Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... | |
| Posted by: flaguy 01:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| From Broadway.com: "Now you know! Roundabout Theatre Company has announced a new, reimagined production of George Furth and Stephen Sondheim's iconic musical Merrily We Roll Along. The 2019 staging from innovative company Fiasco Theater will play off-Broadway's Laura Pels Theatre beginning on January 12 with an opening slated for February 19. ..." | |
| Link | https://www.broadway.com/buzz/192224/merrily-we-roll-along-sets-new-york-return-with-fiasco-roundabout |
| reply to this message | |
| surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:44 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... - flaguy 01:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Is kiss me Kate at studio 54? I wonder how long beautiful can run. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: Bwayguy 02:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: surprised it is off broadway - dramedy 02:44 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Talk about a show that does not need a revival. They chose Kate over Merrily? Ridiculous. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 04:57 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Bwayguy 02:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Why does it have to be a contest? They didn't chose one over the other -- they chose both. The Fiasco productions have always benefited from a smaller space, however, so the smaller venue seems apropos. (Besides which, I presume Roundabout has the Into the Woods audience data from the Pels to help make that determination.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 03:52 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Bwayguy 02:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'd choose Kate over Merrily in a heartbeat, and I'd do it every time. Kate's a much better show--though it is true that it may suffer in revivals at the hands of people who don't understand the characters or the period, if they try to fill in the gaps with clichés. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - keikekaze 03:52 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Kate's a much better show--though it is true that it may suffer in revivals The last big revival being a case in point, at least musically speaking. Bring back the original score!!! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 05:32 am EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Hartford Stage did a lovely production of Kiss Me Kate not too long ago. I think it was done in cooperation with the Old Globe. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 09:48 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, that's exactly what I was referring to, obliquely. I hope the next revival will resist the temptation to turn Lois into a gum-chewing bimbo with a squeaky voice, and the other temptation to just throw everybody into another huge tap number when the director/choreographer can't think what else to do. I don't believe there was any tapping in the original Kate--unless there might have been just a step or two in "Too Darn Hot"--and given the period there's no particular reason why there should have been. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 11:30 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - keikekaze 09:48 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Hanya Holm was an important person in the history of Labanotation. The first two Broadway shows for which the complete choreography was preserved in Labanotation were My Fair Lady and Kiss Me, Kate so if someone wanted to do it, we could see the KMK choreography, and the MFL choreography, too. I believe it was not recreated in the Australian production directed by Andrews. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 12:34 am EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - AlanScott 11:30 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I'd love to see the original Kiss Me Kate choreography, if only to see for myself how it compared to the first production of the show I ever saw on stage, as a child in Los Angeles in 1959. I wonder if the original MFL choreography is very different from the movie? I've always had the impression that the MFL movie was practically a photograph of the stage show, except for the differences in casting. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:56 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - keikekaze 09:48 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't believe there was any tapping in the original Kate--unless there might have been just a step or two in "Too Darn Hot"--and given the period there's no particular reason why there should have been. There's also no reason, given the period, that the revival version of "Too Darn Hot" starts off sounding like West Side Story lol. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 07:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| As far as I'm concerned, most everything about the last revival was disappointing, including the revisions from John Guare, whose work as a playwright on his own stuff I admire so greatly. And despite the presence of so many extremely talented people in the cast, I really disliked the direction. I think the Roundabout is doing that revised version. Yech! KMK is an example of a show that I would be happy to see Encores! do — with the original orchestrations and book. Well, maybe not the really original originals as there are various issues involved with that. Some sort of choices would have to be made. But that awful 1999 version should be put in the garbage somewhere. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 05:40 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Chromolume 05:08 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| The Michael Blakemoore revival with Marin and Stokes? Wasn't that super acclaimed? It and Blakemoore won Tonys for it (in fact he won two for directing a musical and play that year). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 04:47 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:39 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - keikekaze 03:52 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| They are REALLY apples and oranges as musicals, it's impossible and pointless to compare them in terms of what they offer or what about them makes them a "good musical" or not, or why any given audience member or group of audience members will want to spend money on in a given season, let alone why an artistic staff of a non-profit theater in NYC would want to program them. