521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 6, 2016 22:58:12 GMT
Approximate translation "it started costing too much, so doubtful returns", I suspect. Does seem curious, nonetheless.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 6, 2016 21:12:54 GMT
Thought I'd take the plunge and set this up. I've changed the title of the original thread to add "no spoilers". Good thinking.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 6, 2016 15:31:50 GMT
Thought I'd take the plunge and set this up.
This thread is for discussion of plot/staging/anything "spoilery" after first previews begin. General content (ticket sales, casting etc) are good for the main discussion thread.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 6, 2016 15:09:30 GMT
Cancelled previews are nothing new- I would always consider booking for the 1st preview to be somewhat of a risk. Especially for musicals - as they tend to be more technically complex than plays. And seeing as this is effectively serving as the out of town tryout for Broadway, perhaps even more so! Still, I'm glad they've told us all six weeks in advance. It's a lot better than turning up on the day and seeing a cancelled performance sign!
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 6, 2016 10:24:01 GMT
Interesting that the PwC previews are having tickets from the 15th until the 30th July (presumably not half at each performance, as that would be slightly OTT). Unfortunately I'm pretty booked up during that time so there's only one or two performances I could make! Will still give it a go next week though..
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 6, 2016 9:37:17 GMT
It's a shame we aren't getting any form of advance notice about who's off when - I'd quite like to see a couple of covers in position now but there's no way of sensibly predicting. It sounds as if the final scene has been tweaked slightly, with the final moment scrapped. Can anyone confirm? {Spoiler}{To avoid ambiguity.. here's what I mean:} She now doesn't pour alcohol and show a lighter at the very end. The only way I've found of getting advance notice is buttonholing the understudies at stage door & asking them, which is only really practical if you're already seeing the show. {Spoiler - click to view} Yes, that's right. She handcuffs him to the bed & nicks the diamond but no alcohol is involved. I was thrilled to see it - I've been hoping for a less gruesome ending! I'll have to get you to nudge me in the future then Ah, good. Agreed - the ending was too much of a tonal shift for me.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 5, 2016 21:35:10 GMT
It's a shame we aren't getting any form of advance notice about who's off when - I'd quite like to see a couple of covers in position now but there's no way of sensibly predicting. It sounds as if the final scene has been tweaked slightly, with the final moment scrapped. Can anyone confirm? {Spoiler}{To avoid ambiguity.. here's what I mean:} She now doesn't pour alcohol and show a lighter at the very end.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 5, 2016 21:19:27 GMT
Yeah.. good luck to them if they try stopping anyone talking about the play after the first public preview. You may turn out to be right, but this selfish attitude has decided me to now avoid this forum for a few months. Selfish attitude? I'm just being realistic - people will want to talk, this is a discussion board. I can't imagine the producers will seriously expect people to not discuss the play.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 5, 2016 15:13:49 GMT
Yeah - spoiler thread would be useful, at the very least until press night (after which it'll be much harder for anyone to keep unaware as the script will be out there). Personally, I'm seeing it mid-July. I think a spoiler thread would be good but I wonder if the producers might ask to not having any spoilers until press night which might put any thread in jeopardy. Yeah.. good luck to them if they try stopping anyone talking about the play after the first public preview.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 5, 2016 15:12:34 GMT
The fact that this production gets churned out year after year means that new takes on the piece are not being given a chance to be produced. Surely it would be even better for a producer to mount a new version - which would still attract the school groups but then appeal to those who have already seen the Daldry version and are eager to see a fresh take on it. Classic plays need to be reinterpreted for each generation. Constant revivals (even with new casts) are just stale. Problem is school curriculums don't tend to work like that. Schools are attracted back as they've got all the paperwork for this production, all the useful staging notes, all the lesson plans attached etc. A lot of that would have to be ditched and restarted if they saw a different production (especially anything regarding staging!). That said, I do agree this production now has been around the block a few too many times.. but then The Mousetrap is still running and Woman in Black is another play that looks incredibly dusty.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 5, 2016 15:09:32 GMT
