| re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 11:21 pm EDT 08/06/17 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 11:15 pm EDT 08/06/17 | |
| In reply to: re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - Ann 10:03 pm EDT 08/06/17 | |
|
|
|
| Who knows? But in refusing to promote Groban as star, they devalued the star value of the role. It became stunt casting of a rarefied sort -- hey, we have this great show and Josh Groban has agreed to play a part in it for a few months, even though the SHOW is the real star -- rather than Midler-izing his appearance. It might've proven intimidating that way -- maybe no one would've wanted to follow him anyway. But you have to admit, it was strange to already begin showing TV ads that barely acknowledged Groban's Pierre when he had six months left to play. I'm only suggesting that highlighting a wonderful role played by an international star at least says "someone else might strike gold here as well." They ended up saying, "the role will make someone a star (Oak), " and then "wait, we need a star after all." It makes you wonder why "we need a star after all" wasn't at least the plan in February. That tracks with what they knew about box office, since Groban's absences were toxic. I heard that when I bought my seats in December. No one would buy non-Groban performances. The box office said to me "that first date you want is wide open. We can't sell it -- Josh isn't it." If the box office knew it in December, and I heard it then, where the hell were the producers' heads, putting in Oak? |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - CCentero 11:46 am EDT 08/07/17 |
| Next: | re: But as noted, they did NOT market their star. Thus, the baffling chain of decisions. - Ann 08:19 am EDT 08/07/17 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.019574 seconds.