1,325 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Jun 13, 2016 10:26:23 GMT
I adored Love Never Dies.
And hated ALW for continually fiddling about with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 10:36:20 GMT
I really don't get your dismissal of Shaw, CP. Do wit and intelligence and the ability to write entertaining scenes full of serious ideas count for nothing? Their merits are squashed by gross windbaggery. I don't happen to agree (while we're confessing I haven't seen/read enough Shaw to form a strong opinion) but I do heartily applaud the phrase 'windbaggery' |
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 13, 2016 10:57:06 GMT
I greatly respect your opinions on this forum, mallardo, and enjoy reading your posts... With this in mind, I feel I have perhaps missed something in Wicked. Something I should be appreciating, but didn't get. (I saw it soon after it opened in London, after reading all the hype. I remember it was sparkly. There was no Defying Gravity moment for me, alas, that night (something to do with the cherry picker???) and so it all felt a bit flat. Literally. Apart from that I was hoping to fall in love with it. I even bought the book, but didn't enjoy that either. (I have never been tempted to return for fear I should feel like everyone else's grandfather in the audience. I think you know what I'm getting at. I'm afraid this kind of audience leave me cold.) So... I set you a challenge: educate me and convert me!
I can't convert you, Caiaphas, but the fact that you saw it when it was already a phenomenon is problematic. In situations like that one goes into the theatre with a different attitude. No matter how much you wanted to love it your expectations were high (perhaps grudgingly so) and losing the act one closer - one of the greatest ever - was a huge blow.
I would encourage you to simply listen to it - it's all there on the OBCR if you're open to it. The music perfectly captures the sound world of the story. It sounds like no other show. And, as I said earlier, it's a huge leap forward for Stephen Schwartz. The fact that teenage girls can't get enough of it is hardly a bad thing. It's a show that is perfectly attuned to its audience. Its message of acceptance and friendship hits home. "For Good" is the greatest friendship song I know.
Any show as successful as Wicked is worth taking seriously. Success in the theatre is hard to come by and when it's achieved it's for good reasons. I would say the same thing about Les Mis or Phantom, other shows too often derided. So man up - confront that youthful audience. It's actually fun to be in a crowd that's loving what they're seeing. You might find it catching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 11:04:07 GMT
I agree with Mallardo-despite my post in this thread I did really love Wicked when I saw it first, which was in NY knowing nothing about it and stumbling across a cheap restricted view seat. I loved it and couldn't wait for it to come to London, and saw it several times there. But ultimatly for me it was one that was characterised by a particular period in my life, and my enthusiasm cooled as the hype grew and grew. I still can step back and see the good things about it, I just have to try really hard  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 12:08:28 GMT
I greatly respect your opinions on this forum, mallardo, and enjoy reading your posts... With this in mind, I feel I have perhaps missed something in Wicked. Something I should be appreciating, but didn't get. (I saw it soon after it opened in London, after reading all the hype. I remember it was sparkly. There was no Defying Gravity moment for me, alas, that night (something to do with the cherry picker???) and so it all felt a bit flat. Literally. Apart from that I was hoping to fall in love with it. I even bought the book, but didn't enjoy that either. (I have never been tempted to return for fear I should feel like everyone else's grandfather in the audience. I think you know what I'm getting at. I'm afraid this kind of audience leave me cold.) So... I set you a challenge: educate me and convert me!
I can't convert you, Caiaphas, but the fact that you saw it when it was already a phenomenon is problematic. In situations like that one goes into the theatre with a different attitude. No matter how much you wanted to love it your expectations were high (perhaps grudgingly so) and losing the act one closer - one of the greatest ever - was a huge blow.
I would encourage you to simply listen to it - it's all there on the OBCR if you're open to it. The music perfectly captures the sound world of the story. It sounds like no other show. And, as I said earlier, it's a huge leap forward for Stephen Schwartz. The fact that teenage girls can't get enough of it is hardly a bad thing. It's a show that is perfectly attuned to its audience. Its message of acceptance and friendship hits home. "For Good" is the greatest friendship song I know.
