The Music Man should do the right thing and postpone/cancel the run now- Page 3

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 5/15/20 at 3:34pm

I don’t understand this. A show can run 20 years and never earn a penny and I’d consider it a flop. Not making money = flop. Running a long time while not making money, just means it was hemorrhaging money probably.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 5/15/20 at 6:20pm

Call_me_jorge said: "I don’t understand this. A show can run 20 years and never earn a penny and I’d consider it a flop. Not making money = flop. Running a long time while not making money, just means it was hemorrhaging money probably."

I always assumed it usually implied that the show made slightly above its weekly nut for a long while, but not enough to add up to the capitalization amount. For instance, if a hypothetical musical cost $10 million to mount, and it was clearing $10,000 a week, it would make sense to keep it running indefinitely - but it would have to keep that up for twenty years to make a profit. 

[sparksatmidnight]

Posted: 5/15/20 at 6:33pm

If the money for a ticket will make that much a difference in your life you should probably save it in the first place. They're following the Broadway League and New York instructions.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 12:11am

kdogg36 said: "Call_me_jorge said: "I don’t understand this. A show can run 20 years and never earn a penny and I’d consider it a flop. Not making money = flop. Running a long time while not making money, just means it was hemorrhaging money probably."

I always assumed it usually implied that the show made slightly above its weekly nut for a long while, but not enough to add up to the capitalization amount. For instance, if a hypothetical musical cost $10 million to mount, and it was clearing $10,000 a week, it would make sense to keep it running indefinitely - but it would haveto keep that up for twenty years to make a profit."

Exactly. And didn't Memphis recoup the week it closed?

[djoko84]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 12:16am

sparksatmidnight said: "If the money for a ticket will make that much a difference in your life you should probably save it in the first place. They're following the Broadway League and New York instructions."

 

Are you kidding me with this post? When I paid over $400 for my tickets, people weren't losing jobs, getting sick, and dying. People may not have needed the money then, but we certainly need it now.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 12:25am

dwirth said: "blaxx said: "akhoya87 said: "Did not mean to turn this into a Jackman v. Norm Lewis discussion. I was really rooting for Jessie, anyway. I like Sutton Foster just fine, but my desire to go see this is a solid "meh" (and Hugh Jackman moves the needle for me more than Sutton Foster does)."

The show itself wouldn't survive without a massive star, especially not at the Winter Garden. The last Broadway revival was a big flop; no way it would never turn a profit with Broadway stars alone."

Oh, please, the last revival ran 20 months - and through 9/11. That'snot a flop by any reasonable definition - unless Bierko's wonderful (Preston-channeling.... i know, I know...)performance just wasn't your thing. Did it make money? Maybe not.. but no flop. Dance A Little Closer was a flop. Into The Light was a flop. Honeymoon in Vegas was (sadly) a flop."

It's a business, love. If you invest 5 coins into a business and at the end you only have 3 coins, your business flopped. It doesn't matter if Bierko made you hot for 10 years straight, the business that brought you the spectacle flopped. 

It's called math, look it up!

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 12:45am

That last post was needlessly nasty.

[jo]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 1:38am

Interesting that discussions have veered towards other casting choices for the role of Harold Hill. If I read the original article on The Hollywood Reporter 

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hugh-jackman-lead-broadway-revival-music-man-1194075

 

announcing the revival of The Music Man, it seemed clear that producer Scott Rudin had presumably only Hugh Jackman in mind, given his grandiose plans for the revival :

 

"When we did Dolly, my desire was to put 1964 onstage," said Rudin. "That's what we want to do here. We want basically to put onstage an experience that is our version of what we believe people felt when they walked in to the Majestic to see The Music Man in 1957, which is that blow-the-roof-off-the-theater, blow-the-doors-off-their-hinges musical-theater hysteria that only a handful of shows have ever generated. That's the job."

>
>

"These are great American works of art that deserve to be put on stage with as much love as you can give them," Rudin told The Hollywood Reporter. "What I learned on Dolly was that there is an enormous hunger for them from the theatergoing audience. But the hunger I think is to see these Golden Age musicals done in a Golden Age way."

"When you take on one of the 10 or so great, beloved titles, you're trying to do the urtext version of it," he continued. "That's what I think we did with Dolly and what we're going to do here. We're going to do it in a way that no one has ever seen it before. It's going to be big and beautiful and super-luxe and gorgeous and incredibly romantic, and very much in the world of why the show has lasted for 60 years."

