What will close first Lestat or Wedding Singer?- Page 2

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 3:13am

I agree with Mercades. For every bitch-fest I read on this board it makes me feel, and even wish, the musical theatre would hurry up and die.. especially when it has followers like this

[Horton]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:10am

Lestat will close first, but just because of commerical appeal.

[alterego]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:16am

Based purely on the reviews, LESTAT will go first. I'd imagine THE WEDDING SINGER will get a respectable run as it already is familiar to a ticket buying tourist. Elton John's name alone will not sell LESTAT.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:16am

whatever it is... THERE IS NO ORCHESTRA! shouldn't that warrent a discount of some kind? the actors do NOT get paid twice.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:17am

Well, I don't think anyone on this thread WISHED for these shows to close. But it is a fact, that shows that get bad reviews and word of mouth DO close eventually ! So, speculating about it, doesn't consist hate, just facts of life and business.
Anyway, I do hope The Wedding Singer is still around in November, because I really want to see it !

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:20am

i love when people like that come on here to put us in OUR place. please.... i've worked in theatre,, when people are in a bad show they know it. I actually liked Lestat. in any case, i posted a thread about Hugh Panaro being gross and a barf bag and it got deleted. Censorship!

Updated On: 4/29/06 at 09:20 AM

[alterego]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:26am

I couldn't agree more mejusthavingfun (about SWEENEY TODD). The ticket price should be somewhat less than what you pay for a show with actors AND orchestra. What next? A "virtual orchestra" and full ticket price?

[devonian.t]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:36am

Golly, there's a lot happening in this thread!

Subject was "Which WILL close", not "which SHOULD close" so I guess the original poster wasn't wishing ill on anyone.

If negative comments are to be withheld, what about the critics. Or are they so fabulous that they alone are permitted an opinion?

I haven't seen either of these shows yet- end of June, if both still around, both like Michael Bennett said, if they close, another show will be alone to employ just as many people.

And yes, everyone knows when they are in a show that's not working. I have counted down to closing night on a couple of occasions myself!

Lestat will close first- the question is whether it will have a longer run than WIW! Wedding Singer may have a longer run than expected- just have a feeling.

[Jane2]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:43am

"but you people have no idea WHAT you are writing about."

I think many of "us people" have a darn good idea what we're writing about. A lot more than the lay person on the street does, since a great number of us is in the business in some way or another. I don't think those of "us people" who post an opinion in this thread are getting delight in the thought of anyone being out of work or the creative team "loosing" money. This is a theater message board and we're here to discuss theater. Sometimes it's discussed more seriously and sometimes we speculate, as we are in this thread. What-just because a year went into preparation and lots of money is involved -that means we must not post negatively about it?

Also-why do you and others immediately use the hackneyed expression of "you have no lives" when you don't like what's being posted? I can assure you that MOST of us have lives. It is possible to have a life and still have fun posting on a board which is there for our main interest-theater.

[BreeDaniel]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 9:55am

Perhaps producers and "creative" types should stop throwing every piece of crap on the stage and passing it off as the second coming and start thinking, writing, casting, etc.., more *creatively*. It would help to get far better book writers, to stop handing out the directorial reins to someone who's proven time and again, that he's basically not up to snuff, write less derivative, more memorable melodies, use more cohesive, more easily adaptable source material(Lestat was an impossible task), and for Crissake, if it's been a *great* movie don't make it a MEDIOCRE musical!

No one on this board WANTS shows to close, we simply wish we'd get BETTER for our hard earned dollars. It's unfortunately become ok for everything to be passable, or "super fun" and quite frankly, it's NOT!

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 10:02am

BreeDaniel I couldn't agree more with you. I do have to add that Lestat does have very memorable and good music. The show is was really pummeled with negative remarks,, but the music will live on. It's not perfect, but those songs will do well outside of the Lestat vernacular (which isn't great for the show).

[LouW95]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 10:14am

Let's spend our time and posts to promote Broadway shows not predict their demise.

