also in The Lion King, so he has a fair career in Hollywood, though no, he's not a "Hollywood star," but people know him. Of course you might have to come back to that argument after The Producers movie.


TO BE CONTINUED...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 3:08am

I can't imagine Butz sells a lot of tickets on his own (away from the world of this message board, NO ONE knows who he is, especially the tourists who are two-thirds of the audience).

Lithgow starred on tv in 3rd Rock for almost a decade and has done over 50 films. Though he started on stage and has a fine theatre resume, what little box office power he has is based almost completely on his Hollywood career, NOT his stage career. Mind you, he clearly doesn't have much ability at all to sell tickets anyway -- his last two shows before DRS (Retreat from Moscow and Sweet Smell of Success) both flopped miserably. The title and word of mouth are why the show are doing well -- not the two leads.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 3:15am

And just how many people out there in the hinterlands (that make up most of the Broadway ticket buyers) do you think know that Lane did a voice in "Lion King" and as a result of that and that alone are willing to pay $100 to see him do a show live. 10? 15?

Lane has paid his dues in over a dozen plays in the last 20 years and, like Peters, has done just enough tv guest spots and a couple of movies that non-theatre fans have a general notion of who he is. That's why they've become the rarest of rare creatures these days -- performers who's careers are 90+% devoted to stage work and yet have over the course of many years and several hit shows have gotten well enough known that they have actually developed a following who's willing to pay to see them on stage. God bless 'em.

[TabooPhan1]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 4:28am

Sumofallthings, will you marry me? Throughout this whole thread, you seem to be the only one, aside from a few other people (MargoChanning :) ), making any sense! Nathan Lane is definitely not a Hollywood star. Believe it or not, if I'm not talking to one of my "theatre" friends, I usually have to say "Lion King" or "Mousehunt" to even get them to remember his voice (unfortunately). He is definitely WAY more famous in the theatre community for Guys and Dolls and Funny Thing... he's not commercial in Hollywood.
And for all those who don't like Harvey Fierstein, you are definitely entitled to your opinion and I respect that, but my opinion is that you're not looking deep enough. If you haven't you should read his plays, there's a whole world you might be missing. And Antonio was robbed of a Tony? He practically turned the gun in his own face. I will never appreciate that man as a performer...

[SamIAm]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 9:29am

Scuse me Kyle, but Nathan Lane was a stage performer way before he did film. And many people outside NY still don't know him that well from film. His primary career has been on the stage, as has Bernadette's.

There aren't many performers who are still focused on the stage, who do the little plays in the 100 seat theaters and the big plays and musicals and hearken back to the old days of stage stars like Merman. You can count them on one hand...and the new kids have a ways to go before they earn the title of Broadway legend from the volume and quality of the work they've done.

[WonderBoy]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 11:59am

There is no such thing as a non-Hollywood Broadway star. Every Broadway star nowadays has appeared in either film or TV.

[Sumofallthings]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:05pm

The reason Nathan Lane appeared in Lion King is the same reason

-Angela Lansbury and Jerry Orbach appeared in Beauty and the Beast

-Eddie Murphy appeared in Mulan

-Gilbert Godfried (sp?) appeared in Aladdin

-James Earl Jones appeared in The Lion King

Once again with The Lion King it would appear that Matthew and Nathan only have had their biggest film hit when working with each other.

[Magdalene]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:11pm

I agree with Nathan Lane as a choice (I discovered him through his stage work, and watched his movie/tv career because of that). I would vote for Michael Crawford, also, becaue more people know him from Phantom than through his film/tv work.

[Jay2]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:16pm

They're all yesterday's news compared to Brooke Tansley.

[WickedOne2]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 12:21pm

For the men, I would say Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, John Lithgow (the man has been in like 18 shows), Harvey Fierstein

For the women, I would say Bernadette Peters, Kristin Chenoweth, maybe Sutton Foster because I know a lot of people only saw Little Women because of her.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 2:49pm

WHEN CHITA RIVERA LEFT "KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN" AND VANESSA WILLIAMS TOOK OVER THE LEADING ROLE,DIRECTOR HAROLD PRINCE SAID THAT THE TICKET SALES WENT UP A 20%.
BROOKE SHIELDS ALSO RAISED THE BOX OFFICE SALES IN "WONDERFUL TOWN".

[gymman]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 2:58pm

Chenowith and Foster do not sell tickets; aside from venues like this, they are unknowns (even though Chenowith had a brief TV career). Nobody sells tickets unless they are known from another medium--Peter's "Gypsy" was a flop. Tyne Daly's and Angela Lansbury's were not. This has nothing to do with individual merit--I am merely pointing out that once we leave the land of the theater obsessed, there are few if any "names" that sell... Lane and Broderick, of course. But look at the bottom line...no one from just the theater sells much. No matter what you think of her, Christina Applegate is providing jobs for a whole lotta folks right now, and that's fine by me.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/8/05 at 3:13pm

Ummmmm, Daly's and Lansbury's production certainly did flop. Lansbury's only ran for three months (Peters ran for over a year), in fact and Daly's never recouped. Merman's is the only production of Gypsy to return its investment (and according to sources, it only made a modest profit).

Gypsy has NEVER been a really big hit box office-wise on Broadway.

Updated On: 7/8/05 at 03:13 PM