Yeah - spoiler thread would be useful, at the very least until press night (after which it'll be much harder for anyone to keep unaware as the script will be out there). Personally, I'm seeing it mid-July.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 4, 2016 21:09:17 GMT
That reminds me of when I went along to one of the technical (read: dress) rehearsals for the London 2012 Opening Ceremony - there the video walls were plastered with "#SaveTheSurprise" and things did stay remarkably silent. Considering that was with two audiences of around 70k, I doubt they'll have problems keeping this quiet until the first public preview begins. The only time I've regreted working on a show was getting a call at half 5 on the night of the second dress and told I could have a ticket if I wanted. Sadly I was already at work and couldn't go. Wasn't that bothered till I watched the ceremony on the TV, I so wish I had been able to take them up on the offer. Yeah I can imagine - I saw the second dress, the two days between then and the proper opening ceremony were very strange. Knowing how good it all looked but not being able to tell, etc. I was very tempted to pay for some of the remaining £2012 tickets on the day itself. Part of me still kinda regrets not doing that!
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 4, 2016 17:30:06 GMT
Aren't we all glad that the audience respected that and did save the surprise - that moment when the Queen turned up was a genuinely draw-dropping surprise. Ah, we didn't see that. We had a black screen during the video and then two helicopters above with music running. Then the Queen's official understudy turned up in the royal box, which was truly bizarre to witness. I honestly thought that sequence was going to be some sort of flypast. Similarly when Rowan Atkinson had his Chariots of Fire stuff - we had the band and music, but blank video screens. They kept the biggest surprises hidden.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 4, 2016 16:57:20 GMT
Ha ha. Yes, mention of JKR's badge reminded me of that too! I think I have a photo of the screen somewhere. This isn't a photo I took but a quick google rendered this:
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 4, 2016 13:55:43 GMT
I assume once previews officially start, they'll be allowing people to talk about it. J.K Rowling has posted on Twitter what looks like a badge that says #KeepTheSecrets. They may just be for the dress rehearsals but I can imagine them giving those out every night. Of course people will still talk about it but it's to encourage them not to spoil the story. That reminds me of when I went along to one of the technical (read: dress) rehearsals for the London 2012 Opening Ceremony - there the video walls were plastered with "#SaveTheSurprise" and things did stay remarkably silent. Considering that was with two audiences of around 70k, I doubt they'll have problems keeping this quiet until the first public preview begins.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jun 3, 2016 13:48:07 GMT
If there's one thing ALW has managed to do over his career it has been to take seemingly non-commercial topics and make successful shows out of them.
For example.. Jesus Christ with guitars? Who ever thought that would fly. A musical on rollers? TS Eliot poems performed in lycra?
OK - he's misfired a few times, but he tries to not be too obvious and for that I'm not going to dismiss anything he comes out with this early on as being a non starter.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 29, 2016 17:49:07 GMT
OK my guess is Rob Lowe who starred in A Few Good Men at the Haymarket Theatre in 2005. He was known for the West Wing of course and was very good looking in his day. Plus of course we all know that How the Other Half Loves is struggling to find an audience. I might be totally wrong of course before the lawyers start calling and my post gets deleted for libel!!! Good guess! I just need to know who the box office manager is! Every time I read a new post, it makes me change my mung of what theatre it is! But maybe it is Haymarket It definitely can't be the same one every month (there was one a few months ago about booking in different countries for the same performance that we all jumped to Matilda for) - unless the BOM in question has traveled around a lot of theatres in their recent career, I suspect there's three/four who are taking it in turns to write stories down.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 28, 2016 17:48:25 GMT
Video here of the set going up, which is the same as Broadway of course, but I noticed they've put up some horrible black masking on the sides! I wonder why they couldn't have just left the Prince Edward's pros arch as it is? Or decorate it better like they did with Miss Saigon. You say "of course" as if it's a foregone conclusion - thankfully in this case we've got the principal design. Unfortunately, I booked the transfer for Shrek off the back of the Broadway set and we ended up getting essentially a beefed up touring panto set instead.. The only time I've ever known a show decide to downscale when moving into the Theatre Royal Drury Lane. Still, it's hardly worse than Charlie's set, which seems to have been designed for a 28ft deck but scaled up to twice the size just because they had a bigger stage than they were planning to deal with!
