Paulson expose On Great Comet controversy- Page 10

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:06am

schubox said: "Yeah like I said, no sane person blames the closing solely on Oak, but, like you said, it did have a negative effect. And why would he speak up to save a show that just fired him? How about future employability. You think he's very hireable right now after 1. Not selling tickets and 2. Being in the center of a huge twitter cluster****. Coupled with tales of being unprepared and going back on his word?"

well..."future employability" strikes me as his own business, and not a single post on here about why he should have done something he didn't seemed concerned with his personal welfare (nor would it have been any of their business). And I don't think that's why you have posted either. 

My sense is that if someone thought he was right for a role, he'd be hired. Notwithstanding all the umbrage here and on twitter, most of the producers I have spoken to are laughing at the producer's ineptitude, and are unlikely to cast blame very far from his doorstep. But we shall see. 

What does "going back on his word" mean?

Updated On: 9/3/17 at 01:06 AM

[JayElle]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:54am

SporkGoddess said," "'m not being inconsistent. I want a young Natasha and a young Pierre. I don't like casting older actors in either role (as I said before about Pierre)."

And to that, SporkGoddess, your views will change in two decades, especially as you find that post-40, you're road kill in the theater, movie, industry, educational, general employment world...etc.  

[JayElle]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 1:59am

David10086 said, "To think just one week in July doomed this show forever. I'm glad I saw it when I got the chance. "

Amen.  I still can't get over it.  I even took a pic of the security guards to add to my memory book. How desperate is that.

Seriously, I liked them tho I think they looked at me askew.  But, they're very polite and tolerant, unlike several of security at the Ham theater.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 2:05am

JayElle said: "...
Opera goers know the plot ofshows they see and many speak the various languages (german, italian, etc). Too much to ask of Bway tourists. For ultimate enjoyment, I found it necessary to know the GC story and hear the music w/lyrics several times prior.

This show may go on tour and off/Bway, but I'm glad I got to see the OC intact who were simply great. And I didn't hesitate to whisper that to them if they happened to sit or perform near me.

So theater grad students, how about a graduate thesis on "how not to produce & screw up a show" and call it the "Great Comet of 2017 Crashed & Burned," though many enjoyed its glory...."

I'm not a grad student any more, but opera doesn't support itself at the box office any more than experimental Broadway musicals do. The Met has had some success with simulcasting its productions across the country (and I intend to start attending more often), but even so it depends heavily on donations from individuals and corporations.

Manny Azenburg told me 40 years ago that the Broadway musical was headed in the same direction. I prayed he was wrong, but except for A CHORUS LINE, the signs were already there in 1977. In fact, some musicals recoup faster than we have a right to expect, but one the whole...

Any suggestion as to how to make a commercial hit of GREAT COMET is pure speculation. Perhaps instead we should be grateful that it was exactly what it needed to be. (I'm judging from the recording and reactions here.) And grateful that a group of people loved it enough to lose their money in a never-to-be-seen-again rendition.

[JayElle]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 2:14am

HogansHero said, "Notwithstanding all the umbrage here and on twitter, most of the producers I have spoken to are laughing at the producer's ineptitude, and are unlikely to cast blame very far from his doorstep. But we shall see. "

Buck stops at the top. I've read the Kagan's aren't politically popular in the theater world. Could that be b/c they were Wall St and didn't "pay their dues?" Or did they think they could throw $ at it to see what would stick.  I don't know.   This article says ALOT

http://deadline.com/2017/08/natasha-pierre-the-great-comet-of-1812-sets-closing-1202145024/

"The show’s visual sumptuousness outshone an eclectic, non-traditional score and book that could be confusing and difficult to follow in a Broadway setting where such details count."   I've heard this multiple times from people sitting around me, from those coming from the theater, and those who left at intermission. Yes, like it or not, some folks must be spoon fed.