[pippin2]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 10:22am

Saw both in the past week, and I must say that even though Wedding Singer did have its problems, I found it to be a much more enjoyable experience than Lestat. Although performers like Panaro and Carmello do give commendable performances despite the dreadful book and lukewarm score, the show as a whole didnt excite me, I didn't feel any different coming out as i did going in. At Wedding Singer, I did find myself giggling at the heinous lyrics quite a few times, but overall I feel that based on audience reaction alone this show will have a decent run. The leads and ensemble have so much heart and so much energy that I couldnt help but start to like them by the show's end. A few really catchy songs too.
Updated On: 4/29/06 at 10:22 AM

[algy]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 10:42am

I see no problem with this thread - like someone before me said it's what will close, not what should close.

Now I'm not as knowledgable as some of you guys - I'm not in the business and I'm in the UK, but I'd say Lestat will go first - the Wedding Singer will appeal to tourists more than Lestat will.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 11:04am

I think it's kind of interesting how so many people are upset when it's even mentioned that a show "should" close - people scream: "it's cruel!" "you hate the theatre!" "how dare you want to see all those people out of work!"

I guess I respect the sensitivity people have, and the wish for shows to run on Broadway - but just to put a little perspective on this - in the 1950s and 1960s, when shows "didn't work," producers made the responsible fiscal and creative choice to close them. It wasn't personal; it freed the producers and creative staff to put their energies into other projects.

Frankly, I would rather see Margo Lion and Warner Brothers theatrical put their money and producing power into some of their other properties that might actually be worthy of awards and a lengthy run, than to see them throw millions of dollars at white elephants which will never recoup.

And luckily, we are living in a time of prosperity on Broadway that hasn't been seen in decades. Meaning, there are any number of new shows all ready to go that are literally waiting in the wings for a theatre to open up. What about the casts and crew of those shows? Shouldn't they be employed too?

Broadway ego has become as inflated as its production costs. Frankly, if Warner Brothers theatrical were to step forward and say "we are closing LESTAT now rather than waste audiences time and money, and so that we can focus our energies on our other exciting upcoming projects" - they would gain a lot more respect and admiration.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 11:27am

Wedding Singer

[Parsley]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 11:40am

I agree about the Broadway ego thing, and the over sensitivity. At the end of the day it is a business and acting is a job, despite the romanticism of acting, and the elevation of its status, from those who are not actors.

As an actor, I love acting but I have been lucky to have landed some excellent roles of the years butI get the feeling some people get over-protective in the support, and think it is sacrilige to criticise or discuss views of possible closures. Yet possibly the same people have a wish list of things they'd like to see opening, yet fail to grasp the fact that something is likely to close before 'their' show comes in.

Broadway is a terrific place and I always get a buzz there but it is by no means prefect and certainly its shows/actors are not, and should not be, above criticism. If a show is deemed to be utter crap by one person's criteria, then as shocking as some might find that opinion, it is fair for them to say it - certainly no more so than someone overdoing the praise on another show.

If people who use the message boards are in the business or linked with a show getting criticised, well that goes with the territory and if they can't hack criticism nor cope with the punters' views which they may not want to hear, then choose another job.

As for the question in the thread, well I'd be very surprised if Lestat doesnt close first. I very much doubt it will last the summer.

[willact4food]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 11:44am

Lestat. It hasn't been getting the audience reaction that Wedding Singer has recieved (from what I've heard). And word of mouth from theatre-goers is a powerful thing.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 11:51am

Why should we award crap, or even have to tolerate it? It makes not sense to sacrifice your aesthetic just to keep actors employed. That's their job, they are used to it, they know the risks.

We are cheerleaders, we are thinking beings who should set high standards for art.

[ILoveMyDictionary]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 12:02pm

definatly lestat

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 12:42pm

The talk about SWEEENEY not having a "real" orchestra is nonsense.
The way the show is put together is intregal to the show.
It is intimate, dark, and for me it works. I am much happier to pay $111 for a show where the creative elements work, than for one that splashy and fails.

A similar arguement is that CHICAGO isn't worth seeing because the spent less on the set.

I think that is a very confining way to think about Theatre

[Crazy4Bway]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 12:55pm

I say definitely Wedding Singer

[insomniak]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:02pm

The performers of Sweeney Todd ARE being paid as both orchestra and cast members because legally, they ARE doing two jobs. Know your facts before you whine, please.

And it's f*ing brilliant.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:08pm

No, insomniak - they are only getting paid one salary. The early rumours that they would be paid two - one as actors and one as musicians - did not come to fruition.

[Renthead#1]

Posted: 4/29/06 at 1:12pm

Sadly Lestat