125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 27, 2018 13:51:34 GMT
I think they were on. The older dancers were fine, I thought, but the youngsters needed a little work. Given that the UK doesn't have a cheerleading culture, I felt they did OK on that. I will allow that my most direct comparison was with the debut "Crown Jewels" squad cheering the "London Monarchs" at the Old Wembley Stadium... now that makes the gang in this look like the Dallas Cowgirls. The stunting was poor by UK cheer standards. Competitive cheer has really improved in this country in the last 10 years or so since I did it. They were doing the absolute most basic stunts you can possibly do. And using four boys to base them where you'd usually use three girls. I wasn't expecting competition standard and appreciate that there were space constraints but I had hoped this element would have been better.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 9, 2018 8:53:42 GMT
For those who have seen this, any views on whether it is suitable for kids? Details of said children: 5ish and 6. Well trained at small people theatre. Easily occupied by snacks. Of the non-rustling variety obviously. Mercilessly shushed if ever they attempt to talk during a show. Sat through Bananaman at the same venue. Actually liked Bananaman(!) It's a toss up (cheer pun intended) between using one of my rare chances to use my sister as a babysitter to see this as a couple, or using said babysitting opportunity to see something else and taking the whole family to see Bring it On..... I haven't seen this production, but I saw it in Australia earlier in the year and it really wasn't a show for people below their teenage years. Nothing really offensive, but the subject matter just wouldn't make any sense. I don't think it was offensive, but there was typical teen movie type sexual references and I think mild swearing. Thanks dr_Tom. I'm not too worried about them not getting the subject matter. I think the plots of most things go over their heads, even those aimed at smaller kids. Mamma Mia (the film) went down better than we thought, and that is more raunchy than I remembered before we stuck it on for them!! I'd probably be happy showing them the original Bring it On film but I know this is a completely new story. I've seen a review of the original Broadway production which recommended 6+ but no idea how the various different versions compare. Will probably leave them behind and at worst can then go again if I think they'd manage it.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Aug 7, 2018 21:10:54 GMT
For those who have seen this, any views on whether it is suitable for kids?
Details of said children: 5ish and 6. Well trained at small people theatre. Easily occupied by snacks. Of the non-rustling variety obviously. Mercilessly shushed if ever they attempt to talk during a show. Sat through Bananaman at the same venue. Actually liked Bananaman(!)
It's a toss up (cheer pun intended) between using one of my rare chances to use my sister as a babysitter to see this as a couple, or using said babysitting opportunity to see something else and taking the whole family to see Bring it On.....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Apr 2, 2018 20:50:34 GMT
This sounds like the most useless lottery in christendom. "within a two-week period"? What if you're only in London for 2-3 days and you get drawn for a day you're not in town? And this: "Remember, you can also increase your chances of winning by sharing your entry on social media channels." I hate this kind of forcing people into advertising, it reeks a bit of that "verified fan" nonsense that's increasingly popular in the USA. If I like a show, I will be happy to talk about it across my social media channels without any prodding, simply because I want to share how good it is and how people should go and see it. But I'm not letting myself get bullied into sharing something if I don't even know yet if it's good. TodayTix does this but I always switch my facebook post settings so that the post is only visible to me! I assume it still increases my chances of winning....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 4, 2017 20:13:25 GMT
I think Wonderful is a massively underrated song - If there's to be any updating, I propose adding tap dancing to it!) Didn't the Wizard use to have a tap routine during Wonderful? If so, I demand that they put it back. The music is crying out for it. Also, I keep claiming that all the best shows have tap numbers. This does not sit very well with my Wicked obsession.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 4, 2017 19:51:54 GMT
I'm not sure Wicked does need updating in terms of the magic tricks. I think part of the charm of Wicked is that the big spectacle is really all just smoke and mirrors(!) It's a recurring theme of the show that things aren't always what they seem, and that you shouldn't focus on the superficial.
(On which note, I think Wonderful is a massively underrated song - If there's to be any updating, I propose adding tap dancing to it!)
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jun 1, 2017 22:02:47 GMT
Best. Thread. Ever.
As cliche as it may be, I've always assumed it would end with a rousing.chorus of 'Always look on the bright side of life'.
