Why no mention of 'Man of La Mancha'?

I share your disappointment - so much was overlooked in this effort, mainly, I think, because its creators decided to approach their Broadway history from the standpoint of the social and political climates of the times, which actually led to some strange omissions - they devoted several minutes to the controversial THE CRADLE WILL ROCK, but made no mention of the revues that were popular on Broadway in the 40s which had political slant, such as CALL ME MISTER and PINS AND NEEDLES (in fact, they ignored the revue altogether, implying that it died out with vaudeville by the end of the 1920s, which it most certainly did not) - they made no mention of the "red scare" in the 1950s - Broadway was still concentrating on 'entertaining' shows while careers were being ruined (there was no mention of Jerome Robbins' being a 'friendly witness', at the HUAC hearings. which later affected his relationships with Arthur Laurents, Jack Gilford, and Zero Mostel).
I agree with you that it sort of seems the show was aimed at newcomers to the theater, and it was more about the creative artists than the performing artists - I'd rather have watched 3 minutes of Bert Lahr performing than 3 minutes of his son talking about him - yet there was also the presumption that the viewer knew about Ethel Merman's subsequent career, or that Cole Porter wrote 5 musicals for her, or knew who William Gaxton and Victor Moore were - I mean, there was no mention of Gwen Verdon until they covered CHICAGO in Part 5 - and she'd been a Broadway legend since the 1950s! And, um, Angela Who? Carol Who?
If you can get the DVD - watch that, because the extra features are great - a few performances that didn't make the final show, and many more interview segments - in fact, I wish there had actually been TWO shows - one just of musical numbers and one with interviews, or the option to listen to the interviews as Audio Commentary.

Oh yes, RENT - I've never seen it nor had any desire to, though it has its fans who've seen it over and over and over - mention was made that Jonathan Larson received a Pulitzer Prize (posthumously) - although there was a nice segment on Stephen Sondheim's 1984 effort, SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE, no mention was made that it, too, had won the Pulitzer - after Sondheim had been toiling in the theater for a mere 3 decades. (Nor was it mentioned that HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS...received the same honor in the early 1960s - I think they did mention CHORUS LINE receiving it).

[deleted]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think they were trying to cover shows that shaped and changed musical theater. I'm not too familiar with Candide, but I don't believe Man of la Mancha or Brigadoon were exactly revolutionary.

As to Rent, I agree that it got a bit too much time, but it was sort of the biggest cultural phenomenon that Broadway had had in ages.

Unfortunately, with a cultural movement that lasted over 100 years, trying to synthesize Broadway down to 6-8 entertaining hours is bound to leave some fans disappointed. Like someone mentioned above, the editors tried to limit themselves to the most innovative shows. Not just the ones that made a lot of money or were really popular.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

I know I'm very late to the party, but if you can get a hold of the Great Courses lecture series on the history of the Broadway musical, the lecturer, Bill Messenger, devotes considerable attention Man of La Mancha.