HOME ALL THAT CHAT ATC WEST COAST SHOPPIN' RUSH BOARD FAQS

LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH THREADED MODE

not logged in

Threaded Order | Chronological Order

"On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: theaterisok 11:07 pm EST 11/02/15

Easily one of the worst musicals to flop on Broadway in years. I cannot remember sitting through something of such complete ineptitude in quite some time. This would not even pass muster in Vegas, as another poster suggested.

The book, if you can call it that, seriously drops out about 3/4 of the way through Act Two. Literally just stops. There is no attempt at all to create conflict or resolve anything. The entire story is scene after scene of Emilio convincing white people that their music will succeed. Ah, we know! So now we have to sit through a show that tells us over and over how hard it was for Emilio??? (Dreamgirls did this already.) Gloria is literally his side kick (without the humor). She has barely any story to speak of, aside from her mother not wanting her to go on the road (Dreamgirls, anyone?)

SPOILER!!! (Not)

Her tour bus gets hit by a mack truck.

Oh, wait. We knew that already. So what happens? She blames him. But he wants her to get up on stage and perform and show the world she's back. And so she does. Then add 10 more minutes of songs that have nothing to do with the plot.

This kind of terrible, crass commercialism makes me so angry. I love good entertainment. I loved Mamma Mia. Seriously. I thought it was so clever and fun and never took itself too seriously. It was well crafted and conceived. This is the worst of every kind of musical. Vanity, vanity, vanity.

The casting is second rate, at best. There was one redeeming moment in Act One when Andrea Burns (playing a cardboard version of a mother scorned) gets to perform a big production number, only to find out that Cuba is about to, I don't know, something to do with...(if you don't know the history, you're out of luck). But then she has goes back to performing. There is a seed of a great moment in there and Ms. Burns handles herself beautifully. That's it.

I want to conclude with a story. Sitting next to me was probably one of Gloria's biggest fans. This woman knew every lyric to every song (and had an awesome voice, thank God). Her joy during Act One was palpable. At intermission she turned to her husband and said, "It's terrible. But I like the music. It's Gloria. What's not to like." She didn't give the show a standing ovation at the end. She just left. I followed behind.


reply to this message |

It made 950k last week

Posted by: dramedy 10:01 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - theaterisok 11:07 pm EST 11/02/15

During s really bad week for broadway. It might not be a flop, too early to tell.


reply to this message |

re: Agree

Posted by: theaterluvr 08:16 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - theaterisok 11:07 pm EST 11/02/15

What book?
Every book scene was barely a glossed-over summary. No build-up, no story, no depth; not even about how they each left Cuba to come to Miami.

I liked the dancing (Hispanic) Bar Mitzvah boy. (Reminded me of the tapping kid in A Christmas Story)
Music enjoyable but repetitive. At least the dancing was well done.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: Agree

Posted by: Ann 08:22 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: Agree - theaterluvr 08:16 am EST 11/03/15

But is it going to be a flop?


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Budinsky 11:41 pm EST 11/02/15
In reply to: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - theaterisok 11:07 pm EST 11/02/15

RE "The book [l]iterally just stops....Gloria is literally his side kick [sic]": You literally need to find a dictionary and look up literally.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: JAllenC3 08:50 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - Budinsky 11:41 pm EST 11/02/15

Actually they've adjusted the definition of literally to now also mean figuratively.

Definition of LITERALLY

1: in a literal sense or manner : actually

2: in effect : virtually

Link http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Budinsky 11:01 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - JAllenC3 08:50 am EST 11/03/15

Curious, though, that the same dictionary defines LITERAL thusly:

1a : according with the letter of the scriptures
b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual
c : free from exaggeration or embellishment
d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts

2: of, relating to, or expressed in letters

3: reproduced word for word : exact, verbatim

VIRTUAL? Apparently not.

Turning the adjective into the adverb magically gives it the opposite meaning? The dumbing down of the English language continues unabated.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: MikeR 01:58 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - JAllenC3 08:50 am EST 11/03/15

I will never give up hope that this insanity will pass and dictionaries will no longer say a word means one thing and also its exact opposite.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Ann 09:42 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - JAllenC3 08:50 am EST 11/03/15

That's really silly, though. A word meaning one thing and its opposite.

We must continue to fight the fight! (literally)


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:07 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - Ann 09:42 am EST 11/03/15

I agree. Deciding that an opposite meaning of a word is acceptable as an alternate meaning just because so many people use the word incorrectly is stupid, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

There are a few other words with definitions that are very different from one another, if not exactly opposite. "Moot" is one that comes to mind. This sort of thing has always bothered me, and will continue to, I'm sure :-(


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Ann 01:54 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - Michael_Portantiere 01:07 pm EST 11/03/15



Link Here are 75 more

reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:35 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - Ann 01:54 pm EST 11/03/15

"Here are 75 more."

Interesting, but some of these are news to me. I'm sure I've never heard "continue" used with the meaning "to suspect an action." Where the hell did they get that from????


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: JAllenC3 02:39 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - Michael_Portantiere 02:35 pm EST 11/03/15

it's "suspend an action." But I've not heard it used that way other than in the form "continuance" on legal shows. :)


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:06 pm EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - JAllenC3 02:39 pm EST 11/03/15

Sorry, I mis-typed "suspend."

Yes, indeed, one meaning of "continuance" is "a postponement or adjournment." So I guess that's what they meant, although I've never seen or heard the word used to mean that in the "continue" form.


reply to this message | reply to first message

re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under

Posted by: davei2000 09:55 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - Ann 09:42 am EST 11/03/15

Yes, any dictionary that would sanction such a paradox should be sanctioned!
I will cleave to any dictionary that cleaves such abominations from the language...


reply to this message | reply to first message

Ha - good points

Posted by: Ann 10:01 am EST 11/03/15
In reply to: re: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - davei2000 09:55 am EST 11/03/15

That's just fine.


reply to this message | reply to first message

And, that's what makes horse races...

Posted by: nosmallparts 11:37 pm EST 11/02/15
In reply to: "On Your Feet"...Six feet under - theaterisok 11:07 pm EST 11/02/15

I really enjoyed this show.
Was it better than Jersey Boys or Beautiful? No.
But for me it was certainly better than Mamma Mia, Motown and the train wrecks of Hot Feet and Good Vibrations.
2nd rate casting? Ana was terrif as Gloria--as well as Andrea and Alma.
I wish it well.
Hope you enjoy your next show.


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 | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | 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 - 2015 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]

Time to render: 0.127065 seconds.