With All the Grease Revival Complaints...

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/9/07 at 3:02pm

...it makes me wonder why nobody has the same complaints about the "A Moon for the Misbegotten" revival. The show was last seen about 6 years ago, no real difference between that and Grease. Say what you will, but they're both classic pieces of theater (though in two different categories, of course).

[myManCape]

Posted: 1/9/07 at 3:19pm

Les Miz and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof were both less than 3 years between productions.

[Vespertine1228]

Posted: 1/9/07 at 3:57pm

There's in reality a very select handful of shows to revive with big names that audiences will recognize. The sad result of this is that second tier, not totally well known shows often don't get seen again. This is what's so wonderful about Roundabout reviving stuff like The Apple Tree or Pacific Overtures. These shows were not major successes, and don't have big name recognition outside the more knowledged theatre community.

I just worry that eventually there will be very little to revive because everything "classic" has been done too many times.

That said, I think in the coming years Pippin, West Side Story, and Hair are all overdue for big revivals. The Roundabout should look at doing something like Fiorello.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 1/9/07 at 3:59pm

They are, actually. Jason Alexander was offered the part, but turned it down.

[D2]

Posted: 1/9/07 at 7:02pm

I agree that it is a little quick for another revival of A MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN, but there is a HUGE difference between the two shows. GREASE is a very popular musical, very successful with two separate Broadway runs that each ran well over 1,000 performances and had a very successful movie version. But it is hardly a "classic" in the sense that A MOON FOR THE MISGEGOTTEN is, and to compare them is like comparing apples to marshmallow.

[NiteOwl]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 1:41am

...some people like marshmallows, though.

1,000+ performances worth.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 2:05am

Is it bad that I don't know what A MOON FOR THE MISGEGOTTEN is?

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 2:07am

Marshmallows!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 6:51am

>> Is it bad that I don't know what A MOON FOR THE MISGEGOTTEN is?

To be blunt, yes. It's not O'Neill's best by a long shot, but it's still Eugene O'Neill.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 6:51am

>> Is it bad that I don't know what A MOON FOR THE MISGEGOTTEN is?

To be blunt, yes. It's not O'Neill's best by a long shot, but it's still Eugene O'Neill.

[NathanLaneStalker]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 7:33am

I'll look it up.

[D2]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 7:34am

NiteOwl, I never said I didn't like GREASE, or marshmallows. I just said it can't be compared to A MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 8:08am

>> Is it bad that I don't know what A MOON FOR THE MISGEGOTTEN is?

To be blunt, yes. It's not O'Neill's best by a long shot, but it's still Eugene O'Neill.


You know, Sean, people aren't born with this kind of knowledge. Someone has to teach it to them at some point. It's not bad if someone does not know of a certain classic play. It just means they haven't learned of it yet.

Updated On: 1/10/07 at 08:08 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/10/07 at 1:05pm

>> You know, Sean, people aren't born with this kind of knowledge. Someone has to teach it to them at some point. It's not bad if someone does not know of a certain classic play. It just means they haven't learned of it yet.

And I made no judgment call. He asked if it was "bad" (in, I gather, a sense that means "maybe I should at some point know about this play?"), and I agreed it was. Im not saying he's a terrible person for not knowing about ONeill; I'm just using his own term.