Having given more thought to appropriately stagey morbidity this week I would now add:
'One more angel in heaven' from Joseph 'Cabaret' from Cabarwt 'Let me rest in peace' from Once More with Feeling (I.e. the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Still trying to work out.how to shoehorn in tap dancing atop a coffin....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on May 25, 2017 13:21:34 GMT
I saw this last night. It's not the best thing I've ever seen but it's certainly not the worst. I agree that the book was weak and quite a lot of the lyrics were clunky, but overall it was enjoyable enough for a last minute Wednesday night theatre trip. I actually really liked the set.
It was the cast that really appealed to me, and they all lived up to expectations, although as other people have said it's a shame that the ghosts had so many of the songs. Not that I object to listening to Niamh Perry all night. But I did feel like everyone other than the ghosts was chronically underused in the singing department. Simon Lipkin in particular - I would have cast him as the male ghost. He does creepy and comedy so well it felt like a wasted opportunity to cast him as the sheriff.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Feb 18, 2017 21:00:36 GMT
Cirque du soleil - why do people feel the need to spend the entire show taking blurry photos and then reviewing them on screen instead of actually watching the show?! Eurgh.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Feb 1, 2017 15:10:37 GMT
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Feb 1, 2017 14:31:48 GMT
She did tell me that she was friends with Rachel Tucker's husband through going to see the show so much... that to me sounds a bit bragish. I think if I remember correctly she also broke the news about Rachel returning to Broadway to play Elphie. Rachel gave an exclusive interview to the fan account. She did indeed. She's the voice interviewing Rachel in that video.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 31, 2017 23:04:12 GMT
I was going to say but decided against it. And its not me either. She is a lovely lady though and i dont believe she would brag about anything Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to say but I figured she's quite prolific on Twitter. She is absolutely lovely. She also hates thinking about quite how much she's spent on Wicked but she obviously still enjoys it, so why not?! I'm sure plenty of us who are still in double figure viewings get called loopy by friends and family.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 31, 2017 22:43:51 GMT
How can anyone afford it. I know the lady with the spreadsheet tends to dayseat but even so Some of the people I've spoken to that have seen it hundreds of times are the same age as me and I know I certainly don't have that money as a student. Perhaps spreadsheet woman is a a highly paid spreadsheet wiz and just likes to take the skills into the field every now and then Not sure if this spoils the magic, or solves the mystery for you: Spreadsheet woman is a live-in Nanny. So I guess all her pay goes on shows. She actually sees a hell of a lot of other shows (repeatedly). It's not just Wicked. For what it's worth, I wouldn't describe her as a bragger. She is just incredibly passionate about theatre. And she honestly does the spreadsheet thing because she thinks it's helpful, not to show off or boss people around. p.s. I swear it's not me!
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 28, 2017 22:46:51 GMT
Yeah the audience was generally really well behaved. I just unfortunately was sat directly behind the three attention seekers.
It was still an absolutely stunning night. I know I've said it before but I really do think I'm done with Wicked now. For me, you just can't top Tucker.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 28, 2017 21:05:57 GMT
All three leavers got entrance applause. The incredibly annoying fan girls in front of me planned to stand for all of them. In the end they only stood when Rachel entered (and at the end of both her big songs!) I could barely hear the end of DG. Luckily Rachel has a better set of lungs on her than all the screamers.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 23, 2017 15:29:39 GMT
As resident lunatic forum member who was actually present in the infamous queue for Rachel's last last: 1. Some people managed to get tickets by rocking up in the early hours of the morning. I think 4 or 5am was ok last time. The whole front row isn't usually taken by campers. (I definitely managed to get matinee tickets on Louise's last by chancing it on the morning.) 2. As shady23 says, it's usually one ticket per person, per show. So everyone in the queue can buy a matinee and an evening ticket. 3. danieljohnson14 - It may have been October last time but it actually snowed during the night! I was genuinely worried that some of the other people in the queue would die of hypothermia, as they were wearing pyjamas.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 4, 2017 17:03:39 GMT
Personally, I'd always prebook seats for cast change, as I will do once Willemijn's last two shows are officially announced. I'm fine with paying full price every now and then (if the side seats at the front are already gone). ......Seriously, if you're gone for more than a few minutes (than it takes to have a wee, fetch a drink from Caffe Nero or Starbucks or get something to eat - I'd say 15min tops), your place in line is forfeited. If you want to stand in line with your friend who has just arrived, join the end of the queue. I've given in and booked for this one. I am also totally with you on the joining friends thing. Although sometimes I'm not even that nice - My friends learned this in Disneyland when they got out of bed later than me and tried to join me in an incredibly long queue for the Finding Nemo ride. I sent them to the back!
