Who are Broadway's most notorious sell outs?

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:30pm

Were they really seeking good or just seeking attention ($$$)?

Jeanine Tesori and David Lindsay-Abaire - Shrek

Julie Taymor - Spider-Man

Flaherty & Ahrens - Rocky

Brooke Shields - Anything

[bobs3]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:43pm

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.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:52pm

What an incredibly bitter thread.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 12:00am

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.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 12:17am

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

You mean the Academy Award-winning screenplay and film?

I mean Rocky is hardly Transformers 3 the Musical on paper.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 12:38am

William Shakespeare - The Merry Wives of Windsor

[bobs3]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 12:49am

Due to the worldwide success of SEUSSICAL THE MUSICAL, Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty are very wealthy individuals. I seriously doubt they took on ROCKY for the money. They probably saw it as an artistic challenge -- how do we take a classic Oscar winning film with a classic music score by Bill Conti and adapt it for the stage? How can we say yes? How can we say no?

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 1:11am

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?

[FishermanBob]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 1:29am

They are all in it for the money. It's called show BUSINESS. But they are smart enough to also realize that producing something worthwhile that people will like will help them achieve their primary goal... DUH! And why the hate on Brooke Shields?

What an utterly pointless thread.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 1:41am

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 2:07am

Wait. Maybe I'm missing the point of the thread. Is it bad that shows become wildly successful? When do you differ whats a "sell out" and whats "worthy" of being a hit?
I doubt anyone would consider "Company" a sell out. It might not have been a GIANT hit when it first opened but it certainly has a legacy beyond that. Same with "Into the Woods" and many other shows.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 2:44am

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 2:47am

They are all in it for the money. It's called show BUSINESS

Nah. I bet, through the years, there have been tons of Broadway folks who were in it for the experience and not for the business.

Just to begin with, those Hollywood stars who could make more in 10 minutes on a film set than on a whole Broadway run.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 3:15am

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

[Goldenboy2]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 10:33am

Agreed. Broadway is a business and when products make money, actors are employed and people are happy. But for the record Rocky will be beloved.

[mikem]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 10:46am

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?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 10:50am

I imagine their attitude's are "one for the money, one for me." Composers have mortgages, too.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 1:42pm

Elia Kazan

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 2:01pm

I don't mind more commercial ventures (such as ROCKY, SPIDER-MAN, or other movies-into-musicals) as long as original work is still being produced. The problem today is that producers are funding more "commercial" works because they believe they will make more money than something no one has ever seen or heard before. I believe that is why most musicals are now called "______ The Musical". Back in the day it was an adaption, not a cut and paste onto stage. It was not "Green Grows The Liliacs - The Musical" about homosexuality and other dark and taboo subjects. It was "Oklahoma!" with a different story line and great musical numbers and a ballet sequence.
That being said, "Matilda - The Musical" is one of the most exciting and revelatory pieces of theatre I have seen in the past decade and it was a wonderful experience all around. In my opinion, of course.

[yfs]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 4:34pm

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.

[darreyl102]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 5:38pm

Many actors sometimes have to do plays or musicals that they are only doing for the money- to pay the bills. If you can’t book a show you really want to do, you have to do something to put food on the table. However, if any actor is looking to make millions on Broadway, it really doesn’t happen.

[JohnLass]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 7:51pm

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

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 8:00pm

It's yin/yang. Tesori does a Shrek so she can do a Fun Home. Johnny Depp does Pirates of The Caribbean so he can do any indies for no money.

[JohnLass]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 8:09pm

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

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 8:18pm

This entire thread has me thinking of Debra Monk belting "It's a Business" from Curtains.
It's a Business