2,263 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 26, 2017 21:41:28 GMT
Yes, I was front stalls in Brum, when I witnessed the horror that is SOAPM. At least I know my opinion is shared! I echo all the thoughts above and I felt sorry for the cast too.
|
|
18,800 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 26, 2017 21:49:44 GMT
There was a huge amount of pointless walking, or rather pacing around the stage. God knows what that was about. Especially difficult with a clarinet in your gob I would imagine.
And constant moving of three tables and chairs.
|
|
1,102 posts
|
Post by zak97 on Sept 26, 2017 21:54:57 GMT
Watched the trailer and just looks naff, tacky, cheap, dated...I could continue. I'm sorry Craig but that choreography is a 'disaster darling' (couldn't resist haha). It looks so bad I almost want to go, just for a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 7:21:46 GMT
There was a huge amount of pointless walking, or rather pacing around the stage. God knows what that was about. Especially difficult with a clarinet in your gob I would imagine. And constant moving of three tables and chairs. I think all the movement was a deliberate choice to distract you from the fact that not much else was going on. Heres another issue I have with the show that has irked me all night. Its trivial but so annoying. Arguably Dusty Springfield's most popular song is ' Son of a Preacher Man'. It is so popular in fact that the decision was made to write a musical by the same title, 'Son of a Preacher Man'. However, the premise of said musical is about the journey of 3 unrelated people who are being helped out in life by a man who's father ran a joint called 'The Preacher man' and who was known as specifically as 'The Preacher Man'. Not just a man, any man, THE Preacher Man.
There is a massive difference between reference of A man who preaches and THE man who preaches. Its the difference between anybody and somebody. Its specific. They f***ed up the very basic reference of the TITLE SONG.
|
|
18,800 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 27, 2017 8:30:25 GMT
You *might* be overthinking it?
I’ve been sleeping on the question of why it was necessary to put the actor plating Diana Vicker’s love interest in a kilt and vest in the second act. I mean, I know it was set in that London but are straight plumbers hanging around Soho in kilts, vests and heavy boots?
Or maybe it was just CRH’s fetid imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 8:35:53 GMT
I probably am over thinking it. But still.
|
|
2,263 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 27, 2017 8:41:39 GMT
Yes caught a glimpse of his black pants under his kilt, not that I was looking!!
|
|
18,800 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 27, 2017 8:47:45 GMT
Me neither!
|
|
214 posts
|
Post by paulbrownsey on Sept 27, 2017 9:20:33 GMT
Heres another issue I have with the show that has irked me all night. Its trivial but so annoying. Arguably Dusty Springfield's most popular song is ' Son of a Preacher Man'. It is so popular in fact that the decision was made to write a musical by the same title, 'Son of a Preacher Man'. However, the premise of said musical is about the journey of 3 unrelated people who are being helped out in life by a man who's father ran a joint called 'The Preacher man' and who was known as specifically as 'The Preacher Man'. Not just a man, any man, THE Preacher Man.
There is a massive difference between reference of A man who preaches and THE man who preaches. Its the difference between anybody and somebody. Its specific. They f***ed up the very basic reference of the TITLE SONG. Yes. You can't imagine them doing something *seriously* interesting like having a plotline about a bloke who falls for the son of a raving homophobic evangelical preacher...
|
|
68 posts
|
Post by Brian on Sept 27, 2017 9:28:30 GMT
This sounds like a complete disaster!
I noticed the reference to Wonderland above- I genuinely enjoyed it; some great songs and a fun way to pass a few hours.
|
|
18,800 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 27, 2017 9:30:47 GMT
Compared with this, Wonderland was high art.
|
|
2,144 posts
|
Post by richey on Sept 27, 2017 19:44:11 GMT
Sat in the interval now, and like Burly thinking what the heck have I just witnessed. Despite the chicken impressions, singing to plastic chairs and the old woman straight out of Monty Python I'm actually enjoying the bonkers-ness of it all. Oh and there is an awful lot of walking about. I wanted to shout at them during the prologue to just stand still for a minute!
|
|
8 posts
|
Post by unseaworthy on Sept 27, 2017 20:17:27 GMT
After years of reading these boards, I have finally decided to pluck up the courage to join in with my thoughts about the matinee I saw today. It was terrible, real one star rubbish. The plot made no sense (which was tricky, as there was a lot of plot), the instruments really got in the way of the action, sadly the cast were pushed too far out of their comfort zones with instrument playing/singing/dancing/acting which made the whole thing look under rehearsed with missed notes and steps all over the place. It is a shame because Dusty Springfield has a lot of great songs but the songs were side-lined in favour of the ludicrous plot developments. In short, the whole thing would benefit from going back to the drawing board, rewritten and rehearsed. The negative reviews may be hurting this too as today the Grand Tier was closed and the circle was only about a third full. The tour is due to go on until July and I can't help feel sorry for the people who have to endure performing this for another nine months.
|
|
721 posts
|
Post by hulmeman on Sept 27, 2017 20:44:52 GMT
Amusing as it is to read the reviews of this show, I have to wonder where, why or how a show like this attracts the finance to mount a tour and book the sort of venues this show has. Clearly someone is going to loose money on this debacle?