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Jan 4, 2017 16:41:23 GMT
My guess is that they'll do nothing to manage it, certainly not before the Saturday anyway. I would imagine that they don't want to do anything at all that may encourage people to sit outside the theatre for days on end, so I can't see them putting any queueing system in place that may facilitate that. I was actually thinking of some sort of self organisation, i.e. fans telling other people where to queue for which show, people jumping queues and so on. Think it'll be slightly chaotic... If anyone walks past the theatre during Rachel's last week, please report back. Last time round it was self-organised until the Friday night where the box office team popped out and took the names of everyone in the queue, just in case of chaos the next day. One of the regulars takes it upon herself to make a list of where everyone in the queue will be sitting so they can just ask for their seat when they get to the box office. ( Michael - You may well have experienced this. She does it every time she dayseats, not just on special occasions. It's progressed from a list on a piece of paper to a full blown electronic seating plan.) So whenever anyone new joined the queue, they were added to her list for the relevant show. A few of the campers did actually go to the Friday show last time and returned to their original places in the queue (much to the annoyance of some of us behind them). In fact, one mother and daughter shared a Friday night ticket. They swapped at the interval! There was actually an awful lot of holding places in the queue. I think I've said this previously, but the week long campers had a hostel nearby. They sat outside during the day but went back to the hostel at night until the Thursday night I think. They also took very long trips back to the hostel when they got cold/bored (again, much to the annoyance to those of us who only left the queue to have a wee in Victoria station!) As I have definitely said previously, I still don't think I was quite mad enough to be in that queue.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Oct 24, 2016 14:44:09 GMT
Just seen something on facebook offering online lottery for aladdin where you can choose up to 3 performances the following week for £25 tickets. Amongst the FAQ section it says they will no longer have a daily lottery at the theatre but will have dayseats available Yep, that's been running for a few weeks now. Out of interest, has anyone had any success with it? Or even an email acknowledging their entry? I've tried for the last couple of weeks but haven't heard anything at all. Normally with lotteries you get an email wishing you better luck next time....
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Oct 9, 2016 13:26:34 GMT
An actor should not add their own personality to a role. They perform based on their interpretation of the work, as agreed with the director. Different actors have different relationships with the characters they play, but when the script is the same, the direction is the same, the staging is the same and the songs and notes are the same, they are limited in what they can actually do with the role. It's not the actors personality, but the personality they believe the character requires - but this has to have approval because it is not their decision. The irony being of course I think Rachel is one of the best thing to have happened to Wicked, and the producers appear to agree based on her long term involvement with the show. She is absolutely the best Elphaba I've seen, but Rachel isn't the one I connect with - I connect and care about Elphaba. For me, that's is where the perspective is needed and the lines within the Wicked fandom get blurred - connecting with the character doesn't mean you're connecting with the performer - the performer has no ownership over the character at all. Anyway, this could go on and on. Let's get back to Oz - when do we think movie casting will be determined and announced? (oh, and if we're keeping score, I'm almost at the 30 visit stages. Not a bad average yearly visit me thinks). Of course this could go on and on. Especially if you keep dismissing other people's opinions as 'just opinion' whilst simultaneously trying to lecture them on what their opinion ought to be. You're using perspective in a different way to the rest of us i.e. telling us that we need perspective. Whereas we are saying that people can have different perspectives. Again, Wicked is all about seeing things another way. I don't think this debate is about Rachel at all. It just so happens that she is my favourite actor and the obvious example to discuss here. I would have used the same example even if we had been having this debate in a totally different thread. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't see any difference between connecting with an actor and with a pop singer. Or between any other types of artist, whether they are performing their own work or that written by another. If you connect with the character rather than the actor, fine. But don't try to tell other people that that its the way they should connect. You can connect with a piece on different levels. The lines are naturally blurred. A performer must be able to add something to the writing. Otherwise, what's the point in cover versions of songs/revivals of musicals/cast changes? I have a huge amount of respect for Stephen Schwartz, and I can appreciate what he has written. Separately, I love Rachel's portrayal of that writing. As you say, the actor decides how they believe the character should act. Yes they may be constrained by what a director allows, but it's still their interpretation. Art is subjective. We take from it what we choose. I am under no illusion that the words coming out of Rachel's mouth are entirely her own. But equally I believe that when she says/sings them, she means it. That allows me to connect with her, not just the character. Ultimately I find it easier to connect with the human standing in front of me than the imaginary person they are embodying at that moment. That's why when Rachel leaves Wicked I won't be going back. But I will certainly be going to see her in whatever she next does. How does that mean my perspective is skewed?
