Who are Broadway's most notorious sell outs?

Don't discount ROCKY. It is looking to be very good and possibly the feel-good musical of this season. If you have never seen the film you should watch it but make sure you have a box of tissues close at hand.

Don't discount ROCKY. It is looking to be very good and possibly the feel-good musical of this season.

True, it could be good. But I doubt the composers were into it for the source material.

---

William Shakespeare - The Merry Wives of Windsor

---

I seriously doubt they took on ROCKY for the money.

That was the serious intent of the thread, who do you think was in it just for the money and who wasn't?

---

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

---

I just wanted to know which Broadway people were in it obviously for the cash and which were in it for the love of their craft (when the project itself had little commercial potential, regardless of how it turned out).

I also obviously put zero effort into explaining this.

---

Okay thank you for clarifying.
Personally, I don't see a problem with this thread. I mean, it is obvious that ALL producers go into the creative development of a show with the prospect of making money.
But as Blaxx explained, who was in it MOSTLY for the money?
I think it is rare for a show to be put up with very little thought about artistic integrity and more so about the ultimate "how much can we milk the audience for?"
My argument would be "Young Frankenstein"
With the ridiculous premium ticket prices and the emphasis on Mel Brooks's previous hit "The Producers",the creative team, IMO, did put the need for money before the needs of the show.
On the flip side, mega hits such as WICKED I don't see as being sell outs at all. A lot of work went into the creation of that particular show (1999 I believe is when the real work started) and before the show became a big budgeted risk, it was envisioned as a smaller scale production. Plus, with the out of town try outs and the extensive work that was done in between the try out and the opening of the show on Broadway, it does show that the creative team really did not go in thinking of just profit.
Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I'm typing and thinking while falling asleep at the keys lol

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking on a very commercial venture, as long as the venture has merit. Rocky has been cheapened by the decreasing quality of the many sequels, but the original movie was nominated for 10 Oscars. Spider-Man is one of the most famous and beloved characters of all time. I think a lot of people would want to make a musical about Spider-Man. Brooke Shields is taking the jobs she can get. No shame in that.

And I wouldn't blame any playwright for taking on a commercial project as a way to make money, given how little money there is in playwrighting nowadays unless the play makes it to Broadway. I'm sure the money was a large factor in why David Lindsay-Abaire took on Shrek, but so what?

---

Elia Kazan

The most vocal -- about himself -- "sellout" is Stephen Sondheim, who has been very clear that he regrets writing Do I Hear A Waltz because he did it for all the wrong reasons, including money; and he's just as clear that he doesn't think the work was very good in part because it was undertaken for all the wrong reasons.

ts pointless because well its there to make money thats the point of it. It would be like saying Sutton Foster got sold out for Shrek as well I never heard something so silly. It baffles me when people do not understand they want a profit for the show

Updated On: 1/12/14 at 07:51 PM

@bettyboy right I am not sure why Blaxx is making suck a big deal out of this