 

It took him 3 years to get Hugh Jackman to sign on to this project, so it's likely he's not thinking of other casting choices, barring any major reason for Jackman's inability to do the show and as committed. While the pandemic has caused Broadway to be on suspended animation, presumably Rudin must already be talking to Jackman on a review of Jackman's commitment to the show ( Hugh is obviously looking forward to the show - based on many interviews) if original schedules are delayed.  Btw, there is currently no announced film project for Hugh. He has just completed filming a studio one in January.  If there are any brewing - it is likely that Hollywood has also been set back by the health crisis and will adjust schedules accordingly.

We don't know what kind of development costs will be involved ( they have had 2 workshops - 1st in Sept 2019 for a big group incl Sutton ...and another in Feb 2020 with Hugh/Sutton) and Hugh says they are digging into past drafts ( he said there were 42) from the project development of the original show which Hugh has said could be a rich source of new material for the revival. Surely, Rudin will want to bring in someone who is a superstar draw, not just by Broadway standards but also someone who can bring in audiences from the film world...as well as from overseas   (Hugh had a 90-show music tour in 2019 across Europe, many parts of the USA, Canada, Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, with a show concept that was really more of  a theatrical show.. and he did  sell out 3 shows at Madison Square Garden, 2 shows at the Hollywood Bowl, and 6 shows at the O2 in London, among others)    to justify those costs and to give a healthy ROI (Return On Investment) to the investing group. 

Just some food for thought.

Updated On: 5/17/20 at 01:38 AM

[rg7759]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 7:15am

I wasn't going to boycott but if Beetlejuice is willing & able to continue and the music man still prevents it by refusing to switch theaters, then I think a boycott is necessary

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 8:30am

rg7759 said: "I wasn't going to boycott but if Beetlejuice is willing & able to continue and the music man still prevents it by refusing to switch theaters, then I think a boycott is necessary"

You should boycott by not buying a ticket to The Music Man. That'll show them.

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 8:33am

I hate to face this- but is today different from yesterday- or tomorrow? I have tickets to MM- and would love to see it. But, realistically, until a vaccine or treatment- it will not go on. It would have been a huge hit and a wonderful gift to BWAY- as was Dolly with Bette- but how can it go on if things stay like this? They say a vaccine in 12-18 months- maybe- and a treatment also looks to be nowhere near a sure thing. So, as much as I hate to admit it- the life I have been leading since mid-March will continue indefinitely until this virus can be effectively treated. I hate to say end of story- because I love theater, movies, concerts, restaurants, travel, social occasions-not to mention haircuts-  but in clear eyed moments- that is what it looks like to me.

Updated On: 5/17/20 at 08:33 AM

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 10:54am

BWAY Baby2 said: "I hate to face this- but is today different from yesterday- or tomorrow? I have tickets to MM- and would love to see it. But, realistically, until a vaccine or treatment- it will not go on. It would have been a huge hit and a wonderful gift to BWAY- as was Dolly with Bette- but how can it go on if things stay like this? They say a vaccine in 12-18 months- maybe- and a treatment also looks to be nowhere near a sure thing. So, as much as I hate to admit it- the life I have been leading since mid-March will continue indefinitely until this virus can be effectively treated. I hate to say end of story- because I love theater, movies, concerts, restaurants, travel, social occasions-not to mention haircuts- but in clear eyed moments- that is what it looks like to me."

Broadway is not going to wait for a vaccine to reopen.  Should they wait for a vaccine?  That's a completely valid argument and not at all what I'm commenting on here.  But a billion dollar industry with hundreds of thousands of people currently unemployed is not going to just say "well, we can't work for 2 years".  It's still entirely possible they reopen in September.  Maybe it's not until January or March.  But there is absolutely no way they're going to wait until Fall 2021 or Spring 2022 which seem like the realistic time a vaccine may end up being available.  It's wonderful that everyone is thinking about health and safety right now and I truly hope that continues.  But the reality is, sooner or later the push to get the economy restarted again is going to get so strong that even the staunchest opponents of reopening are going to cave to the pressure.  I mean, look at how much everyone is protesting and complaining right now and it's only been two months.  After six months?  Right or wrong, things are going to reopen.  Which is why I completely understand why Music Man or any other show this fall is not cancelling or refunding yet.

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 11:03am

Broadway61004- good points- and I hope you are right. And, I cannot say how I would react if MM does open and they take temperatures at the door- and the airlines have taken precautions as well- then I just might go. I just cannot see staying in my house with my partner 24/7, except for shopping, for the next 12-18 months or more. There is a risk/reward ratio to consider- on all sides of the issue- and though health is number one- a bit of a compromise does not have to necessarily be a bad thing. So that is the other side of this issue- both sides make sense to me- so we shall just have to wait and see.

