Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Has this been decided or are the producers looking for a big name? LuPone? Peters? Chenoweth? Parton? |
|
| reply to this message |
| The only people I can think of who would have anywhere near Bette Midler's box-office appeal... | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 07:26 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| 1) Barbra Streisand but a) she would never follow anyone in anything, b) she doesn't like performing live theatre and c) she has admitted to not loving the material to begin with. and 2) Meryl Streep, although the box office magic would begin to diminish in a couple of months because it would be more of a novelty than a perfect match. Still, a 3-4 month run would probably outsell Bette. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: The only people I can think of who would have anywhere near Bette Midler's box-office appeal... | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 09:57 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: The only people I can think of who would have anywhere near Bette Midler's box-office appeal... - TheOtherOne 07:26 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| d) the position of micromanager on this production has already been filled. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The only people I can think of who would have anywhere near Bette Midler's box-office appeal... | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 10:05 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: The only people I can think of who would have anywhere near Bette Midler's box-office appeal... - sirpupnyc 09:57 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
|
|
|
| Ha! Touché. 😊 First I've ever posted about it, actually. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I'd love to see Cyndi Lauper take on Dolly | |
| Posted by: JAllenC3 01:48 pm EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I think that she could do it, and that her name would bring in people. Not at the same level as Bette, but certainly better than some others mentioned here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| estimates on the weekly nut for Dolly? | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 12:43 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Any of our resident experts have a rough estimate on the weekly nut for Dolly? Do we know how much of the BO Bette is taking home each week? Presumably that cost would go down with her replacement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Queen Latifa be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 11:16 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Dolly needs to be a dame or a momma with a very high likeability factor, plus a cross-over star. Ann-Margret's a great choice if I were the target audience, but I'm not. Camryn Manheim or Kathy Bates woukd be swell, and Bates would bring the people in and be magnificent. Lorna Luft, but she may be too unknown. Michelle Lee? Tyne Daly? Younger for young crowd would be nice. Whoopi would be bigger then the material (and that could be okay; she's a phenomenon). I think Queen Latifa would be worth whatever they needed to pay her. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Queen Latifa be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:08 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Queen Latifa be Bette's Replacement in January? - lordofspeech 11:16 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Kathy Bates has health issues that would almost certainly make it impossible for her to play Dolly. Ann-Margret had terrible trouble on the Best Little Whorehouse tour she did back in 2001, although to her credit she did it for more than a year. But I heard from more than one person who saw it that she had very evident mobility problems that limited what she was able to do physically, and that she was not ready with her lines early in the tour. I don't think there's the slightest possiblity of her doing a role like Dolly onstage now. Tyne Daly might be swell, but she is the same age as Midler, and I'm not sure that at 71 she'd really be up to eight performances a week of this particular role (or even seven). And then there is the question of whether she's really much of a draw at this point. Michele Lee is 75, and I think she'd be less of a draw than Tyne Daly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Bernadette with an asterisk? | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 08:34 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I imagine most of you are right. If -- big if -- the show continued after Bette, the replacement would have to be a big name beyond the theatre world. That said, Bernadette is one of the few big theatre stars with name recognition into the mainstream. Of course, her mainstream relevancy was at its height DECADES ago, but you could make that argument about Bette herself, too. More to the point, Bernadette is turning 70 next year. Yes, she passes for younger and could certainly pass for our idea of "Dolly", but my point is that if she leads a Broadway musical again, it's almost certainly going to be her final lead role on Broadway. Am I nuts in thinking that a limited, say, 6-9 month run of "BERNADETTE PETERS IN HER FINAL BROADWAY MUSICAL" might sell well? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Bernadette with an asterisk? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:13 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Bernadette with an asterisk? - DistantDrumming 08:34 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Maybe but as Dramedy notes, her record in recent years as an audience magnet is underwhelming. I also question if she wants to go out on a Jerry Herman musical. But at least there is a conversation possible about her, as opposed to most of the other names being bandied about. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 11:18 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Bernadette with an asterisk? - ryhog 10:13 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Much smaller production, I know (UGH, hopefully the age of teeny tiny Sondheim revivals is passing), but didn't she extend the life of that production after replacing, arguably at the time, a bigger star? As for Follies, who can say? Any role in Follies is a small fish compared to headlining Dolly, don't you think? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 12:24 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? - DistantDrumming 11:18 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Grosses for Night Music went down notably when Peters and Stritch replaced Zeta-Jones and Lansbury. Having said that, it still ran six months with them, and it paid off during their run. But grosses dropped by a lot. Still, I do think that absent getting some huge star who is not known for doing theatre to take over, the best bet would be either Peters or LuPone, if indeed LuPone is willing to take one more lead in a musical, despite her recent statement. Grosses would go way down, but I think that the production might last a few more months without grosses going so low that the production would be failing to break even most weeks. The questions would be whether Rudin might prefer for the production to go out as a hot ticket, and whether either of those ladies would want to take it on under the circumstances. There would also be the danger that grosses might drop enough for it to not even last a few months. Would either of those ladies want to risk being the replacement who couldn't even keep it running a few months? I do tend to think that would not happen, but I might be wrong. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 11:43 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? - AlanScott 12:24 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| Catherine Zeta-Jones in A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC was an event, just like Bette Midler in HELLO, DOLLY!, just on a smaller scale. Here we had an another Oscar-winning actress making her Broadway debut...and in a musical...which is still not a common thing. Midler, at least, had made a career performing live on stage in her own concerts and had previously appeared on Broadway prior to stardom. Zeta-Jones hadn't been on a stage since her days in 42ND STREET in London, long before anyone on these shores had ever heard of her. Peters taking over was also noteworthy because it was the first time she'd ever replaced on Broadway and that she was coming in with Stritch in what we knew was going to be Stritch's last turn on Broadway. I was not alone in thinking that Peters was even better in the role than Zeta-Jones had been and that Desiree really fit her like a glove. Even Stritch's memory issues (which were bad the night I attended) couldn't bring down a wonderful evening. Had Lansbury stayed on to play with Peters, the pairing would likely have been legendary. It's interesting that the production ran for 6 months with Peters and Stritch and I wonder if that's because 6 months was the end of their contracts or if box office fell off enough to close the show. My guess would be that it was the end of the contracts. I wonder if Peters could replicate that success with HELLO, DOLLY!...a six month run would be respectable and, if she could keep receipts in the Donna Murphy $900K/wk vicinity, the production would stay in the black. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 01:04 am EDT 07/08/17 | |
| In reply to: re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? - JereNYC 11:43 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| Bette isn't an Oscar winning actress. Signed, Sally Field |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: BruceinIthaca 07:11 pm EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? - JereNYC 11:43 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| I had no interest in seeing ALNM with Zeta-Jones and, while I love Lansbury, she was not enough to get me there. Interestingly, the prospect of seeing Peters and Stritch (particularly in the same production!) did get me to drive down to see it on a sweltering Saturday. I saw The Grand Manner at the matinee, and loved it--a funny, elegant play with superb performances by all four of the actors, and then an evening performance. The gods were smiling--Stritch only seemed to reach for one line, and I was seated in the orchestra near where Peters did "Send in the Clowns." I thought it was lovely, and I liked Stritch's take on Madame Armfeldt (I had seen Gingold in the movie, where her role was so reduced, and Margaret Hamilton in the National Tour, but from a seat up with the gods in the Shubert in Chicago). I drove the four hours home to Ithaca that night in what felt like a fever-dream. I think Peters and Lansbury would have been exquisite, but I loved the juxtaposition of Peters and Stritch (and I have always been a fan of both). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:57 pm EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? - JereNYC 11:43 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| maybe we won't have to wonder. (or maybe we will) As I mentioned, NIght Music closed immediately after the holidays. It's last 2 weeks were in the 6-700k range but the previous December frames were all in the 400s, so technically and not surprisingly it went out strong but it had been suffering. (I have no idea if that informs anything about Dolly's prospects but trudging through January and February will likely not be pretty, and one can only wonder what would happen in the spring with a lot of new enticements for the core audience for Peters/Dolly. I remain a pessimist on this.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:19 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: How did Night Music sell with her and Stritch? - AlanScott 12:24 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| None of us knows anything. I'm voting for a January close, but I think Peters is 3 times as likely to say yes if asked. (Personally I don't think either of them were born to play this role.) The parallel with Night Music is imperfect in terms of timing. They took over in July and stayed until the new year. What this would be asking of the replacement would be to start at the worst possible moment. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Grosses for Murphy's first full week as Dolly | |