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Oct 9, 2016 11:25:46 GMT
I think the key for me is that as good as Rachel is - or any west end performer is - for someone to be important to someone, you have to 'know' them. Actors (including musical performers) are conduits that present someone else's ideas, opinions and commentary on the world. An actor's work has nothing to do with them as an individual - they are the face of the character. Therefore you can't know them and as such, I fail to see how that relationship develops to a stage where the actor is important to their fans. But aren't fans trying to get to 'know' these performers better by doing the very thing you're criticising them for? In any case, I think it's unfair to suggest that an actor can never put their own personality into a role they play. Surely the reason people feel connected to an actor is because they can see the actor has connected to the material. If you're connected to that same material, there's your connection to the actor. On this thread alone, we've compared actors who phone in a performance with those who absolutely embody the character. And again on this thread, people get incredibly excited for cast change because they want to see a new take on an old character. Or because they love a particular performer's take on that character and she's coming back to play it again. Just as Michael is avoiding Wicked at the moment because he doesn't like Rachel's portrayal, so I am coming back to a show that I swore I was done with, because I don't just love Wicked or the character of Elphaba -I love Rachel's portrayal of Elphaba. But I'm not going to tell Michael his opinion is more important than mine. It's all about perspective. In fact, I'd say that the overarching message of Wicked itself is that everything is about perspective. People can look at things in different ways. Plus many of those actors do work outside of the shows in which they perform. Rachel's done multiple concerts where she sings a wide range of songs, dressed as herself without green facepaint on. If you've ever been to one of those, you'll also know that she chats an awful lot in between songs. That gives people the chance to get to know her personally. And I have to say the show she did at the St James after launching her album is still one of the best nights I've ever had. I'm sure other people would have enjoyed a Michael Jackson/Madonna/Beyonce gig more. Others still may prefer a different musical theatre performer. I went to a Cynthia Erivo gig last year where everyone was absolutely raving about her afterwards. I think she has an amazing voice but I personally didn't connect with her the way I do with Rachel. But I could totally see how other people did. It's still just a matter of perspective. I almost certainly wouldn't come under your definition of superfan. I don't hang out at stage door. I don't act as if I'm friends with the cast. I don't run a fan account. I'm on under 20 visits to Wicked and don't intend to go above that. Yet my own friends would probably say I'm completely obsessed. I'm into double figures. I see almost everything Rachel is in. I've been out to Broadway to see her twice in the last two years. By many people's standards, that's probably quite tame. By others, it's bonkers. Perspective.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Oct 8, 2016 18:54:52 GMT
I have to be honest, I've never really seen the fabled fan boys and girls in person. Plus I avoid twitter. But, a recommendation popped up on YouTube the other day of a Wicked video diary. I've still not recovered from it. It was just plain weird. I've nothing against people being fans of someone's work - even obsessed with it (I grew up with Harry Potter after all) - but when it is about everything except the work and more to do with status and bragging rights, I think it's time to evaluate. I'm just not quite sure what meeting Rachel Tucker for the millionth time would actually bring to your life. Yes, she's excellent at what she does, but I can't believe she can be THAT important to someone in the same way someone like Michael Jackson was to his fans. I was with you until the final sentence. Why is she any different? If you recognise that there are some celebrities who can be that important to people, why can't theatre performers be similarly important? Surely it all depends on what you're impressed by/who inspires you. In some ways, I can see how it's easier for people to obsess over theatre performers. Their smaller fanbase, coupled with their availability at stage door, means there's more scope for interaction with fans. I can see how some people could get carried away and start to see themselves as friends of the cast (or at least more than just normal fans). Some performers are very personable at stage door and do make a point of chatting to fans they see regularly. Rachel's one of those. To a certain extent she has developed friendships with some of her really loyal fans - She chose to break the news that she was doing Wicked on Broadway via one of those fan accounts. That account is run by a 'superfan' who Rachel knows quite well, so she invited her to do the interview about Broadway. If the performers are happy to engage with the fans this way, and it makes the fans happy too, where's the harm?