Any show as successful as Wicked is worth taking seriously. Success in the theatre is hard to come by and when it's achieved it's for good reasons. I would say the same thing about Les Mis or Phantom, other shows too often derided. So man up - confront that youthful audience. It's actually fun to be in a crowd that's loving what they're seeing. You might find it catching.
Thank you, mallardo. I will do as you suggest, and "man up". (F*** me! That's one hell of a challenge!   ) And I will give it a listen... I have been in a crowd that's loving what they're seeing on several occasions, and loved every second of it! It might surprise you to know that I'm usually the one "loving it" more than anyone else around me! I can whoop and cheer and stand and put teenage girls to shame. Honest! |
|
2,705 posts
|
Post by viserys on Jun 13, 2016 14:30:39 GMT
I think shows like Wicked that cause such a dedicated hardcore following make it harder for "regular theatre lovers" to like them. I feel like that about the Austrian-German show Tanz der Vampire (based on Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers that became a huge flop on Broadway). I actually quite enjoyed it the first time I saw it in Vienna shortly after its opening, but it subsequently acquired such an obsessive hysterical hardcore fanbase that I started to turn against the show, thinking "OMG, it sure wasn't that good" and I've never overcome that antipathy since.
I also had a period where I loathed Les Miserables after some negative experiences with hardcore Les Mis fans. I ignored the show for years then and only went back to it when I bought the DVD of the 25th anniversary concert. Where I fell in love with Alfie Boe's voice and booked to see him in the West End. And during the entire show I was like "OMG, I had forgotten just how wonderful the music is" and found myself deeply touched.
As for Wicked itself, I've seen it twice, enjoyed it quite a bit and can appreciate what it does for (female) teenagers. As a rabid defender of women's right to be single, I am actually pleased for girls to have a role model like Elphaba who's all about "And if I'm flying solo, at least I'm flying free" instead of previous "heroines" who only ever whine about needing a man. Yet I can see how constant exposure to the hype around the show makes people think "OMG it's not that good".
I'm basically avoiding anything Wicked-related and I've come to avoid all the endless hype around Hamilton, because I really liked the show in NY and am looking forward to see it in London again and don't want it ruined by all that fuss.
|
|
2,051 posts
|
Post by infofreako on Jun 13, 2016 14:40:55 GMT
Ooooh I love this thread! Saying what you think with no comeback! I don't like Phantom. I found it very boring, quite tired and bland. I really cannot believe people sit through this tens of times. I've seen a performance given by the genie in Aladdin in the US, James Monroe Iglehart, I found him lacking energy and flash and I was very unimpressed with how he ran out of breath at the end. I know he is larger, to me it doesn't matter, whatever size you are, you have to be up to the job of singing and dancing. The soundtrack to Hamilton does nothing for me, neither does the subject matter. I don't understand the hype. Harry Potter, well, I think it's just another way to milk that cash cow. I'm a fan of the books, but everything else is too much for me and the films are awful. To further milk that cow they have split it into two separate days, so the fans have to pay twice for the privileged. I sometimes feel quite sorry for die-hard Potter fans who feel they have to lap up every single morsel. To me they are being taken for a bit of a ride. A pet peeve of mine with this is people not giving the actual credit to the people who actually wrote the play, Jack Thorne and John Tiffany. This is their work with some input from JK Rowing. She didn't write it at all, but her name is put to it. She gave a freedom to the actual writers to do what they wanted within her world. They seem to have been pushed aside by most fans. I get what youre saying about Rowling giving the writers permission to do as they pleased with her world. However, had they written something she didnt 100% approve of as in keeping with her vision of that world the show wouldnt exist now. Whoever owns rights it will always deep down remain her intellectual property and as seen with Universal Studios Wizarding World she was very clear on tge direction of the creative process. |
|
7,193 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 13, 2016 14:53:17 GMT
Harry Potter is a cash cow but JK Rowling has a lot of control which many writers don't have. Fantastic Beasts is happening because Warner Bros approached her with the idea and clearly expanding the Wizarding World appealed to her hence why she writing the screenplay and likely the entire trilogy
|
|
43 posts
|
Post by sayers500 on Jun 13, 2016 15:02:52 GMT