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 28, 2016 15:35:32 GMT
Yes but Natasha Barnes has been thrown into this part at no notice and with huge media attention for almost four weeks now and it must be pretty exhausting for her. At some point she will want a break or will be ill. Then what? Then she has an understudy. Every lead obviously has two covers, so all they would need to do (if Natasha was to be installed as a new permanent lead) would cast a new woman for either her normal track or her current understudy's usual track. Doing that or getting someone new in for the title role both equates to one new person to rehearse. Is Samantha Spiro really a big enough name to replace Sheridan though? She's hardly sold G&D You can say that again - it has not been selling well since the transfer. Let's be honest - if Guys and Dolls are now going down the "cast woman from big film to take over and boost sales" routine, is her replacee really likely to take over from a high profile name when that entire show has been marketed around one person? Wilson's fan club (I'm willing to bet) are nowhere near the target market for G&D, and definitely not closer to that market than Spiro's is. It just doesn't make sense to shove her into Funny Girl when they'd face potential bad press for passing Barnes back into the ensemble. Neither of those two are big names in the general public's eye - but arguably (if either of them) Barnes has a bigger profile right now for being "that one wot ain't Sheza". Just my tuppence - but the idea of Spiro hopping across doesn't make sense to me at all. And yes - I know Smith hasn't left the production, etc.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 28, 2016 15:20:39 GMT
Has anyone else noticed this production has, effectively, been delayed? We were told when sales were first starting that performances before June 7th would be sold at a later stage, specifically performances starting late May. Does that point to delays in rehearsals, or simply that they realise it'll be such a juggernaut that they needn't rush to do extra performances..? It means they were considerate enough not to sell performances that they couldn't be sure they would be ready for, and that they are taking the time to get the show right, which is all that really matters, whenever it opens. All true - just worth noting that they seem to have pushed back their schedule at one stage or another. I'd agree it's the right thing to do - start later then announce extra performances if possible. No one will remember that they once said they wanted to start earlier, but plenty of people would remember if they need to cancel their first week of previews! Not as if it makes one jot of difference in the end - Matilda delayed their opening by a week, for example. Don't think it impacted their business..
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 28, 2016 8:25:18 GMT
I'm just disappointed the National clearly don't deem this worthy of the NT Live treatment. It's Olivier winning and clearly a highlight of this (and last) year's theatregoing.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 28, 2016 8:22:31 GMT
Has anyone else noticed this production has, effectively, been delayed?
We were told when sales were first starting that performances before June 7th would be sold at a later stage, specifically performances starting late May.
Does that point to delays in rehearsals, or simply that they realise it'll be such a juggernaut that they needn't rush to do extra performances..?
