| So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | bwaynut 03:12 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | "SIDE SHOW" BEGINS PERFORMANCES ON BROADWAY OCTOBER 28 - Official_Press_Release 03:08 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| ....the St. James it is !! | |
| reply to this message | | |
| I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 06:08 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | So there you have it.... - bwaynut 03:12 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Didn't think this would happen in such a big house. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: No crow for you!! | |
| Posted by: | SuzanneR 07:24 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow - dramedy 06:08 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| You were never disrespectful or arrogant in your predictions ... I never think of you as one of the know-it-alls ... :) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: No crow for you!! | |
| Posted by: | Ann 07:38 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: No crow for you!! - SuzanneR 07:24 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I"m not sure that's a compliment ;) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti 07:18 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow - dramedy 06:08 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| The St. James is actually pretty cozy, if not downright tight in the orchestra, it will play very well there. It'll be the perfect companion for Phantom and Matilda across the street - West 44th will become the street of the darker musicals. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow | |
| Posted by: | FrenchDip 06:17 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow - dramedy 06:08 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| But there aren't any mid-sized musical houses available. The Shubert, Hirschfeld and Lunt-Fontanne will be booked for a while with their current hits and the Rodgers and Neil Simon won't be available until at least the spring or possibly later depending on how their tenants do. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I think nederlander would have been the best theater | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 06:50 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow - FrenchDip 06:17 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| 1200 seats, 2 level theater could sell out and get premium seating many nights. That is closer to the size of the Eisenhower in dc and it was a good size for the show. But I think jujamacyn actively pursued this show and they don't have other vacant theaters. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| And st James seems to close off the balcony | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 06:46 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: I need to pull out my recipes for eating a tasty dish of crow - FrenchDip 06:17 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| If they need to shrink the number of seats to fill rear mezz area. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Logo | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 04:05 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | So there you have it.... - bwaynut 03:12 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I wonder how long until someone points out that their artwork is vaguely reminiscent of "Shrek", with the second S looking like it is sprouting horns? Or is it just my strange brain that makes that association? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| I don't get the logo | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 03:09 am EDT 08/07/14 |
| In reply to: | Logo - Singapore/Fling 04:05 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| It's simple without saying anything. it's not the follies... obviously it's a very different approach from the original logo, but the original made me interested in what it is. I dunno... I don't think this one is very effective in any particular way, except to tell people to come expecting to see dazzling things, which is good but also not really. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | NewsGuy 03:28 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | So there you have it.... - bwaynut 03:12 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Well, they could just save us the time on the speculation and post the closing notice now, too. .....womp womp womp | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | AnyaS 04:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - NewsGuy 03:28 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I sadly agree. I love the score, but the show I saw in La Jolla needed a lot of work. I kept hearing/reading the same criticisms of the La Jolla show from others and when it opened in DC, those same criticisms seemed to pop up again and again. Were any substantial changes even made from one city to the next? As I read review after review of the DC engagement, I felt strongly that some people were getting carried away in their enthusiasm for the show. And now I suspect that it will open on Broadway under a bigger, perhaps harsher spotlight and not fare well. But I hope I'm wrong and the team incorporates many changes before then. I really want this musical to succeed but I have a bad feeling. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti 05:51 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - AnyaS 04:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Help me here what reviews did you read out of DC that were anything less than a rave? Are you talking about comments from this board? I've got to tell you as someone who disliked the original production I found the DC production amazing. I can't believe its the same show that made me cringe so many years ago. The context of the show is now perfect. I think what I am hearing is that the folks on this board are feeding a self-fulfilling prophecy that the serious musical has no place on Broadway. That thinking gives you what the cooks up at ART have come up with for Finding Neverland, what should have been a serious and touching musical is a work that tries to get there while pandering to the lowest common denominator and broadest demographic. If SideShow is produced smartly and gets the same raves it got in DC it should do very well and have a decent run. Not Lion King Run and maybe not even a Kinky Boots run but a modest Pippin like run which returns its investment and restores a stained jewel to the brilliance it should have had the first time around. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | chrisampm 06:59 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - John_Patti 05:51 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| "I think what I am hearing is that the folks on this board are feeding a self-fulfilling prophecy that the serious musical has no place on Broadway." I love serious musicals and especially love when they're produced well on Broadway. I saw this production in La Jolla and thought it was a tasteful revisal of a show that had worked best, in its original incarnation, when it was most impassioned. Daisy and Violet, in La Jolla, were nice girls who were fairly passive. Without putting a high belt to use, they never came alive to me. I assume Ryan Silverman is an improvement, but the approach seems to have remained the same. I can't see this vision filling the St James. As for Pippin comparisons, if it had moved to the St James, I imagine it would not make it to '15. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | tpdc 08:13 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - chrisampm 06:59 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I agree that this is a very fine production that removes the passion and rough edges from the original that made it compelling. The girls are nice, passive and boring in the revision. They were giving tickets away in DC and the houses still weren't full. I can't imagine it will run as long as the original production, especially at the St. James. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti 07:40 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - chrisampm 06:59 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I heard from folks who saw it in La Jolla that they were not happy with the two lead actresses. What reviews it did get out there were not the best - but most of the reviewers were not of a high caliber either. Maybe something happened between CA and DC but this show and these two ladies work amazingly well. I will tell you that the people who went out to La Jolla were fans of the original like yourself so that may have had a bit to do with it. Your heart shatters for these girls all evening and not just in the songs. When they get to the songs they tear you apart - I was sobbing. Every reviewer in DC took note of their performances and they now truly are the stars of the show. Its all so natural now and not as presentational as the original. You can almost see Bill Condon foreshadowing the film he will eventually make of SideShow. I left the 46th Street Theatre and never turned back on the original - I tried to enjoy the sing songy cast album but only wound up playing the two acts finale songs over and over again. I can't wait to see this version again and I think many people will. "It's a different time Golda." The review in the link below does a nice summation of the possibilities for SideShow ". It’s an extravaganza of a musical, and certainly one that has the spectacle and larger than life energy to duke it out with its Broadway brethren. The only lingering question seems to be whether or not audiences will warm to such a heartbreaking night out when there is such a glut of easy, feel-good fare already available. Still, for those willing to steel themselves for a tragedy, Side Show offers an experience too good to be missed." | |
| Link | DCist review of SideShow |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | AnyaS 10:05 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - John_Patti 07:40 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I never saw the original and while I liked the production in La Jolla, it still had a lot of work left. Admittedly, it's not an easy musical to sell by its subject matter, but those who did see it never seemed to give it another thought once they saw it. I think you're taking some of the lukewarm responses far too personally. At intermission in La Jolla, there was some murmuring about underwhelming lyrics in the show. Boy, was that true. If they changed the most cringe-worthy lyrics between now and then, good for them. I have doubts, thought because I still heard/read lyrics complaints from people who saw the show in DC. A completely unnecessary number in the show was the Houdini song but that remained. I know because several people who saw the show in DC remarked that it was useless and slowed down the show. Although some did like it, to be fair. While I found the two leads touching in some parts, I missed the excitement and dynamic voices heard in other productions. Yet again, I heard similar complaints from some who saw it in DC. So yeah, I'm skeptical that it will open to raves in NY and be even a modest success. But I do WANT the show to succeed. I just think it needed a lot of work in La Jolla and it worries me that several elements pointed out as weaknesses nearly a year ago were still being called out last month. That's a shame. My remark about some people getting caught up in enthusiasm over their reviews should have been clarified better. I was referring to two reviewers on here and one reviewer on another site who called it a perfect production. That's a mighty lofty description to thrust on a show. Perfect. Really? But if Side Show doesn't earn rave reviews in its second appearance on Broadway, and its two stars are not raved about, please comfort yourself by repeating over and over that NY critics are not high caliber and then you can sleep better at night. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | chrisampm 08:25 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - John_Patti 07:40 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I'm glad you love the new production. I will not try to dissuade you from your opinion. But I'd also appreciate your entertaining the possibility that people may have a different opinion and still be as unbiased as you. They may find the production less than enthralling not because they're fans of the original (I thought it was a creative failure but admired the score and performances) or are substandard reviewers or think serious musicals don't belong on Broadway. They may just disagree with you about the quality of the work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | Bwayguy 03:30 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - NewsGuy 03:28 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I couldn't agree with you more unfortunately. What are they thinking?? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | bway1430 03:48 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - Bwayguy 03:30 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Perhaps they are thinking "we know we may not make a fortune on this show but we feel it is a landmark musical and one that should be tried even if the risk is great." I'm not complaining. I am delighted to see producers take a chance on a show that is risky and I will be among the first to buy a ticket. If producers didn't take risks like this wouldn't Broadway be pretty damned dull? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Perhaps everyone's criteria for a "landmark" musical... | |
| Posted by: | bwaynut 05:06 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - bway1430 03:48 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| ....is different. All I know is that I was among the lucky few to see "Side Show" the first time. It affected me strongly, poignantly....in a way that is difficult to put adequately into words. I have rarely been so moved at the theater as I was by the story, the music, and those indelible performances of Alice Ripley, Emily Skinner, and Norm Lewis. I am glad to see it given another life -- however risky the investment. I hope this production defies the odds. I know it will be an uphill battle. But if just one other person leaves the theater forever changed for the better (as I did after "Side Show"), then it will have succeeded....even if it does not have a long run or fails financially. But I hope it DOES succeed! I think one of the keys will be how the show is marketed....and how clever the producers are in piquing the interests of audiences. Someone ingenious must figure out a way to make the subject matter not so "off-putting." All the best to you, "Side Show" !! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | NewsGuy 03:37 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - Bwayguy 03:30 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Well, at least we know where `Finding Neverland' is likely going :P | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So there you have it.... | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 03:51 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - NewsGuy 03:37 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I don't see what's so "landmark" about it. It's a good show but I'm not sure I consider it a landmark of theater. I also don't think this will make it past New Year's if that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| What didn't you like about this revival? | |
| Posted by: | John_Patti 05:52 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - bwaydiva1 03:51 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| And did you see it in LaJolla or DC? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: What didn't you like about this revival? | |
| Posted by: | frangi 09:59 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | What didn't you like about this revival? - John_Patti 05:52 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I saw the original. And LaJolla and DC. I was happy to see in on the west coast but it didn't move me like the original, but we saw the first preview. Saw it again in DC and the changes they made from there were magical. The show works in every aspect but one and I almost screamed when it happened. Hopefully this too has changed by now. I doubt it. But I for one planning on seeing it the first preview, and many more times during the run! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| So let's assume for the moment... | |
| Posted by: | broadwaybacker 10:11 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: What didn't you like about this revival? - frangi 09:59 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| That Side Show garners raves reviews across the board, including Old Ben. (And after seeing it in DC, this might well happen.) What do we think will be the fate of the show under those circumstances? (And I wish it nothing but the best, especially having met both Bill and Bruce at ATC parties.) Would great reviews be able to generate a hit for a show that has previously flopped, with no name stars to sell tickets and subject matter that is off-putting to some? I wish the show was not going into the St. James but to a much smaller house, but so be it. I assume that they will curtain off a fair portion of the balcony. By the way, the one change from DC that I HOPE they will make is to cut the Houdini number (and character.) It's unnecessary, and it will get the running time down to about 2:30. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Disagree on Houdini number | |
| Posted by: | Ann 07:27 am EDT 08/07/14 |
| In reply to: | So let's assume for the moment... - broadwaybacker 10:11 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| And I've seen there are definitely two camps on this. I think the Houdini number is very important in several ways, including making "I Will Never Leave You" work better. He takes a very Houdini-like thing and shows them how they can be individuals while being physically conjoined (escaping though the mind). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: So let's assume for the moment... | |
