because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit
Last Edit: Chazwaza 06:29 pm EST 02/03/25
Posted by: Chazwaza 06:25 pm EST 02/03/25
In reply to: Why hasn't there been a revival of CITY OF ANGELS? - CallMeRusty 04:21 pm EST 02/03/25

Truly. I think producers and directors know it's too expensive of a show design-wise to pull off without a box office name or two or three, and I think many of the stars who might do it may not see it as sure-fire enough with audiences or awards to be worth being the show they commit the time a broadway musical would take for them... and I think Jackman has been circling a movie of it for years, so maybe he doesn't want to do it on stage if a movie might happen.

I dunno. It's a phenomenal musical that deserves to be done. How Roundabout hasn't done it yet is a mystery to me. They famously do shows that are beyond their means and either make it work (Nine) or flounder in set or orchestra.... it doesn't stop them from producing it. Why they haven't gotten City of Angels in their season yet is beyond me.

It would have been a very exciting move for Richard Gene after Chicago's success. It would be a cool thing for someone like Taye Diggs, but I don't think his name does enough at the box office these days. Coleman Domingo could maybe get things happening, but maybe it's not the kind of material that excites him. Jonathan Groff could maybe do it, but I'm not sure it's the perfect fit for him. Maybe Groff and Radcliffe could return in City of Angels.
Darren Criss could certainly do it.
Doesn't Channing Tatum sing? I assume so since he was supposedly doing a movie of Guys & Dolls... he can do it!

I'm surprised NPH never even did a staged concert of it.

That's another baffling thing... it doesn't even get done for a benefit concert or TV broadcast of a staged concert.
reply

Previous: re: Why hasn't there been a revival of CITY OF ANGELS? - showtunetrivia 09:49 am EST 02/05/25
Next: re: because Hugh Jackman and/or Jake Gyllenhaal won't commit - BroadwayTonyJ 07:00 pm EST 02/03/25
Thread:


Time to render: 0.767027 seconds.