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 26, 2016 10:27:03 GMT
Especially considering the only source of this fall etc is from a tabloid.. admittedly the Mirror are not the worst, but they are hardly free from ramping up stories to make them interesting/marketable or, *shudders*, viral.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 23, 2016 19:01:30 GMT
I wonder if Sheridan returning will be announced or if it will just happen out of the blue? The closest comparison I can think of is David Tennant returning to his run in Hamlet (after being injured for most of the London run). There people knew he'd be returning sooner or later, but they quietly gave him stage time in the day and then put him on for a performance unannounced. Mostly to avoid press attention/pressure on the evening, I think. After that they let the news seep out. So I wouldn't be surprised if they don't announce her return, but we find out thanks to twitter etc.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 20, 2016 13:23:53 GMT
Alice Fearn being standby Elphaba may mean I make a trip back (I've seen her in a couple of things over the years) - last time I went was when Willemijn was fronting the company.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 15, 2016 9:17:42 GMT
I think they need to split it up to reduce the effect of regional voting. There's clearly a problem with the voting when countries that routinely came in the top three now struggle to reach the middle. Remember there are two compounding factors on this: 1. Countries can now sing in any language they link - until the late 90s they had to sing in an official language of their nation. Therefore it's not a surprise Ireland and United Kingdom did so well during that era. As soon as everyone could, broadly, understand all the songs, the vague monopoly was disappearing. 2. The jury vote becoming 50% was introduced purely to avoid televoting becoming "vote for your friends" - and I genuinely think the jury votes, on the whole, had things much better than the televotes this year. Mind you, what our jury were smoking to give Georgia 12 points I have got no idea..
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 5, 2016 22:28:08 GMT
It won't happen. The 10th release on Broadway was the OBC with a few extras stuck on a second CD. There's next to no chance London will get one for its 10th. The next likely Wicked recording to be released will be the film, whenever that gets sorted. I'm surprised no one has pointed out there originally was a London recording planned (I can't remember if it was to be with Idina or Kerry, but certainly was OLC otherwise), but it failed due to the producers wanting to use the Broadway orchestra recording with London actors singing, rather than the London orchestra. Why would this cause it to fail? There was a dispute with unions involved regarding it. In the end the producers backed down and decided not to bother.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 4, 2016 23:46:49 GMT
It won't happen. The 10th release on Broadway was the OBC with a few extras stuck on a second CD. There's next to no chance London will get one for its 10th. The next likely Wicked recording to be released will be the film, whenever that gets sorted. I'm surprised no one has pointed out there originally was a London recording planned (I can't remember if it was to be with Idina or Kerry, but certainly was OLC otherwise), but it failed due to the producers wanting to use the Broadway orchestra recording with London actors singing, rather than the London orchestra. Yeah but there already was a Broadway recording, so there's no need for a new one. A London cast recording would be different. It would have been stupid if they had used the original Broadway orchestra recording because it was reorchestrated, which made it better. I think they should just do a live recording like they did for Miss Saigon and Kinky Boots. It will capture the energy of the performance and it's probably a lot cheaper to produce. And they know tons of people would buy it. There's virtually no financial risk and a very big chance of financial success I get the argument but I'm not sure it stacks up. Why wasn't the 2013 Broadway cast any less worthy of a cast recording than the 2016 West End one? Agreed. Cameron Mackintosh also happy to invest time/personnel/resources/money into these things. That's the problem with live recordings. Done properly they can be epic. But many producers see them as a way of doing it on the cheap, not having to translocate cast and band to an (expensive) recording studio. I feel like they can afford to do something special for the 10th anniversary Oh they can afford to, yes. Will they though? Nah.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on May 4, 2016 12:22:41 GMT
It won't happen. The 10th release on Broadway was the OBC with a few extras stuck on a second CD. There's next to no chance London will get one for its 10th.
The next likely Wicked recording to be released will be the film, whenever that gets sorted.
I'm surprised no one has pointed out there originally was a London recording planned (I can't remember if it was to be with Idina or Kerry, but certainly was OLC otherwise), but it failed due to the producers wanting to use the Broadway orchestra recording with London actors singing, rather than the London orchestra.
|
|
521 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Apr 26, 2016 18:51:17 GMT
for every risk you need a banker just in case it goes badly wrong. Bearing in mind, though, that there are very few bankers in theatre. Even safe shows like "King & I" have lost cash in revival. True - but Hamlet and Harry Potter certainly are two! However yes, and that's why a lot of financers tend to pool their resources fairly thinly.
|
|