EDIT: another one I forgot, Grease is the worst musical to put on with or for young people. Yes!! I saw a schools production of Grease last year and was horrified. Loads of 12 year olds using over-sexualised and mysoginistic language with nothing telling them that the terms they were using wereunacceptable!!! Also, whilst Phantom and Les Mis are reasonable musicals, the productions need a serious overhawl and need a few years out of the West End to free up the market so that shows like Showboat can succeed. Wicked has a good score but such a convoluted plot with so many threads which are tied up in the last 5 minutes in the worst piece of storytelling I have seen in a theatre. Once was a pile of rubbish and Ronan Keating undermined the whole point of the show, that the boy and girl could be anyone. Stephen Sondheim is the Shakespeare of musical theatre whilst Andrew Lloyd Webber is the most boring and dreary composer I have ever heard and he also is not prepared to standby any of his work that isn't a commercial success. But hey, I think Mozart is overrated so what do I know!! I have never got Beckett and think that if you need a degree to see a piece of theatre, it isn't really worth seeing. Thank God for this thread, this is so cathartic! |
|
7,193 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 13, 2016 15:17:41 GMT
"Forbidden Broadway" were right about "The Book of Mormon." Forbidden Broadway were right on a lot of things especially The Lion King, 'Hamlet gone Safari' should really be the tagline of the show. |
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 13, 2016 16:21:48 GMT
I find all Pinter apart from The Birthday Part intolerable. Birthday Party I can tolerate- just.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 16:22:18 GMT
Also agree that Wicked is a great show. I saw it, like mallardo, early on at the Gershwin a few weeks after it opened. I met up with some of the great and good of cast recording collectors in NY soon after and when I said I liked it there was deathly silence. So, even then, people were being very sniffy about it; not 'proper' show music was the opinion around that table.
Oh, and that reminds me, anyone who calls a cast recording a soundtrack. Films have a soundtrack, live shows don't........
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 13, 2016 16:29:01 GMT
I sometimes feel quite sorry for die-hard Potter fans who feel they have to lap up every single morsel. To me they are being taken for a bit of a ride. Nail. On. Head. |
|
119 posts
|
Post by emilyrose on Jun 13, 2016 16:39:36 GMT
Ooooh I love this thread! Saying what you think with no comeback! I don't like Phantom. I found it very boring, quite tired and bland. I really cannot believe people sit through this tens of times. I've seen a performance given by the genie in Aladdin in the US, James Monroe Iglehart, I found him lacking energy and flash and I was very unimpressed with how he ran out of breath at the end. I know he is larger, to me it doesn't matter, whatever size you are, you have to be up to the job of singing and dancing. The soundtrack to Hamilton does nothing for me, neither does the subject matter. I don't understand the hype. Harry Potter, well, I think it's just another way to milk that cash cow. I'm a fan of the books, but everything else is too much for me and the films are awful. To further milk that cow they have split it into two separate days, so the fans have to pay twice for the privileged. I sometimes feel quite sorry for die-hard Potter fans who feel they have to lap up every single morsel. To me they are being taken for a bit of a ride. A pet peeve of mine with this is people not giving the actual credit to the people who actually wrote the play, Jack Thorne and John Tiffany. This is their work with some input from JK Rowing. She didn't write it at all, but her name is put to it. She gave a freedom to the actual writers to do what they wanted within her world. They seem to have been pushed aside by most fans. I get what youre saying about Rowling giving the writers permission to do as they pleased with her world. However, had they written something she didnt 100% approve of as in keeping with her vision of that world the show wouldnt exist now. Whoever owns rights it will always deep down remain her intellectual property and as seen with Universal Studios Wizarding World she was very clear on tge direction of the creative process. Oh yes and she should have credit for that. But I have seen the actual play-writes dismissed as just someone who had a bit of input and this is all JK's work. She wrote it. Well, she didn't write this work. To say otherwise is to dismiss a lot of hard work that they put into this play and I don't think it fair. |
|
5,066 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 13, 2016 18:13:48 GMT
Virgin Atlantic is the official airline partner of Wicked.
Marriott Hotel is their chosen Hotel partner of Wicked.
Magic FM is the partner radio station of Wicked.
Marmite should be the official food sponsor for Wicked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2016 18:25:23 GMT
Playwrights, yes...
