Laura in our Sunday Paper!!!

LauraFan1 · Senior Member

Laura in our Sunday Paper!!!

TUKEE GAL · Veteran Member

Here's the on-line link for others:

http://www.startribune.com/1555/story/1356688.html

Kait · Senior Member

Nice article. I feel as if I know Laura a little better now. She really does have her feet on the ground, doesn't she? Thanks for sharing it with us.

gramps3 · Senior Member

Deleted due to duplication.

-- Edited by gramps3 at 17:04, 2007-08-12

Laura Mom · Senior Member

Thanks, LauraFan1. I indeed saw the article. There are accompanying pictures at www.startribune.com/onstage. One week from tonight we'll be at the opening night show!

MrE1111 · Guru

Nice article, but a fact checker would have been nice...especially in that 2nd page quote from David Ian.

reniefran · Senior Member

Thanks for posting the link. What a wonderful article. I throughly enjoyed it! biggrin

AZN Danny · Veteran Member

MrE1111 wrote:

Nice article, but a fact checker would have been nice...especially in that 2nd page quote from David Ian.

What fact was wrong?

MrE1111 · Guru

For starters, they call it the "$10 million revival..." but then say how the "budget is $30 million."

Then they have that quote from David Ian, saying how "the theater is next door to Les Miserables," which it isn't. Not even by a long shot.

Hello799 · Senior Member

Well, it is only 5 blocks away. I wouldn't say that its next door, but I wouldn't say that its not by a long shot either. Besides, it was a quote and maybe David Ian did say that but meant something else like Mamma Mia or Wicked?!? Just a thought. Nice article though.

gramps3 · Senior Member

MrE1111 wrote:

For starters, they call it the "$10 million revival..." but then say how the "budget is $30 million."

Then they have that quote from David Ian, saying how "the theater is next door to Les Miserables," which it isn't. Not even by a long shot.

        To be really accurate Ian said across the street (not next door) etc and this was, taken in context, obviously meant to convey being in a different setting, i.e., in the midst of other well known productions. That's as accurate as saying Times Square and 42nd St is in the heart of New York. And it was Ian who previously said (on air during the auditions) that he had $10,000,000 of his own money in the show and the reporter is quoting "they" as saying it is expected to be a $30,000,000 production.

         I feel Ian is being pretty fair in saying this is a totally demanding new experience for those with no prior Broadway experience. That is not necessarily saying it can't or won't be done. That remains to be seen and judged according to the myriad eyes of the critics and other beholders who will never agree anyway. Xanadu is only one of many examples of this.

         Along another line, do you have any idea why this particular theater was selected? Was it to save rental costs, limited theater availability, or what? There also have been more than one mention of the limitations imposed by the size of the stage. Today's article about Cha Cha in the Deseret paper quotesher as saying the stage was so small that she felt like she was going to bump into people (or something like that).

The show is doomed to making less money than any other show with identical percentages of seats sold due to the numbers. A full house of 100 seats cannot yield as much money as a ditto performance in a larger house for a same length run.

Stan/gramps

MrE1111 · Guru

As I understand it, the show was capitalized at $10 million. Apparently, Ian, Nichols, and the Nederlanders financed this all themselves...though I'm sure they had some help from investors. WICKED isn't even a $30 million production. In fact, $30 million would set a record for Broadway initial capitalization costs...I'm sure as heck that this production of Grease doesn't cost that much. If I'm wrong, gramps, I'll buy you a round of drinks.

I agree that Ian is being fair saying that it's demanding for people making their theatrical debuts. That's why, having seen an early preview, I felt bad critiquing Max and Laura, considering they'd never done anything on a NY stage before. Critics are just one set of opinions, but sadly, they make or break the show. How it'll fare after the reviews come out still remains to be seen.

The Brooks Atkinson was chosen out of sheer necessity. 100% desperate necessity. It was more-or-less set as a simple "place holder" theater when the show was announced - hence them not announcing the location until long after tickets went on sale. Because it was a Nederlander production, it would only play at a Nederlander owned theater.

Aside: for those who don't know, all but 4 of the 39 Broadway theaters are owned by either the Nederlanders, the Shuberts, or Jujamcyn. The remaining 4 are owned by the non-for-profit theater companies: Roundabout, Manhattan Theater Club, and Lincoln Center (those theaters are the American Airlnes, Studio 54, the Biltmore, and the Vivian Beaumont)

Back to the story:
As I understood it, they were waiting to announce which theater as they were hoping to take the Palace Theatre (right in the heart of Times Square, where the initial TV auditions were held) if and when Legally Blonde failed and/or closed out of town. Obviously, that didn't happen.

Yeah, the stage is very tiny, and the overly large set pieces do seem slightly hazardous. But they made do with what they had. It was simply the only theater available at that moment.

MrE1111 · Guru

Another slight correction:

In that article about Natalie Hill, the info about "Broadway seating" is wrong.

To be considered a Broadway house, it must have 500 seats or above. 100-499 is considered Off-Broadway, below that, Off-Off Broadway.