I would take Adam Cooper in any state of undress I could--but Singin' In the Rain doesn't have what is perhaps the most soaring, aching, and gorgeous ballet music that Broadway has ever had-On the Town does.
And count yourselves lucky that the hot mess that was King Kong has been delayed ( cancelled ) enjoy this instead
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
How come that production didn't get recorded? Hopefully this one will. If the three boys reprise their roles it's already going to be a brilliant recording. They should just record it now and have it out by the first preview.
Not sure what all the hubbub is about- theater has no tenant, they offer the Kagans great terms, show runs for a few months but is a nice present for locals and tourists during the holidays. They lose money but it's tax deductible, and the get a shot at a Tony revival nom.
Broadway veterans Tony Yazbeck (Gypsy), Jay Armstrong Johnson (Hands on a Hardbody), and Clyde Alves (Bullets Over Broadway) will take on the roles of the show's three leading sailors in the upcoming Broadway revival of On the Town.
I will plan to see this. However, if no "names" are attached to this, they should announce it as a limited run. Through mid-January only.
A Chorus Line revival played its final Broadway performance on August 17, 2008. The tour played its final performance on August 21, 2011. A new non-equity tour started in October 2012 played its final performance on March 23, 2013. Another non-equity tour launched on January 20, 2018. The tour ended its US run in Kansas City and then toured throughout Japan August & September 2018.
Wow I can't believe there is not a "name" attached to this? In a theater that size, with a revival of a show that has been previously revived (and flopped), I can't understand who would back this? Maybe the running costs will be very low?
The original 1940 Broadway designs (which are gorgeous) were quite elaborate for a musical of its time (maybe because designer Oliver Smith instigated and helped back the entire show,) but by modern standards for a musical they probably wouldn't be too expensive to run. On the other hand if they want to have enough dancers to fill that stage, it can't be cheap.
But what names exactly would they get and for what roles? I mean Andrea Martin could do another great cameo as the drunk teacher, or something, but...
I wonder why they haven'y announced the 3 Female leads.
For those who saw this production before, did the sets look like they would fit/fill the new theatre? There are always adjustments (and union workers) to up the pre-production costs, but if the sets and costumes can be re-used it would lower the intial "up-front" investment a little. And using non-names could also lower salaries for the weekly running cost.
But I think anything like Oliver Smith's painterly approach would feel quaint. What Beowolf Borritt did was much simpler and cleaner, which made it feel contemporary without being in any way untrue to the period.
Well that picture of that set looks like cardboard cut-outs with the nails and bolts in full view. At least they are saving some $ on undershirts for the boys. We always think that designers are going to "step things up" for Broadway and then these shows come in looking like second-hand tours. A great show like this should be able to satisfy on the quality of the material and talent alone but today's audiences seem to want to want more spectacle these days.