| Posted by: | Solberg 10:23 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | So let's assume for the moment... - broadwaybacker 10:11 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Since Charles Isherwood reviewed it for the Times, the tradition is that he will review it when it hits Broadway. In terms of its prospects, I predict it will fare like VIOLET did. Hopefully great reviews--but even with a Times rave, not quite enough to draw in big crowds. But I hope I am proven wrong. Too bad the Weisslers aren't involved--they could stunt cast the twins: Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian… Now that would save the show! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Come on ... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 10:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: What didn't you like about this revival? - frangi 09:59 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| ... tell us. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Come on ... | |
| Posted by: | frangi 11:35 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | Come on ... - Ann 10:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| It just one little piece of blocking that for me contradicted the song. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Come on ... | |
| Posted by: | Ann 10:43 am EDT 08/07/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Come on ... - frangi 11:35 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Is it a secret? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... | |
| Posted by: | bway1430 04:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: So there you have it.... - bwaydiva1 03:51 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| But I do feel it is an important one. It terms of content it pushes the envelope and I am happy to see producers make an attempt with a show such as this. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... | |
| Posted by: | tpdc 08:22 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... - bway1430 04:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| The original might have pushed the envelope but the revival makes everyone, including the fully costumed "freaks", bland and unthreatening. It's now a Grable/Faye musical with the "twist" that they are conjoined twins. One suitor is gay and another is black isn't pushing the envelope in 2014. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... | |
| Posted by: | chrisampm 08:28 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... - tpdc 08:22 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Yes! Grable/Faye. Perfect analogy for this sweet throwback. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... | |
| Posted by: | Zelgo 04:49 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... - bway1430 04:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I know many have a special place in their hearts for this show, but it is hardly an important show in the history of theatre. How many "important" shows were flops with scores no one knows? Shows like Oklahoma, South Pacific, Hair, etc. that pushed the envelope are important because they were also huge hits. While I am glad this is getting another chance on Bway, its subject matter will keep many away, just like it did during its first go-round. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... | |
| Posted by: | Singapore/Fling 04:07 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Maybe landmark is a strong way of putting it... - bway1430 04:02 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I hope the show does well, though I am also in the skeptical camp. I appreciate the visuals we are seeing from the promos, and I look forward to seeing what Condon does on stage. But, yes, the St. James is a big theatre for a potentially strange show. But if some producers feel like Bill Condon has made them enough millions of dollars that they can afford to lose a small portion of that on investing in him as a stage director (and/or keeping him happy), then that's not such a bad thing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Seventeen years after the original.... | |
| Posted by: | bwaynut 03:27 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | So there you have it.... - bwaynut 03:12 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I can't wait to see it again... in its new incarnation! I loved it then, and I'm sure I'll love it all over again. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: sigh | |
| Posted by: | SQ 09:38 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | Seventeen years after the original.... - bwaynut 03:27 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| Makes me feel OLD. I remember visiting New York and seeing the original. I didn't realize then how lucky I was to have seen Emily Skinner perform. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Seventeen years after the original.... | |
| Posted by: | NightMusic77 03:56 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | Seventeen years after the original.... - bwaynut 03:27 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| I love the original recording and have seen a production of it, but I don't think it's one of the great musicals. I am excited to have it back on the boards though and look forward to seeing it. However, if the star-free Ragtime revival couldn't find an audience, I can't imagine Sideshow will. Ragtime is a far superior property IMHO. I hope they run! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Seventeen years after the original.... | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 04:22 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Seventeen years after the original.... - NightMusic77 03:56 pm EDT 08/06/14 |
|
| |
| "However, if the star-free Ragtime revival couldn't find an audience, I can't imagine Sideshow will." YES! And I liked the revival better than the original in Ragtime's case. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.398156 seconds.