6,342 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 6, 2018 15:17:27 GMT
Five billion years from now when the sun has swollen up and Earth is a scorched cinder there'll still be The Mousetrap, "Now in our 5,000,000,066th year!" I have this theory that the St Martin's Theatre will turn to dust once The Mousetrap plays its final performance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 18:05:56 GMT
I get the feeling no one will mourn Thriller when it finally closes Thriller is like the racist horrible Uncle who hung around for far longer than they should and everyone breathed a not-so-secret sigh of relief when he finally died.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2018 8:39:39 GMT
I actually don't mind 'Thriller' being there, I don't really take any notice of it nowadays and don't even consider it when I'm thinking about London's glitzy West End. There are other things I'd like to see finish before I get bothered by 'Thriller' such as 'Hamilton', 'Wicked' and 'Motown' (although I do admit that I would put 'Motown' in the same category as 'Thriller', in the sense that I kind of forget it's there).
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Jun 10, 2018 12:43:36 GMT
I thought Nothing Like a Dame was smug, self-indulgent and disappointingly short on actual gossip
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 11, 2018 10:44:54 GMT
Mixed feelings - my Mum loved it as the tv equivalent of sitting down to a nice tea with some old friends, but neither of us found it as illuminating as we'd hoped.
|
|
2,962 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 11, 2018 10:53:23 GMT
I can't stand Rupert Everett. He doesn't have the talent to match his ego, and seems to be always making programmes on the likes of Wilde and Byron in the belief that he's the modern successor to both. In the latter he made a vile comment about women and the smell of fish (yes, really) which if he'd done in today's climate would have rightly seen him shot down in flames.
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on Jun 12, 2018 7:20:26 GMT
I'm the same with Richard E Grant, David Tennant, Juliet Stevenson and Emma Thompson - a collection of smug gits who I try and avoid at all costs on stage and screen. I cant understand how any of them have made a living out of acting.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 12, 2018 8:51:49 GMT
I'm curious - What does 'smug' actually mean to you? Because I often see people describe those they don't like as 'smug', and they never fit the dictionary definition: having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements.
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on Jun 12, 2018 9:34:26 GMT
I generally use smug to mean one that is overly self satisfied with themselves, for no good reason that I can see in any of those 4 named instances.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 12, 2018 9:41:30 GMT
I generally use smug to mean one that is overly self satisfied with themselves, for no good reason that I can see in any of those 4 named instances. But people always complain about very successful and famous people being smug. And surely if you're very famous and successful in your chosen career, you're allowed to be at least a bit satisfied? I guess my query is: what's the appropriate level of self-satisfaction for someone who has had a very successful career? I mean, if - as you believe of these four examples - you're not actually very talented, and yet you've managed to have a very successful career, surely you are justified in feeling more self-satisfied than someone who is more talented and has been less successful?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 15:52:22 GMT
I really don’t get all the love for The Grinning Man. And I can’t remember a single song from it so I don’t get the excitement about a cast recording either...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 10:21:36 GMT
I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion, but I don't have a dramatic opinion on either side of the Webber/Sondheim arguement. Both have great shows, both have sh*t shows.
|
|
1,103 posts
|
Post by mallardo on Jun 22, 2018 12:46:03 GMT
I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion, but I don't have a dramatic opinion on either side of the Webber/Sondheim arguement. Both have great shows, both have sh*t shows. What Sondheim show would you consider sh*t?
|
|
806 posts
|
Post by duncan on Jun 22, 2018 12:47:14 GMT
All of them for me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 14:29:23 GMT
I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion, but I don't have a dramatic opinion on either side of the Webber/Sondheim arguement. Both have great shows, both have sh*t shows. What Sondheim show would you consider sh*t? Obviously based on scores than anything else, but the likes of Anyone Can Whistle come to mind (bar Angela Landsbury's contributions of course). And I know some love it, but I just don't like Sunday in the Park with George really, at least the score. In truth, alot of his shows contain a couple snoozers. A Little Night Music, love some of the score, but there are some real fillers in there in my opinion. And one of my all time favourites Sweeny Todd can do without the endless Ballads of Sweeny Todd, Green Finch and Linnet Bird and Ladies in their Sensitivities. But please don't read this as I hate him, generally I love his work!
|
|
6,342 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 22, 2018 14:57:56 GMT
What I like about Sondheim was that he wasn't interested in doing the traditional glitzy musicals and exploring darker and more serious themes although my favourite Sondheim show is one which is more akin to a traditional musical, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.
