do you think long running shows need to do what les mis did? — Page 2

This topic reminds me of when I saw "Phantom of the Opera" back in 2002.

I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

It played like a bloated beached whale.

If a performer on Broadway isn't giving %110 percent (and granted sometimes there are health issues) then get off the stage. The audience members that night paid the same amount the audiences paid during your first month. They deserve (and should demand) the same level of performance.

Updated On: 2/22/05 at 04:29 PM

I have experienced many a show where I noticed actors on auto-pilot. The one that comes to mind was when Faith Prince was in Guys and Dolls. A friend of mine and I went to a Wednesday matinee and we both looked at each other during intermission with the same "wtf" look and said she was on auto-pilot. On the flip side there are times I was expecting a long running show to be tired looking, yet the show appeared very fresh. The revival of "42nd Street" is a perfect example. I saw it March 2004 after not having seen it since 2001 and was pleasantly surprised by the energy of the cast etc. (though I did see one girl in the chorus who looked liked she was just going through the motions; it was very distracting.)

The sad reality is seeing one of your favorite shows look like it has seen better days. I usually apply the two year rule as well.

---

Yes Martin did pop in to see his show and was so furious he fired almost everyone even Sarah Jessica Parker was axed from the title role that night
Dan

I agree with wickedrentq, maybe it is Hugh but I saw Phantom last night and was blown away. I found the entire cast to be filled with energy even the guy that played Raul who was very weak. The voices were so powerdul and full of emotion and I enjoyed watching the ballerina's who were full of joy and spark.

---