[matt1982]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 11:48am

Broadway61004 said: 
Broadway is not going to wait for a vaccine to reopen. Should they wait for a vaccine? That's a completely valid argument and not at all what I'm commenting on here. But a billion dollar industry with hundreds of thousands of people currently unemployed is not going to just say "well, we can't work for 2 years". It's still entirely possible they reopen in September. Maybe it's not until January or March. But there is absolutely no way they're going to wait until Fall 2021 or Spring 2022 which seem like the realistic time a vaccine may end up being available. It's wonderful that everyone is thinking about health and safety right now and I truly hope that continues. But the reality is, sooner or later the push to get the economy restarted again is going to get so strong that even the staunchest opponents of reopening are going to cave to the pressure. I mean, look at how much everyone is protesting and complaining right now and it's only been two months. After six months? Right or wrong, things are going to reopen. Which is why I completely understand why Music Man or any other show this fall is not cancelling or refunding yet."

Agree with this 100%.  I do think Music Man will likely postpone till the spring, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that some Broadway/Off Broadway/Opera/Ballet will surface at some point this fall, not to mention regionals around the country.  

[joevitus]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 2:35pm

I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better than average. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater. 

[BWAY Baby2]

Posted: 5/17/20 at 3:02pm

Jackman has CHARISMA- he has got IT- whatever that is- it is chemistry with the audience- you can't bottle it or fake it- he has it in spades- that is just the way it is for very few performers- he might not be the most talented- or handsomest or most versatile performer- no one says he is- but he is a crowd pleaser- and he is a combination of a lot of traits that add up to something electric.Not everyone feels it- nor do they feel it for Barbra- or Gaga- or Springsteen- but when you got it, you got it.

[jo]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 12:01am

BWAY Baby2 said: "Jackman has CHARISMA- he has got IT- whatever that is- it is chemistry with the audience- you can't bottle it or fake it- he has it in spades- that is just the way it is for very few performers- he might not be the most talented- or handsomest or most versatile performer- no one says he is- but he is a crowd pleaser- and he is a combination of a lot of traits that add up to something electric.Not everyone feels it- nor do they feel it for Barbra- or Gaga- or Springsteen- but when you got it, you got it."

No more evident than this 2009 Oscars opening number. He did not ask for the job but was requested by the AMPAS thru Steven Spielberg to host it.  The reaction of his Hollywood peers (given that most of those sitting in the first few rows were Oscar nominees for that year themselves) and the audiences in general at the end was nothing short of rapturous.

 

 

 

Updated On: 5/18/20 at 12:01 AM

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 12:50am

djoko84 said: "sparksatmidnight said: "If the money for a ticket will make that much a difference in your life you should probably save it in the first place. They're following the Broadway League and New York instructions."



Are you kidding me with this post? When I paid over $400 for my tickets, people weren't losing jobs, getting sick, and dying. People may not have needed the money then, but we certainly need it now."

And I assume that when you paid over $400.00 for those tickets you had the money to spend or budgeted it. If not, that is not the fault of the show. It is yours. They are not responsible for your CHOICE to spend that money. So now you have to wait. And I doubt complaining here is going to get you a refund any faster.

 

Updated On: 5/18/20 at 12:50 AM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 2:50am

joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

Jackman gave one of the best musical comedy performances by a male that I have seen in 55 years, right up there with Richard Kiley in La Mancha, Christopher Plummer in Cyrano (a flop but a magnificent performance), Nathan Lane in The Producers, and probably Ben Platt.  He is perfect for the role of Harold Hill and has more charisma on-stage than just about anyone I can think of.  I find that interesting, since I think he has very little charisma on film.  There may be good replacements, e.g., NPH, but I can think of no one who would be as right to open the production.

[jo]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 3:34am

Jarethan said: "joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

Jackman gave one of the best musical comedy performances by a male that I have seen in 55 years, right up there with Richard Kiley in La Mancha, Christopher Plummer in Cyrano (a flop but a magnificent performance), Nathan Lane in The Producers, and probably Ben Platt. Heis perfect for the role of Harold Hill and has more charisma on-stage than just about anyone I can think of. I find that interesting, since I think he has very littlecharisma on film. There may be good replacements, e.g., NPH, but I can think of no one who would be as right to open the production."
Bragging rights about Kiley - may I share that 

Back to the topic of Jackman -- one of the most flattering praise of Hugh during TBFO came from the late multi-Oscar winner for screenwriting, William Goldman --

https://variety.com/2003/film/columns/screen-trade-standout-perfs-for-a-young-decade-1117895301/
November 9, 2003 5:00AM PT
Screen Trade: Standout perfs for a young decade
By William Goldman  

There have been a shocking number of sensational performances this year, which is the subject under discussion today 
I have gushed more than usual here; forgive me, but I ain’t done yet. I want to talk about a new subject for me and it is this: Which man and which woman will be the stars of the next decade?
>
>
OK. For my male star, I jump mediums and 3,000 miles.