Even though most of his shows weren't long runners or commercially successful, the fact many of his shows are still revived today shows how much of an impact he had on musicals.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 15:19:02 GMT
Plus, Sondheim is a dream for actors. Once you've learned one song, you've learned them all and you can transfer from show to show with nary a hitch.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 14:27:47 GMT
The second act of Hamilton felt way too long and could have been shortened by a song or two.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Jun 23, 2018 15:08:24 GMT
'Megamix' finales in musicals are depressing.
|
|
1,316 posts
|
Post by tmesis on Jun 23, 2018 22:54:06 GMT
Actors and/or musicians, directors, choreographers, conductors who refer to themselves as artists as in:
'As an artist I feel that I owe it to my public to give them my Lear.'*
Only painters should call themselves artists.
* actually I've never heard an actor so up himself to say that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2018 23:04:37 GMT
I am looking forward to `Now That`s What I Call The Eighties` the musical.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 8:00:48 GMT
'Megamix' finales in musicals are depressing. Its interesting, I hate megamix finales but love playouts - which are basically megamixes sans cast.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 12:43:30 GMT
'Megamix' finales in musicals are depressing. Its interesting, I hate megamix finales but love playouts - which are basically megamixes sans cast. I'm not sure what you're referring to as 'playouts'... The piece of music the orchestra or band play as the audience exits the auditorium? (In which case you are free to leave or stay to listen, as many do.) The music played as the cast are coming on for the curtain-call? (You'd be staying anyway to applaud usually.) Either way they can't be compared to a megamix finale which often starts after the bows and simply repeats many of the upbeat songs you've already heard, usually over some dreadful 'Stars on 45' repeat rhythm, with the intention of extending a shorter than average show (as in the case of Joseph originally) or to keep the audience in longer than they'd like with the intention of spelling out the fact that they've a had a Really Great Night. Of late these have come with that woeful instruction to get up out of your seat, clap and dance.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 24, 2018 15:28:17 GMT
Also known as the coerced standing ovation.
|
|
3,478 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Jun 25, 2018 4:02:25 GMT
Tattoos are ghastly and in this hot weather, ever more are being revealed. When I was younger, it was only the occasional ex-naval person (and male) who might have one, and these were rarely seen anyway. In my long-term job, any staff who had a tattoo had to keep it concealed under clothing at work and anyone unable to meet this requirement would not have been employed in the first place. Now it seems like an epidemic and I can't say anything where I volunteer as about 50% of the staff seem to have tattoos - in some cases covering large areas such as arms, neck, etc.
|
|
494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on Jun 25, 2018 7:42:04 GMT
I don’t mind tattoos when tastefully done if they mean something to the person, but yes, it really has become epidemic to cover yourself in random scrawlings these days. The really young people who get those sleeves of them and ones dotted all over their body. Of course they’re entitled to do whatever they want to themselves, but I know many people my age (mid 30s) who got tattoos when they were 18 and came to regret them just a few years later.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 8:00:17 GMT
I love tattoos as long as they mean something for whoever has them. I've got two myself, both theatre-related: the theatre masks (comedy and tragedy) and the quote "no day but today" from Rent, and couldn't be happier with them.
I have another one in mind: a shamrock with the word Éire on it, as I spent a year in Ireland and it was one of the best experiences of my life.
And I don't get those who won't employ someone with a visible tattoo.
|
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jun 25, 2018 8:00:22 GMT
I wonder how all these tattooed folk will look in years to come when tatts are no longer fashionable and the body has gone south
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2018 8:19:25 GMT
Every few years, it seems there's a rash of articles in the news about how "wow, tattoos sure are popular these days, seems like it used to be only sailors and bikers, and now even *respectable ladies* have them, but HEY, did you know that tattoos have *always* been popular among people who *aren't* sailors and bikers?". Honestly, do a search for something like tattoo popularity, and you'll find articles from years ago that could have been churned out this very morning.
Personally, I think if you're going to have a body modification, a tattoo makes more sense than a piercing, because it's so much more customisable to yourself unless you're going to go out there and make all your own earrings, but I appreciate that is probably a minority view.
|
|
4,039 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2018 9:03:02 GMT
I wonder how all these tattooed folk will look in years to come when tatts are no longer fashionable and the body has gone south It is possible (albeit expensive) to get them modified or removed now so it's not quite the lifelong decision it once was. Which is good, since so many people decide to get one when they're drunk!
|
|