"Evidence of just how fraught the Great Comet situation had become is clear in what the closing announcement didn’t have: Any statement at all from the producers saluting the company and creative team for their efforts. It’s a revealing omission, and a sad one."   

I don't know how that works, but I guess you'd expect the $ people to come out and slap all on the back much like they did for Groban.  I'm still disappointed in Oak for not taking the high road to help his cast members. "Life sucks, then you die."  Get over it.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 2:41am

I will say, as a season Broadway goer, that the show, while gorgeous at times, did leave me ultimately a little confused and unsatisfied. In the end nothing really happens. The last 30mins of the show felt like nothing was going on. There was no big song, no big moment. It just felt like it fizzled out. I felt more oomph from title song in the off-Broadway setting. On Broadway I wanted more of a moment. More of a reason for the moment. My friend was with me and we both felt a little shafted by the story. There isn't any real payoff, and if there is, it didn't translate to us. I think Benton has a great voice, but her acting didn't sell me on the ending. I'm not really sure what Natasha's journey was. So spoon fed or not, the show didn't connect the dots for us. 

And people keep saying it has such a grandiose design, but the design is fairly simple. I mean, minus the removing of seats and the staircase, it's all pretty simple. It's not like it has all this moving scenery. I think the lighting is more important. I think it could have gone to a smaller theater and had more of an "event" feel to it. But it didn't. And this is what it was. 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:29am

RippedMan said: "I will say, as a season Broadway goer, that the show, while gorgeous at times, did leave me ultimately a little confused and unsatisfied. In the end nothing really happens. The last 30mins of the show felt like nothing was going on. There was no big song, no big moment. It just felt like it fizzled out. I felt more oomph from title song in the off-Broadway setting. On Broadway I wanted more of a moment. More of a reason for the moment. My friend was with me and we both felt a little shafted by the story. There isn't any real payoff, and if there is, it didn't translate to us. I think Benton has a great voice, but her acting didn't sell me on the ending. I'm not really sure what Natasha's journey was. So spoon fed or not, the show didn't connect the dots for us."

Huh? I'm trying to be respectful of your viewpoint but if anything I thought the story wrapped up too much the last 30 minutes. Anatole ran off, Natasha tried to kill herself, Pierre comforts her, realizes he loves her, sees a great comet, and finally "wakes up" from his life-long funk and hopes for a new beginning. I thought the finale with the "comet" sky finally going down to one light and then going out was gorgeous.

 

[schubox]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:42am

HogansHero said: "schubox said: "Yeah like I said, no sane person blames the closing solely on Oak, but, like you said, it did have a negative effect. And why would he speak up to save a show that just fired him? How about future employability. You think he's very hireable right now after 1. Not selling tickets and 2. Being in the center of a huge twitter cluster****. Coupled with tales of being unprepared and going back on his word?"

well..."future employability" strikes me as his own business, and not a single post on here about why he should have done something he didn't seemed concerned with his personal welfare (nor would it have been any of their business). And I don't think that's why you have posted either.

My sense is that if someone thought he was right for a role, he'd be hired. Notwithstanding all the umbrage here and on twitter, most of the producers I have spoken to are laughing at the producer's ineptitude, and are unlikely to cast blame very far from his doorstep. But we shall see.

What does "going back on his word" mean?"

He reportedly promised to do press with Patinkin and embrace the replacement and backed out. And I'm sure producers realize the mistakes made, but if they don't think Oak has hurt his reputation then I'm laughing at them 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/3/17 at 10:54am

Track the source of that promise for me.

But setting aside my evident skepticism, why is that a disqualifier any more than Patinkin backing out? People say things and back off all the time. My sense of this business is that people cast for their show, based on talent, not based on atmospherics. Ironically, if the latter were the case, no one would cast Patinkin. 

None of this episode is linear and simple to pigeonhole, and as much as we might want to make sense of it, I think it defies that effort. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/6/17 at 3:50pm

@buhbuhbilly