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: surprised it is off broadway | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 09:54 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Chazwaza 04:39 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Couldn't agree more, and you may notice that I didn't do any of that. My response was to a previous poster who said it was "ridiculous" to choose Kate over Merrily, as if that were a point settled for all time. It isn't, so I proposed the opposite view. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| they have to make money | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:57 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: surprised it is off broadway - Bwayguy 02:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think the subscription base would rather see Kate over merrily. I love Sondheim, but I don’t think merrily is very good. Interesting premise working backwards but just doesn’t work on stage. Maybe this revival will change my opinion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Bwayguy 02:59 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: they have to make money - dramedy 02:57 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| The songs alone in Merrily are better than anything that Kate has to offer, IMO. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 06:15 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 06:04 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Bwayguy 02:59 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Kiss Me, Kate' is considered, along with "Anything Goes" to be the best shows Cole Porter ever wrote (at least that are revived). If you don't like it, that's fine, but it is considered one of the greats. It also has a very solid book, even if it has been tinkered with a bit over the years. "Merrily" is also known to have a fine score, but a much more problematic book which a lot of folks still think hasn't been satisfactorily solved. I'm happy the singular and brilliant Mr. Sondheim with his concept musicals is still among us, but wish there were more purveyors of the more traditional book musicals with the songwriting abilities of a Cole Porter that were getting produced today, able to write for the most part beautiful, singable melodies with witty, well-rhymed lyrics. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 07:36 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - PlayWiz 06:04 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| But this is such a pointless debate... the book (and intentions) of Kiss Me Kate is an entirely different animal than the book of Merrily We Roll Along, as are the scores. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of people who consider Kiss Me Kate to be one of the greats in terms of the greatest musicals. Surely it used to be, and is a classic and a good piece of musical theater, but it is hardly one of "the greats" nor is it, in my understanding, considered to be when taking in all of the major musicals. I wouldn't even consider it one of the greats of the "classics" era... it really depends on how long your list is. And while it may or may not be a better score than Anything Goes (in terms of existing in the play), AG is much more beloved and remembered song for song. The book to Merrily has always been difficult - to some it has been largely fixed or improved, to others (like myself) the revisions have damn near ruined the fragile but often (and formerly) amazing show that it is/was... either way, what the book has or does or attempts is so different than KMK, and where it succeeds it, and where it tries even if it fails, it offers so much that KMK does not and does not attempt to (and visa versa). One could try to say that if you're going for just a good time with a musical, KMK wins -- but person to person the definition of "a good time with a musical" changes... I have a better time at Merrily, even with the problems it may have, than I do at KMK, even though I enjoy KMK too. And why are we talking about KMK like some perfect piece of writing, with no "problems"? It largely gets a pass because it's an old fashioned musical comedy and we don't expect as much from it or don't look at it with the same brutal analytical microscope. Either way the shows are basically incomparable if you ask me, or at least it's pointless to try. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:15 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Either way the shows are basically incomparable..." Funnily enough, I would suggest the opposite: they are both cases of exquisite musical compositions welded to awkward, skeletal books showcasing skeletal characters who are only given dimensions when they sing. I find them equal failures as dramatic theater, and equally thrilling when listening to the top-shelf songs. Beyond that, it's really a matter of taste; for me, Sondheim is more compelling, but I was raised on him. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Last Edit: AlanScott 09:27 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:27 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I should start by saying that I'm not one of the greatest fans of KMK. Still . . . You wrote, "And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of people who consider Kiss Me Kate to be one of the greats in terms of the greatest musicals." From what basic pool of people would we be choosing those who would vote on this? You wrote, "I wouldn't even consider it one of the greats of the "classics" era... it really depends on how long your list is. And while it may or may not be a better score than Anything Goes (in terms of existing in the play), AG is much more beloved and remembered song for song." I don't think particularly think so, although if you're thinking of the revisions of AG with their interpolations of popular Porter songs from other shows, maybe then, but even then maybe not. I say that not to put down AG, which I think is terrific (especially in its original version, very rarely seen for decades, which has a remarkably funny book as well as dazzling orchestrations far superior to those heard in the revisions). Anyway, I'll just point out a few things: Kiss Me, Kate was the second book musical to run more than 1,000 performances on Broadway, although admittedly South Pacific, the third, came along later in the same season. The original reviews were the kinds of raves that come along rarely, and for decades thereafter it was one of the most popular shows in the rep. When the BBC decided