| 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 | | |
| 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 | | |
| 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 | |
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: 0.119400 seconds.