| Posted by: AC126748 03:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Total gross: $936,603 (down from $2,306,481 last week) Capacity: 76.2% (down from 101.5%) Under any other circumstances, this would be respectable, even great. But here it probably just wouldn't cut it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Grosses for Murphy's first full week as Dolly | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 05:05 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 05:03 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Grosses for Murphy's first full week as Dolly - AC126748 03:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I don't have the biz knowledge to comment beyond speculation, but I'd guess that this drop to 63% of $$ capacity might be the number to look at, too. They sold 76% of the seats, but at such a lower rate, and in the middle of summer. This week is in the middle of a record-setting run, not the first week of a winter extension beyond a star's contract. Does a decent box office reflect interest in the show? Some, it seems to. But again, that interest is tethered to a hit product as it coasts along breaking records. What would the third week of January look like with Murphy? Kind of hard to imagine it could look like this week, or have an advance. Just speculation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: rikepsych 02:00 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I was thinking a great replacement in January might be Ann-Margret (if she is up to it). She has a cult following and has not done concerts in a while. Also, she did a film test for Irene Molloy in the movie. She would sell tickets . | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: MattPhilly 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Just thinking...had this same exact production opened in tact, but with say Murphy, or Peters, or even Chenoweth leading from the get go, what would the reaction have been? If Murphy had opened the show, would she have received the Tony? Could the production still be selling out, even if not at huge premiums? Zaks's production of Guys and Dolls in 1992 became a huge smash without big stars. Even the revival of Kiss Me Kate ran a couple of years. Both examples of exquisite productions, which Dolly is, even without Midler. Again, just thoughts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It's been posted before but... Queen Latifah! | |
| Posted by: winters 01:40 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - MattPhilly 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| She can act. She can sing She gives out warmth She has a fan base and will attract a new audience. If you want to make this an event hire Hugh Jackman or find out if Denzel Washington can sing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It's been posted before but... Queen Latifah! | |
| Posted by: stevemr 02:52 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: It's been posted before but... Queen Latifah! - winters 01:40 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Queen Latifah would be inspired casting, in terms of both character appropriateness and probable box office draw. But per you suggestion, I don't think Horace can be a bigger star than Dolly. But what about someone like Ben Vereen? Can Billy Dee Williams be curmudgeonly? (I don't think the entire production would or should need to be recast a la Pearl Bailey's). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I hope Rudin continues to channel his inner Merrick with this one! | |
| Posted by: portenopete 01:00 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - MattPhilly 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I would think that Rudin would want there to be new news when Midler leaves. Regardless of Murphy's performance, there will be a sense of "been there, seen her" whereas someone new like LuPone, Peters or an even bigger, non-theatre name would guarantee more headlines. I don't think Murphy is a well-known enough name (anymore?) to guarantee a sell-out run. I'd place her below the aforementioned LuPone and Peters. From a generation younger, I'd think Audra or Kristin would be the biggest draws and even Kelli O'Hara, who would be outside the box, but she is always so surprising in what she can do and her track record with revivals is kind of unmatched. It has been a joy to follow this revival and see it live up to the hype that the announcement engendered two years ago. I would love to see it have a long life with many actresses brought in to do it. You could cast it up one side of Broadway and down the other there are so many talented people in this city. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: I hope Rudin continues to channel his inner Merrick with this one! - portenopete 01:00 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And didnt gypsy close a few months early because sales were sluggish. Follies didnt sell out with peters. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:41 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - dramedy 01:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| You hit the nail on the head. A lot of names are being tossed around but I have not heard one yet that is both going to sell enough tickets and also even remotely likely to say yes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: MikeR 01:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - dramedy 01:24 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not saying either of these ladies would sell out the Shubert in Hello Dolly, but you're ignoring the fact that HD is a recognized and beloved title, while War Paint is not, and Follies only is to hardcore theater fans. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - MikeR 01:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| The belovedness is not very deep. This is not the late 60s. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 01:45 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - MikeR 01:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| The other aspect is, and this may depend on Scott Rudin more than anyone else, is that a show shouldn't have to be standing room only and selling out million dollar premium tickets to make money or even break even. Assuming the production goes into the black with Midler still in it, I wonder what the grosses could drop to with anyone else before the show starts losing money. Clearly, there are few who will command whatever salary/percentage that Midler is getting, so there's going to be a cost savings there regardless of who the actress is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:55 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - JereNYC 01:45 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| That's the 2 sides of the coin. You can get the nut down, but you won't sell tickets. And I don't think Rudin wants this triumph to limp into oblivion. This is not a production where someone else is going to come in and be deemed a revelation. And short of the few people who can actually sell tickets at the high end but are never gonna do the show, I don't see the path. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: AC126748 01:42 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - MikeR 01:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| But if Dolly is such a tried and true war horse, wouldn't it be selling better than it is on Murphy's days? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - AC126748 01:42 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| "But if Dolly is such a tried and true war horse, wouldn't it be selling better than it is on Murphy's days?" The show is selling out because of the COMBINATOIN of a big film, recording, TV, and live performance star who hasn't been on Broadway in decades in a show with a very famous title that hasn't been on Broadway in years. Also, this would never have happened, but as a a friend of mine said the other day, if this production of DOLLY! had opened with Murphy (or equivalent) starring in it from the beginning, and if had gotten rave reviews, I expect the show starring Murphy would be selling much better than those performance are now, though not at Midler levels. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: AC126748 02:56 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - Michael_Portantiere 02:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Also, this would never have happened, but as a a friend of mine said the other day, if this production of DOLLY! had opened with Murphy (or equivalent) starring in it from the beginning, and if had gotten rave reviews, I expect the show starring Murphy would be selling much better than those performance are now, though not at Midler levels. That's kind of the point, isn't it? All the Broadway names over the years who have been speculated as potential Dollys (LuPone, Chenoweth, etc) probably would have generated respectable, even strong, box office receipts--but nowhere near the level of a Bette (or Cher or Streisand). The show itself isn't the star here. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - AC126748 02:56 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| "The show itself isn't the star here." Agreed. It's the combination of the show and the star, and particularly, that star in that particular role, which suits her just about perfectly. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:12 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Lupone isnt selling out war paint - Michael_Portantiere 03:35 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| and which of the other names in this thread could you say that about? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:52 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - MattPhilly 12:30 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| The 1992 GUYS AND DOLLS had one star...Peter Gallagher, who was a movie name at the time. Also Nathan Lane, while not a "star" per se, was well known among regular New York theatre goers. And, of course, it turned Faith Prince into a star and brought Lane to the attention of the mainstream. The revival of KISS ME KATE had two genuine theatre stars in the leads, Brian Stokes Mitchell and Marin Mazzie, and probably would not have fared as well without them as it did with them. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: writerkev 01:07 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - JereNYC 12:52 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| You're using a different definition of the word "star" than some others in this thread. Brian Stokes Mitchell, Marin Mazzie, etc. are all in the category of theatre star. The question is whether "Hello, Dolly!" can/will survive with anything less than a big star, known to mainstream audiences. Two different nouns. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I dont think any announcement will be made until october time frame. | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:35 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Nm | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:29 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Based on ticket sales as an alternate, I'd say the show would close if that's what they had available. (And I think it will close.) I don't think most of those names are realistic, and I'm not convinced the one that might be would prompt people to go back again. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The sales this week speak volumes. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 11:52 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:44 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - ryhog 11:29 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| TDF, TKTS, etc, all noted here. This is an event based on synergy of star and role. And the resulting must-see "experience" nature of the booking. It's an alignment of resources with a piece of material to serve the resources, not really the reverse. Those who think the public is clamoring for "Dolly..." in a Midler-free marketplace are entitled to their opinion. May prove to be right. Yet we haven't seen evidence that such is the case. This first vacation, and the soft Tuesday sales, are the updated story here. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The sales this week speak volumes. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 01:05 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: The sales this week speak volumes. - Delvino 11:44 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Surely they have budgeted for that and felt that the alternative- a lesser-known replacement like the brilliant Maureen Moore- or simply a six-show week- would be less financially sensible. In 1997 I would have thought that the success of CHICAGO was predicated on the presence of four very big names but the Weisslers were proven right and twenty years later the show is running. I know DOLLY! is a very different beast and is an infinitely more expensive show to run, but I think the principle is worth trying to replicate. I wouldn't want to see reality stars going in to play Dolly, but there are enough great and well-known actresses between 40 and 70 who, I think, would draw crowds, especially if they look beyond just the usual suspects. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The sales this week speak volumes. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:55 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: The sales this week speak volumes. - Delvino 11:44 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| The collateral question is whether the public that is clamoring is going to come back to see someone-anyone-else. As I have said for a long time, I don't think the audience for this show qua show is not very deep. And the data you cites seems to support that. This show is not hitting the lowest common denominator tourist audience and the only way you tap into that is either to cast someone who is unrealistic to obtain, or someone who lowers the bar considerably (and I don't think Rudin will do that). Murphy doesn't get the job done, and I am not convinced the clamor-ers will come back again to see, e.g., Peters. Would the reviews say she is a must-see after Midler? I seriously doubt it. We shall see. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The sales this week speak volumes. | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 12:27 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: The sales this week speak volumes. - ryhog 11:55 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| With the non-promotion of Donna, there have to be some among that audience who'd have gone this week and last, but who have mentally filed the show under Impossible Ticket and moved on. Maybe they'll find a way to change gears and promote it as a show rather than Event, and to the audience that sustains shows. Maybe it's already too late for that. Maybe the plan has really always been to wrap it up in January. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Jackman in "Boy from Oz" springs to mind, if not a perfect parallel. | |
| Posted by: Delvino 12:40 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: The sales this week speak volumes. - sirpupnyc 12:27 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| When I bought my seats at the box office, Murphy's performances were isolated, her participation entirely explained. Her filling in was mentioned in the press quite early, her photo surfaced tethered to releases, and she was interviewed. But this event wasn't about having two leading ladies available to choose between It was "Hello, Dolly!" reminted for a superstar, Midler. The new Bette-as-Dolly is a brand, and it cannot be "Hello, Dolly!" starring {X}, at least not yet. Running pictures of Murphy in the role in print ads -- a month after the Tonys yet -- or on the internet would invite a lot of questions the production doesn't want to answer, when the show through January is a commercial tale of Midler's return to B'way in a classic vehicle. This seems to be hard for fans of Murphy and fans of the show itself to embrace. But this production was conceived with that brand calculation. Maybe look back at "Boy from Oz," which existed only as long as Jackman was willing to perform it. I'm not saying these shows share the same synergy, and "Dolly" is respected in ways "Boy..." never was. But it's useful. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It will have recouped and made a large profit by january | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:33 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - ryhog 11:29 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And a replacement probably only needs to get the grosses to around $800k. It is a terrific production of a beloved show, so I could see it extending and maybe even having a big name for horace. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It will have recouped and made a large profit by january | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:45 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: It will have recouped and made a large profit by january - dramedy 11:33 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| maybe. obviously none of us know although I'd point out that there is a chicken and egg aspect to what the gross needs to be. A big name (or two) ups the ante bigly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 11:29 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:28 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Hello, Dolly!: Will Donna Murphy be Bette's Replacement in January? - Zelgo 11:19 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| If it extends, my guess is tv or movie star as replacement. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: portenopete 01:06 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - dramedy 11:28 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Just like Merrick! Until Merman, not one of Channing's Broadway successors was (primarily) a Broadway star, right? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 11:45 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - dramedy 11:28 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Which is, of course, the precedent in this role. In the original production only Merman was primarily known as Broadway star, although Bailey had appeared in Broadway shows many years before. Of the significant Dollys on the road, I don't think any of them (except for Mary Martin and, of course, Channing herself) were primarily known for their work on the stage. It's interesting to think that many of the Dollys in the original production and tours were movies stars whose careers had petered out a decade or two prior to them taking on Dolly. If we look at the equivalent time period, we'd be looking for movie (or now TV) actresses whose major careers were coming to a close in the mid-to-late 90's through the mid 2000's. Seems like yesterday for me, as I'm sure they heydays of those Dolly actresses did to audiences of the 1960's. It's difficult for me to assess who might be an equivalent sort of name today, someone who likely was a huge star in the 1980's, but who faded from the limelight by the mid-90's or so and who would be capable of doing it, interested in doing it, and would sell tickets. I wonder how much of a gamble it was for David Merrick to take a chance on each one of these old movie queens and if there was significant doubt as to whether or not they would sell tickets or if the idea was a slam dunk once he'd thought of it? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: MattPhilly 12:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - JereNYC 11:45 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I keep thinking Bette's First Wive's Club costar, Goldie Hawn, would be fabulous in this. Different from Bette, but a great take. And she very much fits the bill of the type of star you described. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:43 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - MattPhilly 12:17 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Hawn would be a great choice if she were interested. Has she ever sung live though? I saw her in her recent film with Amy Schumer and she's still got it. I was shocked to read that it was her first film in many years. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 12:16 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - JereNYC 11:45 am EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| It is not hard to come up with a list of possible replacements. If we are starting a pool, I want dibs on Fran Dresher. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: FleetStreetBarber 12:58 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - whereismikeyfl 12:16 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And I want dibs on Marilyn Maye. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - whereismikeyfl 12:16 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Drescher would be an interesting choice if she sings. Does she sing? She has always seemed to me to be an actress of limited range, but with the brilliance to make that range really work for her instead of against her. I can really see her in the role...but can't really visualize her tackling the score. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 01:08 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - JereNYC 12:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| She did the Cinderella revival for five months. No idea if that means she can sing, though. I've tried to block it out, so I don't even remember if Madame (the stepmother, right?) had a lot of singing to do. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: Vectorbabe 01:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - sirpupnyc 01:08 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I did a quick search of actresses from the 1980s and 90s. They don't have Bette Midler's rabid fan base, they serve the same function as the myriad of Dollys Merrick put in after Channing. A few of my picks: Michelle Pfeiffer (my favorite choice) Diane Keaton (my next favorite) Kim Basinger Emma Thompson Geena Davis Sharon Stone Meg Ryan Jessica Lange Jamie Lee Curtin Sigourney Weaver Sissy Spacek Drew Barrymore |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 04:06 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - Vectorbabe 01:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Great list! For realism I think Barrymore has to come off. She was the only star in Woody Allen's movie musical who demanded being dubbed. If she can't sing a relatively simple song in a recording studio with multiple takes to get it right, she certainly can't sing this score live multiple times a week! For the record, I like her. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: SidL 03:44 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - Vectorbabe 01:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I thought about Diane Keaton as well and next year will be the 50th Anniversary of HAIR playing on Broadway. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Michelle Pfeiffer!!??## | |
| Posted by: Jax 02:57 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - Vectorbabe 01:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| The hottie of all time who crawled across a piano into screen history in "The Fabulous Baker Boys?" As Dolly on a trolley to Yonkers, with a bustle and some hustle?? Oh please!! As Desiree Armfeldt, absolutely. As Norma Desmond, if she can stretch her vocal chords, for sure. But I don't wanna see La Pfeiffer handing out business cards and chomping on a turkey leg. And I don't want to see Bette Midler play Catwoman either. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| If it was good enough for Betty Grable | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 08:42 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: Michelle Pfeiffer!!??## - Jax 02:57 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| who was the biggest pin-up during WWII and a huge sex symbo movie star, why not for Pfeiffer? Though Pfeiffer would actually be a better Mame, a much harder to cast role. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: If it was good enough for Betty Grable | |
| Posted by: Jax 01:35 am EDT 07/06/17 | |
| In reply to: If it was good enough for Betty Grable - PlayWiz 08:42 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| Betty Grable reeked of vaudeville, which made her perfect for Dolly. Pfeiffer would be ill cast as either Mame or Dolly. She's a Sondheim type, not a Herman Gal. She needs to be in Company, Follies, or Night Music if she decides to do a musical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: winters 01:32 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - Vectorbabe 01:26 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And which of these names would sell tickets? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 01:39 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - winters 01:32 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| That's the thing though...part of the question I was asking. If it's 1965 and you're in David Merrick's office and he comes up with a list of possible replacements for Channing that includes names like Ginger Rogers and Betty Grable, would you have had the exact same reaction? Would these old broads from the movies actually sell any tickets? If you can see SWING TIME or MOON OVER MIAMI on the late show any night of week, will people pay to see them in DOLLY? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: winters 01:47 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - JereNYC 01:39 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| I see what you are saying but....that audience would consist of women over forty (and their husbands) and gays boys. For any of them this would be an opportunity to see a real live movie star. Maybe from the past but still mostly women of glamour. Today, going back twenty or thirty years: not so much. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star | |
| Posted by: whereismikeyfl 01:37 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - winters 01:32 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And which of these names would actually sign on to be a replacement in a musical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Rudin is a powerful producer | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:02 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
| In reply to: re: I doubt that it will be a broadway star - whereismikeyfl 01:37 pm EDT 07/05/17 | |
|
|
|
| And does movies. I could see a star doing it to greenlight their next project. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.393063 seconds.