to start BBC2 in 1964, a new television production of Kiss Me, Kate was chosen to attract audiences on the first night of the new station. In 1958, Capitol made a new recording of KMK in stereo featuring the four original leads, the only such example I can think of in the history of cast recordings. MFL is not really comparable as that was a cast recording of the London production, and it was only three years after the Broadway production opened, while MFL was still running strong on Broadway and on its North American tour. But KMK was still huge. In 1962, lines of dialogue heard on the KMK OBCR were quoted in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? on the clear assumption that just about everyone would know what was being quoted. In 1972, Lehman Engel in his book Words With Music chose KMK as one of only 12 musicals that he thought would last. In addition to the 1964 BBC2 production, KMK received major U.S. television productions in 1958 and 1968. Unless I'm forgetting something, it was the first older musical to receive two virtually complete recordings on two CDs of the original score, even if it neither was perhaps quite truly complete (not sure about that) nor truly represented the score as originally heard on Broadway (perhaps because it was not realized at the time how many changes were made in the licensed version from what was heard on opening night on Broadway, but even if it was realized, at the time those original materials were not easily available). We still don't have a single comparable recording of Oklahoma!, Carousel, Fiddler on the Roof and I don't know how many other classics, but we have two of KMK. (Admittedly, this is not necessarily because no one has wanted to do or has tried to do such recordings of the scores for the three shows I mentioned. McGlinn and EMI were going to do an Oklahoma! until McGlinn managed to scuttle it thanks to his unfailingly gracious personality.) It is one of the few Broadway musicals to have been published with a full orchestral score in an annotated critical edition, not to mention with variant versions of several of the same numbers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - AlanScott 09:27 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Unless I'm forgetting something, it was the first older musical to receive two virtually complete recordings on two CDs of the original score, even if it neither was perhaps quite truly complete (not sure about that) nor truly represented the score as originally heard on Broadway (perhaps because it was not realized at the time how many changes were made in the licensed version from what was heard on opening night on Broadway, but even if it was realized, at the time those original materials were not easily available). Well, of course, in 1848, no one was really focused on archiving a full show score. But largely, what's there is faithful enough to the original given the era - it's certainly not chopped up like Follies or Carnival would be some years later. Though the beginning is odd - the opening orchestral material is from the Entr'acte, not the Overture - and that music leads into "Another Op'nin" in a way that was absolutely different from the stage show, considering that song did not actually open the production. (One of the many demerits of the 1999 revival is that they changed the order of the opening scene so that the song could open the show - a far more ordinary and obvious choice than what was done in the 1948 production.) But of course you knew all this...;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 11:57 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Chromolume 11:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| "One of the many demerits of the 1999 revival is that they changed the order of the opening scene so that the song could open the show - a far more ordinary and obvious choice than what was done in the 1948 production." Couldn't agree more. Perhaps inspired by the beloved Peter Stone AGYG revisal earlier the same year. But maybe I wasn't clear about the complete recordings. I'm referring to the McGlinn and the JAY KMK recordings, my point being that 40-50 years after the original, it was considered enough of a beloved landmark to get the two-CD treatment with what were believed to be the original orchestrations. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:06 am EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - AlanScott 11:57 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Perhaps inspired by the beloved Peter Stone AGYG revisal earlier the same year. Yes - and right down to the cliche slow/rubato openings of both shows. I'm referring to the McGlinn and the JAY KMK recordings Oops - you're right - I was confusing this with your earlier comments about the 2 original cast recordings as well. ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| One tiny annotation only. | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 10:23 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - AlanScott 09:27 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Kiss Me, Kate was the second book musical to run more than 1,000 performances on Broadway, although admittedly South Pacific, the third, came along later in the same season. Actually Kate (1948) was the third book musical to play more than 1,000 performances on Broadway, after Oklahoma! (1943) and Annie Get Your Gun (1946), and South Pacific the fourth. Of course you know this; Annie just slipped your mind momentarily, as it slips mine from time to time! : ) Of course, your basic point stands: When Kate played its 1,000-plus performances, it was in very rare and very heady company. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: One tiny annotation only. | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:26 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: One tiny annotation only. - keikekaze 10:23 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you! How did I miss that, especially since AGYG has been on my mind with the anniversary just having passed. And before posting I did look at an old list of long-running Broadway shows so I should have seen it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Adjustment to the above | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:42 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - AlanScott 09:27 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Re the next-to-last paragraph: Something like that was also done with Annie Get Your Gun, from the same two companies that did KMK and with the same conductors on both, but the difference is that those two AGYG recordings represent different versions of the score from different versions of the show, enabling the recordings to be clearly differentiated for people who buy such recordings and giving those people good reason to want both. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 07:41 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Chazwaza 07:33 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| It's not pointless, because we've both made points. Someone started this by comparing the two, since they are both going to be done by the Roundabout, and flippantly commented on preferring one by being dismissive of the other's songs. They both have fine scores, but otherwise they are entirely different animals. However, you never know what kinds of similarities you might find among anything that's thrown out there until you try, and sometimes, not always, that might yield something valuable. Perhaps not so much in this case. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 08:47 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - PlayWiz 07:41 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Couldn't they have done Merrily at Studio 54? I knew Fissco was doing Merrily a few months ago. I spoke to two of the actors at a reading for the Angels in America book. They also mentioned quite a while back they've been wanting to do Merrily after the success of their Into the Woods. I'm curious how they will try to transform it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 09:10 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - lowwriter 08:47 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Unless they have the Sondheim back, they surely want KMK in the bigger house (Studio). The plan for that must be an extended run. And it's too far along now to change. (Kelli may be the only one cast, but she must already have a contract for more than they could pay her Off-Broadway.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 05:39 am EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - sirpupnyc 09:10 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| It's strange to me that Roundabout wouldn't do Kiss Me Kate in the American Airlines Theater. If they did John Lithgow's one man show there, why not Kate? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 10:50 am EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - lowwriter 05:39 am EDT 05/18/18 | |
|
|
|
| True West is in the way there. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:52 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - PlayWiz 07:41 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Fair enough! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Bwayguy 02:59 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| C'mon Merrily is, was, and will always be a flop. There are just enough Sondheimites in NY to keep a small limited engagement going, doesn't make it good by any means. Any other show that ran a whopping 16 performances on Broadway would never see the light of day again. If you love the songs so much listen to the cast album and be happy it exists. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 08:38 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| "Any other show that ran a whopping 16 performances on Broadway would never see the light of day again." You mean like Little Murders, which ran 7 performances on Broadway in 1967 and ran 400 performances Off-Broadway in 1969 after having been a hit for the Royal Shakespeare Company in London? And then it was made into a movie. And what about Threepenny Opera, which ran 12 performances in 1933? I could make a list of shows that played 16 performances or less in their original productions and later came back to critical praise and longer runs, even if many of those later runs were for nonprofit companies. And the list of shows that were real flops, even if running more than 16 performances, in their original productions and are now considered classics or near-classics is a pretty long one. We could start with A Moon for the Misbegotten, which ran 68 performances in 1957 and has been back a number of times, most successfully in 1973 when it ran 313 performances, and that production only closed in order to tour. Tough show to do eight times a week for a long run. It could easily have run another nine months if not even another year on Broadway in that 1973 production. It was a huge success. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:16 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| There have been many successful productions of MERRILY. It's one of my favorite shows. The production in the U.K. that played in movie theaters a few years ago sold out in some cities. THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS had a very short run but I think it's one of the best shows of the last 10 years. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: schlepper 05:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - KingSpeed 05:16 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Are you really equating a filmed NT Live screening selling out 1 night (at $15-$20 bucks a ticket) in a 500 (at most) seat cinema screen to a several months long run in an 800+ seat Broadway house at $150-$200 a ticket (at least)? Also THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS was a complete and total financial failure on Broadway. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 10:52 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - schlepper 05:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I was just saying that the show is popular and people are interested in it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The Scottsboro Boys | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 09:21 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - schlepper 05:49 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| This is not a great example... besides that it was never going to run a long time with subject matter and content as dark and divisive as this show, especially as a musical... but this was a commercial run (god knows why). If it had been scheduled for a slot in a non-profit theater, it would have run a bit longer, and would have likely been a hot ticket item, maybe extended maybe not but it wouldn't have been a financial failure because the pressure would be off and it would have sold its run (if not sold OUT and extended). Not every good musical NEEDS to have an audience big enough to pay $150 a ticket for many months or even years, at 800-1500 people a night. Scottboro Boys is an excellent musical that got an excellent production with an amazing cast, and it shouldn't have been a commercial run. The fact that it ran as long as it did is almost impressive given what it is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Scottsboro Boys | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:35 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: The Scottsboro Boys - Chazwaza 09:21 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| But it was a non-profit run, and it did sell out and extended. Perhaps 25 years ago it would have moved to the Minneta Lane or the John Houseman, but theater economics changed, and Broadway was the only place to take it to give it more life. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: they have to make money | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 04:38 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Your logic is broken. The show has been performed thousands of times and has convinced people to fund many recordings of it. The complicatedly short run of the original production has no relevance to whether or not a non-profit company should do a revival of it, and whether they should do it in the broadway space or off broadway space. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Anyone can whistle had 9 post opening performances | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:53 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - TGWW 03:32 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I wonder if there is a short run flop that has had a long life. Mack and Mabel had 66 performances and dear world over 100. I’m anxiously awaiting the dance of the vampire revival. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| we will just have to disagree | |
| Posted by: dramedy 03:11 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: they have to make money - Bwayguy 02:59 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Too darn hot is one of my favorite cole porter songs. Brush up your Shakespeare is very clever. I rarely listen to merrily cast recording. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: we will just have to disagree | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:18 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: we will just have to disagree - dramedy 03:11 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Makes sense. How would you prefer MERRILY if you hardly ever listened to it? Which recording do you have? It's a great score. KMK is too, of course. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Nice! | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 02:09 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 02:09 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... - flaguy 01:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I really loved Fiasco's Into the Woods. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... | |
| Posted by: Bwayguy 01:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... - flaguy 01:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Why didn't they just bring Maria Friedman's acclaimed production to Studio 54? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... | |
| Posted by: kess0078 06:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... - Bwayguy 01:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Fiasco is Roundabout’s company-in-residence, so I imagine their loyalties lie with this production over the Friedman production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| because it was terrible... | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 02:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: 'MERRILY' to the Roundabout in January! ... - Bwayguy 01:50 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| I know I'm mysteriously in the minority here but I hated her amateur and poorly acted production. It's bad enough we have to have this soap opera version of the script, at least do a production directed by someone who can do it well. I am still baffled at what people were raving about with Friedman's production. I haven't seen the Fiasco production, but I pray it does a better job. Merrily used to be a favorite of mine but this new version is really quite notably worse writing and storytelling all around, in my opinion, and it's a real shame it's the one that's allowed to be produced. But again, I'm glad it's not Friedman's production. Michael Arden's production was also better (I also had some issues with that one but would have been better to transfer than Friedman'). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: because it was terrible... | |
| Posted by: Budinsky 04:34 pm EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: because it was terrible... - Chazwaza 02:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| Absolutely. I also found her production to be amateur and poorly acted. I saw it as an HD broadcast and left at intermission and I was not the only one voting with his feet. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: because it was terrible... | |
| Posted by: Indavidzopinion 02:45 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: because it was terrible... - Chazwaza 02:25 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| In the Roundabout version that is upcoming, how do they handle the detail of the movie producer's wife throwing some liquid in the starlet's eyes. Is it mercuricrome, iodine, or? I understand that this detail originated in the film or the original play (no music), but only appears in some of the revision s of "Merrily." This heavy-handed detail is too gross and throws the whole evening off, in my opinion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: because it was terrible... | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 10:33 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
| In reply to: re: because it was terrible... - Indavidzopinion 02:45 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| It's iodine in the original play, and last I know of, that's what was in the current licensed script for the musical. Was it perhaps cut at Encores? I can't remember. Anyway, I would imagine it will be in the Fiasco-Roundabout production, but we'll find out. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: because it was terrible... | |
| Posted by: superior_exterior 12:29 pm EDT 05/18/18 | |
| In reply to: re: because it was terrible... - AlanScott 10:33 pm EDT 05/17/18 | |
|
|
|
| They did cut the iodine throwing from the Encores script, but I believe it's been in every other major production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.220174 seconds.