Chekhov, no. Was once "blocked in" at the end of a row up against a wall seat in a performance of The Seagull at the Almeida. One of those rave reviews productions. I didn't understand a word of it. And I've never seen a Chekhov since.
Caryl Churchill. What's she all about?
David Hare. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn.
Shakespeare's comedies. They're not funny, are they?
(Is it good to let it out, I ask myself...?)
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 13, 2016 19:08:44 GMT
Kathy Burke.
Played herself in everything she's ever done.
|
|
19,799 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 13, 2016 19:13:15 GMT
Book of Mormon.
Cheap looking, crass, unfunny and not a decent tune in it. I never cracked a smile.
|
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 13, 2016 19:33:59 GMT
The single moment of delight for me was the quick change into red waistcoats. That was it.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jun 13, 2016 19:39:54 GMT
Playwrights, yes... Chekhov, no. Was once "blocked in" at the end of a row up against a wall seat in a performance of The Seagull at the Almeida. One of those rave reviews productions. I didn't understand a word of it. And I've never seen a Chekhov since. Caryl Churchill. What's she all about? David Hare. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. Shakespeare's comedies. They're not funny, are they? (Is it good to let it out, I ask myself...?) I love this Board |
|
4,030 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jun 13, 2016 20:15:57 GMT
Playwrights, yes... Chekhov, no. Was once "blocked in" at the end of a row up against a wall seat in a performance of The Seagull at the Almeida. One of those rave reviews productions. I didn't understand a word of it. And I've never seen a Chekhov since. Caryl Churchill. What's she all about? David Hare. Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnn. Shakespeare's comedies. They're not funny, are they? (Is it good to let it out, I ask myself...?) By the end of The Seagull I practically wanted to shoot myself let alone the characters. So depressing. I then tried Uncle Vanya & found that equally depressing so have given up on Chekhov. If I want to be depressed I can just read the news. I enjoy Shakespeare's comedies overall but do usually find the "clown" scenes tedious. Even Much Ado, my favourite Shakespeare play, would be so much better if Dogberry & co were cut. |
|
655 posts
|
Post by ptwest on Jun 13, 2016 20:53:57 GMT
Ok then...
I wish Id left the revival of Miss Saigon at the interval and just kept my memories of act one. The hotel scene needs a huge rewrite / scrapping for something else and "the American Dream" just gets on my nerves. The Fall of Saigon was well done though!
I enjoyed Elaine Paige as Norma Desmond far more than I enjoyed Patti Lupone.
I can't wait for Master Of The House to end in Les Mis - the comedy jars with the rest of the show. The same goes for Herods song in JCS - most productions I have seen have played this for laughs, in my opinion out of the ones I've seen for myself, only the Lyceum production got it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coated on Jun 14, 2016 0:10:04 GMT
I find all Pinter apart from The Birthday Part intolerable. Birthday Party I can tolerate- just. Triple YES. Though I'd happily consign The Birthday Party to the same midden as the rest of Pinter's delights. |
|
5,066 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 14, 2016 0:50:28 GMT
So many otherwise intelligent people so totally wrong about Wicked - blinded by its success. It is, in fact, one of the smartest and most innovative shows of this young century, casting a long shadow and much influence on a myriad of shows that have followed it. It is Stephen Schwartz's masterwork, far more musically sophisticated than anything else he has done. It also has a brilliant book, full of genuine surprises and inventive solutions to the problems set up by The Wizard of Oz. I think this way, I believe, because I saw it with its original cast a couple of weeks after it opened in New York in 2003 - knowing nothing about it! - and was absolutely blown away by it. That memory lingers on. If everyone could have had that experience no one would be dumping on it now. It's worth noting that Wicked didn't even get nominated for an Olivier Award, but is the show a mess? No, some well written songs in there, however the book is a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 1:18:36 GMT
I don't get the hype over Hamilton and don't think anything's worth the obscene prices it charges on Broadway. Anyone who queues more than a couple of hours for tickets to that or anything else is crazy.
I don't think the Harry Potter play should have been done - there is no need to revisit that franchise.
I have never had any desire to see the Book of Mormon.
Bernadette Peters does not know how to put on a show.
But I think the most unpopular opinion I have is likely to be that I don't particularly like Sondheim...
|
|