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 30, 2016 21:28:10 GMT
I love Lizzy Connolly. That is all.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 19, 2016 13:58:11 GMT
Me neither... and there was me thinking my over enthusiastic reply within 2 mins of the email arriving would get me in! Oh well. Ditto!
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 19, 2016 11:42:16 GMT
The app suggests it's a mixture of dress circle and stalls seats.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 9, 2016 22:24:31 GMT
In the prog they say that they are aiming for a Broadway run. obviously most people if not all know the story and I think the show depends on this. For example the piano teacher and the old guy are are in it but not clear I don't think. So unlike the greats, Guys and Dolls say or My Fair Lady, based on a story and a play, I think to enjoy this you need to know the film or at the least the story. It doesn't break free. But having said that I think it could. I haven't seen the film but I still thought it all made perfect sense (or at least as much sense as a story about time repeating itself can anyway!) I loved it.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 8, 2016 11:20:58 GMT
Just because Broadway audiences are more commonly given shows with broader humour doesn't mean the audiences themselves can't handle more subtle story-telling. Yeah, I agree with this. I wasn't trying to say I thought Broadway audiences are dumb. Just that US shows (and I'm thinking more broadly here of US tv as well) tend to go for more overt storytelling. So I wondered whether that's something they might bear in mind when thinking about changes for Broadway - Especially in light of the discussions we've been having about how many people over here think 'Playing Nancy' works as part of the show. I think Tim Minchin has a very British sense of humour and I just wonder whether the producers will be questioning to what extent certain elements will translate to an American audience. As people have said, it already contains a lot of broad humour anyway. I think it probably works on a number of different levels. I definitely recall the people next to me laughing at completely different places to me throughout. And it's not for me to say which of us was laughing in the 'right' place. If people take different things from the same show and enjoy it equally, I'd say it's a real hit. I guess the point of the focus groups the producers are doing is to see what different people are taking from it, to make sure it appeals to that wide range of people.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 8, 2016 8:43:00 GMT
I personally disagree with the line "It's better to be leered at than not looked at at all". I felt that was one of the most heartbreaking lines, dawnstar. Meaning, she had absorbed the thinking that she was only an ornament - and now thought of herself in those terms. Just the consequence of being who she is. I totally agree with this. It's such a poignant line and I don't for a minute think that it is Minchin's actual opinion. It's such a good song and it feels so relevant in the context of the recent debates that people have been having about the burkini debacle and media coverage of female sport. Caiaphas - I doubt the producers want 24 people who give them a detailed critique of the underlying themes of the show. They want to know how the masses respond to it and the masses just want to have a nice time! I've been wondering whether some of the messages in this are too subtle, particularly for an American audience who, based on the reactions I've witnessed on Broadway, seem to be used to being clobbered around the head with text instead of settling for subtext. They tend to like their humour to be explicit.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 7, 2016 16:06:05 GMT
Far too difficult! Off the top of my head:
1. The School Song, Matilda - Hands down the cleverest song I've ever heard 2. No-one is alone, Into the Woods - Amazing lyrics and melody 3. Tomorrow belongs to me, Cabaret - Such an effective, haunting song. 4. You and me (but mostly me), The Book of Mormon - Couldn't pick a favourite Wicked song so went for this instead 5. Right hand man, Something Rotten - I can't stop listening to this. I can't believe some people think that show is nothing more than slapstick.
|
|
125 posts
|
Post by CBP1 on Sept 7, 2016 14:54:31 GMT
Broadway tends to leave cast change announcements much later than London. If we have an actor coming over from there, it makes sense that we haven't heard anything yet.
|
|