Who are Broadway's most notorious sell outs?- Page 2

[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

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 8:58pm

Is Blaxx really making a "Big deal" about this though?
A question was asked. A simple answer does cover it, that money is the main reason because it is a business. But as Blaxx said, who has done something that has taken money over art?

[JohnLass]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 9:15pm

I hardly call Shrek and Spiderman not art maybe not as good as we hoped but not art

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 1/12/14 at 10:04pm

Theater people who want to "sell out" (if that's still a concept) go into movies or television.

[someone.else's.story2]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 12:13pm

Brooke Shields isn't a sellout. She's hit or miss certainly, but I'm assuming she does shows for the love of acting as it would be easier and way more lucrative to stick to her roots in film/tv.

[JRybka]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 3:00pm

Debra Monk is a sellout for selling out the business in that song. (kidding of course.)

Sometimes people want to do things that will attract a mass audience. What is so wrong with Shrek other then it was complete and utter fluff. Maybe Tesori wanted to do it for her daughter who is only 16 now (and would have been about the right age when it came about). ALW says he did Starlight Express solely for his kids.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 3:22pm

No project takes you so far back that you don't grow in some way from it. Listening to Fun Home, the folky material given to some of the characters in Shrek is clearly closer to the Fun Home sound than anything in Caroline or Change or Violet was.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 4:01pm

Call me an idiot, but Shrek has some really gorgeous music/fun songs in it. Was it perfect no, but I think it had a lot of heart.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 6:36pm

"Sell out" is a strong term; as others have pointed out, theater is a business and artists have to eat. But some "Why?" projects (i.e., shows that seem to have no purpose other than to have a sure hit) come to mind:

LORELEI (a retread of GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES)
BRING BACK BIRDIE
WOMAN OF THE YEAR (an attempt to repeat the success of APPLAUSE, only after Bacall on Broadway had lost its novelty)

Compare any of these with its model and you can see the difference.

It also occurs to me, however, that had these shows been done as straight-forward revivals, nobody would have quibbled. Whether more people would have bought tickets is something we'll never know.

[SidebySidebyLogan]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 7:05pm

I've always wondered about Woman of the Year. I kind of seemed like it could have been a project along those lines but I always hoped Kander and Ebb were above that.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 7:08pm

It could be less an act of "selling out" and more an act of "wanted to work with a major performer who doesn't do much theatre."

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 7:16pm

Actually, darquegk, Betty did quite a bit of theater after APPLAUSE. Even I worked with her on a summer tour of WONDERFUL TOWN. (She was too old to play Ruth and yet was kind of wonderful in her way.)

When Gershwin and Porter were turning out an "Ethel Merman musical" every year, musical comedies relied on pop songs and vaudeville humor--as you know. But by the time of WOMAN OF THE YEAR, it wasn't enough to simply put a star on stage (particularly one who couldn't actually sing or dance).

But this is all my subjective impression. I have not interviewed any of the principals and I have no inside knowledge of WOMAN OF THE YEAR. And, in fact, any show that wins a Tony for Marilyn Cooper is OK by me!

(BTW, had Kander and Ebb had a commercial hit since CABARET? I don't think so, at least not on Broadway. I'm sure they weren't starving, but they weren't the enormous commercial successes they are today.)

ETA none of the above is meant to sum up K&E's career. They produced many innovative and unique works and are/were, by all accounts, lovely people as well. Updated On: 1/13/14 at 07:16 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 8:26pm

Gaveston, I'm sure you're aware, but it perhaps it should be noted that Bacall, post-Hollywood stardom, did two Broadway plays well before Applause, Goodbye Charlie and Cactus Flower, the latter being a huge hit.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 9:24pm

LORELEI
BRING BACK BIRDIE

Now those are what I would call musicals where they were "in it for the money." Wasn't Carol Channing way too old (at 52) to play Lorelei Lee?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 9:44pm

Good point, henrik, and all the more reason why the mere appearance of Bacall in the flesh--though enough to run the show for a year--was hardly a novelty. (The show continued to run with Raquel Welch, so it may well have made its money back. But I don't remember any excitement about the show (except everyone loving Coopie).)

Yes, Channing was a stretch for Lee. I believe they added a prologue and epilogue so that the GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES scenes played as flashbacks. How that was supposed to make Channing age appropriate I don't know.

As for BRING BACK BIRDIE, I was taking History of the Musical Theater from Lee Adams during the previews and opening of the show. When he spoke of the show (which he did rarely: the man was in obvious pain), it seemed apparent there had never been any there there.

I suspect (I don't recall if Adams said) the original idea was "let's reunite Dick Van Dyke and Chita Rivera" and they should have called it off when Van Dyke said no. Adams was too much of a gentleman to say so, but I heard that Donald O'Connor was a problem throughout (not necessarily on purpose: sustaining a stage musical is very different from making a movie musical and O'Connor was no longer young).

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/13/14 at 9:45pm

Just to be clear: I'm saying these SHOWS struck me as unnecessary. I am not saying the PEOPLE mentioned are "sellouts" as a rule.

[HorseTears]

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

Can't believe you guys are lending this thread any legitimacy. Let it die...

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 1/14/14 at 9:24am

"What is so wrong with Shrek other then it was complete and utter fluff."

Hey I don't have a problem with fluff. I can kick back with some fluff every now and again. Stuff like Shrek and Sister Act is right up my alley.

Updated On: 1/14/14 at 09:24 AM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/14/14 at 5:25pm

"Can't believe you guys are lending this thread any legitimacy. Let it die…."

Why are you so bothered by it? Nobody is saying it's wrong to want a hit. But no less an authority than Stephen Sondheim has spoken at length about shows that are written for the wrong reasons.

That's all we are doing here.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/14/14 at 5:26pm

I kind of wonder what the breakdown of "approached the rights holders" and "approached BY the rights holders" is. Tim Minchin apparently pursued Matilda and Groundhog Day himself, while Jeanine Tesori, I believe, was approached to do Shrek.

[blaxx]

Posted: 1/14/14 at 10:37pm

Tim Minchin apparently pursued Matilda and Groundhog Day himself, while Jeanine Tesori, I believe, was approached to do Shrek.

That's a good example that reflects the results I was curious about.