I have gone to the theater for 60-some years. And yes, I was there for Brando in ’47 in “Streetcar.” I was there for Merman in the legendary gypsy run-through of “Gypsy.” But nothing prepared me for Hugh Jackman.

“The Boy From Oz” — about songwriter and singer Peter Allen — is not close to being a wonderful musical. It’s not even all that good. But it mattereth not, because Jackman is visible pretty much all the time. And what a blessing that he chose at this point in his movie career to come back to the stage. And please let him do it again.

For now what we must all do is get our asses to the Imperial Theater on West 45th Street — there, now you know everything — and just watch him.

What Jackman does inside that structure is only this: He can sing with anyone you ever heard on the legitimate stage, he can hoof like crazy, he is funny and most surprising of all, maybe, is that he is vulnerable and sad. Plus courteous, kind, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent." 

Have you seen Bad Education?  SPOILER ALERT!

He is aged up  with makeup, wears a prosthetic paunch, has an unflattering hairstyle...but his portrayal of the real-life school superintendent, Frank Tassone, who was involved in the largest school embezzlement scandal in US history, is very charismatic so much so that the audience almost forgives him when he is uncovered as the true sociopath. Dramatically speaking, top critics  (RottenTomatoes rating @ 94%) say it his best-career performance because he gives it  a very nuanced and very layered performance.

Updated On: 5/18/20 at 03:34 AM

[Owen22]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 9:55am

joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

Hugh Jackman is magic onstage. Just compare his Curly to Patrick Wilson's.  Patrick is a star musical theatre actor. One of our best...but he could not do what  High did with this traditional staging of the show. 

Boy From Oz was NOT a good musical. Not memorable. Actually down right bad in places. However, Hugh's is one of my great musical theatre performances I have ever seen. I still don't know how he did it

 

[WestEndGal]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 10:09am

joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

I’ve always thought Hugh’s voice was pretty average and a bit too nasal, but I do get why Hugh is a huge name because he does have oodles of charisma and charm. 

The thing that sometimes bothers me though is that some broadway fans hold broadway stars to such high exacting standards when it comes to their singing prowess, and yet then give a pass to certain performers who can’t really sing that well (IMO obviously). I’m thinking James Corden lol! 

[WestEndGal]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 10:09am

joevitus said: "I get for the tourists why Jackman would be such a draw, but I don't get why serious Broadway fans are so enthralled. Yes, he's got a good voice and he's attractive, but as musical theater performers go, he strikes me as no better thanaverage. He's important to theater because a show can open on the strength of his name, but geez, the same used to be said (in terms of dramas, not musicals) about Ethan Hawke. Neither statement is much of a credit to the theater."

I’ve always thought Hugh’s voice was pretty average and a bit too nasal, but I do get why Hugh is a huge name because he does have oodles of charisma and charm. 

The thing that sometimes bothers me though is that some broadway fans hold broadway stars to such high exacting standards when it comes to their singing prowess, and yet then give a pass to certain performers who can’t really sing that well (IMO obviously). I’m thinking James Corden lol! 

[Falsettolands]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 10:50am

I wasn't really a Jackman fan.

Then I saw "The River" and fortunately (and unfortunately) will gladly throw my money at anything he's in. I may not be as enthralled with his work in musical theatre as I am in films and plays, but what he did in that play was nothing short of a feat- to see him in this will be an event. And with Jayne Houdyshell and Jefferson Mays? I'm so there.

[jo]

Posted: 5/18/20 at 11:02am

Falsettolands said: "I wasn't really a Jackman fan.

Then I saw "The River" and fortunately (and unfortunately) will gladly throw my money at anything he's in. I may not be as enthralled with his work in musical theatre as I am in films and plays, but what he did in that play was nothing short of a feat- to see him in this will be an event. And with Jayne Houdyshell and Jefferson Mays? I'm so there."

I join you for The River!  It is enigmatic and did not please everyone who saw it... but I thought Hugh was impressive as he interpreted the role of someone who could not find the ideal he was looking for. There is a part where he was reciting an ode ...and I thought his theatre training ( incl classical theatre) was quite evident by how he delivered it!

I do like Hugh as well when he does dramatic plays. His films which hew towards the dark side are winners! Did you get to see A Steady Rain, co-starring Daniel Craig? I remember overhearing two mature women behind me where I was seated  and they kept on gushing over Daniel before the curtain opened. After the performance, as I followed them out of the theatre  - they would talk only about Hugh Jackman!  Change of heart in less than 2 hours 

 

Updated On: 5/18/20 at 11:02 AM