|
|
2,144 posts
|
Post by richey on Sept 27, 2017 21:18:32 GMT
Ok I'll hold my hands up and say I actually enjoyed it. Yes the plot was totally bonkers but i thought it was quite fun. And I've never been to a show where they've thanked 'adult' shops in the programme and told you where you can buy the products and outfits featured
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Sept 28, 2017 7:07:51 GMT
CRH is going to be talking about this show and Annie on the BBC Radio 2 breakfast show tomorrow morning from 8.
|
|
2,263 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 28, 2017 8:05:28 GMT
Yes, just heard that. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2017 8:24:46 GMT
I disliked this show so much Im tempted to text in with my honest thoughts
|
|
18,800 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 28, 2017 11:17:11 GMT
Amusing as it is to read the reviews of this show, I have to wonder where, why or how a show like this attracts the finance to mount a tour and book the sort of venues this show has. Clearly someone is going to loose money on this debacle? I suspect the names Craig, Revel and Horwood are a lot to do with it. He’s built up a pretty impressive CV.
|
|
4,958 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 28, 2017 12:29:21 GMT
Amusing as it is to read the reviews of this show, I have to wonder where, why or how a show like this attracts the finance to mount a tour and book the sort of venues this show has. Clearly someone is going to loose money on this debacle? I suspect the names Craig, Revel and Horwood are a lot to do with it. He’s built up a pretty impressive CV. And it's also guaranteed, to a certain extent, by you and me, the UK taxpayer, through Theatre Tax Relief. Unlike other creative industries, there is no quality threshold for theatre productions.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Sept 29, 2017 0:04:05 GMT
You *might* be overthinking it? I’ve been sleeping on the question of why it was necessary to put the actor plating Diana Vicker’s love interest in a kilt and vest in the second act. I mean, I know it was set in that London but are straight plumbers hanging around Soho in kilts, vests and heavy boots? Or maybe it was just CRH’s fetid imagination. I didn't get that far. I got stuck in act one on what the ... Mrs Mop was doing there, with no relationship to anything going on, there, or on planet earth. It was as if he walked in from some panto, or bad Tv show, 40 years ago.........
|
|
18,800 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 29, 2017 7:56:44 GMT
You *might* be overthinking it? I’ve been sleeping on the question of why it was necessary to put the actor plating Diana Vicker’s love interest in a kilt and vest in the second act. I mean, I know it was set in that London but are straight plumbers hanging around Soho in kilts, vests and heavy boots? Or maybe it was just CRH’s fetid imagination. I didn't get that far. I got stuck in act one on what the ... Mrs Mop was doing there, with no relationship to anything going on, there, or on planet earth. It was as if he walked in from some panto, or bad Tv show, 40 years ago......... CRH probably just wanted to squeeze some drag into the proceedings.
|
|
2,144 posts
|
Post by richey on Sept 29, 2017 8:28:20 GMT
I didn't get that far. I got stuck in act one on what the ... Mrs Mop was doing there, with no relationship to anything going on, there, or on planet earth. It was as if he walked in from some panto, or bad Tv show, 40 years ago.........[/quote]
I thought it was rather Monty Python-esque. I was waiting for the line "He's not the Preacher Man, he's a very naughty boy"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 9:39:33 GMT
I didn't get that far. I got stuck in act one on what the ... Mrs Mop was doing there, with no relationship to anything going on, there, or on planet earth. It was as if he walked in from some panto, or bad Tv show, 40 years ago......... I thought it was rather Monty Python-esque. I was waiting for the line "He's not the Preacher Man, he's a very naughty boy"[/quote] It was a bit more League of Gentlemen for me, without the humour. Theres a few sketches they do as 'Legz Akimbo Theatre Company' with some really over-the-top acting in schools and there were some very comparable moments. Cant find any clips online to compare/demonstrate unfortunately.
|
|
1,718 posts
|
Post by stevejohnson678 on Sept 29, 2017 19:45:29 GMT
Interval thoughts.
The first half hour was dire, laden with exposition and just painfully dull.
But, you know what, it's getting better. It's not great by any means but I'm quite enjoying it now.
Loving the Cappucino Sisters styling and harmonies, Diana Vickers sounds amazing, while I Just Don't Know What To Do With Myself with the plastic chairs was actually alright!
The cast, and Diana in particular, deserve better but after enduring Exposure The Musical last year, it's nowhere near as bad as that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 12:38:12 GMT
Playing Dublin 22 – 26 May 2018 But with a different leading Cast
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 12:42:07 GMT
Playing Dublin 22 – 26 May 2018 But with a different leading Cast Am I the same girl? No I'm not, No I'm not . .
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Oct 4, 2017 14:16:51 GMT
Ten pounds a ticket for York Grand Opera House on Thursday night if you use the code SON10
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 14:57:21 GMT
Alice Barlow replacing Diana Vickers next year. Michelle Gayle playing the role Debra Stephenson is currently playing from 6th March.
|
|
2,263 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Oct 4, 2017 16:07:08 GMT
I will be amazed if it lasts until next year
|
|