|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 15, 2019 23:01:10 GMT
Fair enough, I don't know that much about them beyond the one about the Play which I loved and I saw Bank Robbery but wasn't that impressed with it. I find it very odd that there are so many people involved in a theatre production and then they still need to change so much stuff after the public sees it. It may not be censorship, but it feels awfully close to it. Do people not speak up during production and say 'sorry but that's crap, change it' or something? It seems to work totally differently to every other art form where an artist creates something and people either love it or hate it and that's the end of it. I've seen TCAABR 74 times thus far so I do know rather a lot about it!
Jaysus! I struggled to get through it once, though that probably had more to do with my horribly uncomfortable front row seat than the show itself. |
|
|
|
Post by FrontrowverPaul on Dec 15, 2019 23:25:40 GMT
Fair enough, I don't know that much about them beyond the one about the Play which I loved and I saw Bank Robbery but wasn't that impressed with it. I find it very odd that there are so many people involved in a theatre production and then they still need to change so much stuff after the public sees it. It may not be censorship, but it feels awfully close to it. Do people not speak up during production and say 'sorry but that's crap, change it' or something? It seems to work totally differently to every other art form where an artist creates something and people either love it or hate it and that's the end of it. I've seen TCAABR 74 times thus far so I do know rather a lot about it!
I'm sure that they do, but I've also read interviews with playwrights, including the Mischief trio, where they have said that until a piece is performed in front of audiences they can't always tell what will work & what won't. Also the creative team might not necessarily agree (to use TCAABR as an example, the original ending was modified after a couple of months but I was told at the time that opinion was divided as to whether to do so or not).
I wouldn't say theatre is different to every other art form. Films can be re-edited after test screenings. Artists in the past re-worked paintings. There are a number of operas that have different versions as composers re-wrote them for subsequent productions (e.g. Don Carlos, Boris Godunov). Books can have things changed for subsequent editions (e.g. Great Expectations' ending). And that's without getting into how the reactions of the public to a fixed piece of art can change radically over time, which is a whole other subject.
I'm seriously impressed by 74 viewings of a comedy play, you must know every word by now and notice any fluffs or little changes. Just out of interest what is it about that particular show that brings you back so many times, or is it that you work at the theatre ? I'm way behind with 31 viewings of My Fair Lady in the last three years but that's over 28 different amateur productions so doesn't really count. |
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Dec 15, 2019 23:27:54 GMT
'The response after they did a bit on BBC a year ago was so terrible you'd think they'd have pulled their socks up.' This sounds a lot like wanting something changed because of negative public response to me. He then goes on to suggest it's going to close after 3 iffy reviews on a theatre forum. I'd also say that as subjective as it is, comedy is one of the most difficult art forms to pull off well, especially the kind they do. The fact that nothing from that scene done on TV survives into the finished show does indicate that Mischief agreed with the public response that it didn't work. They frequently re-write parts of new shows based on how the audience responds to them at the start of a run, or indeed later in the run (The Comedy About A Bank Robbery got re-writes on & off for over a year). They choose to do it because they want to try to improve the shows based on audience feedback. I don't consider that to be remotely akin to censorship. Going off topic slightly here, so I apologise. I've been doing some research into The Addams Family musical, which has changed significantly over the years, almost to the point of disbelief. The whole narrative was changed as well as songs, choreography, script - basically the whole show. Talking about different art forms, the music was completley re-jigged around with some parts of the music being used in different areas for different productions (For example, in one of the songs in the Chicago preview, the dance break in "Let's not talk about anything else but love" is now a major segment of the bows music for the TRW version, despite the song being cut, which I find fascinating!) Anyway, my point is that I feel like things need to be changed sometimes. As Dawnstar has said, TCAABR has been changed various times. We'll see what happens with MGW. Not one I'll be going to see, despite my signed Penn & Teller image in my drawer :3 |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Dec 16, 2019 11:34:48 GMT
The fact that nothing from that scene done on TV survives into the finished show does indicate that Mischief agreed with the public response that it didn't work. They frequently re-write parts of new shows based on how the audience responds to them at the start of a run, or indeed later in the run (The Comedy About A Bank Robbery got re-writes on & off for over a year). They choose to do it because they want to try to improve the shows based on audience feedback. I don't consider that to be remotely akin to censorship. Fair enough, I don't know that much about them beyond the one about the Play which I loved and I saw Bank Robbery but wasn't that impressed with it. I find it very odd that there are so many people involved in a theatre production and then they still need to change so much stuff after the public sees it. It may not be censorship, but it feels awfully close to it. Do people not speak up during production and say 'sorry but that's crap, change it' or something? It seems to work totally differently to every other art form where an artist creates something and people either love it or hate it and that's the end of it. I think it's more a case of recognising that people involved in putting something together can't see the final production with the same eyes as those who come in for the first time with a limited understanding of the premise. Some things that might appear obvious in the writers' room baffle audiences that don't have the same background. Jokes that are a bit of fun to those who know the character can seem mean spirited to someone who is meeting them for the first time. The director might be hoping to give the audience a bit of a jump, but not leave them traumatised, and things like just how long do you linger on a moment of violence in order to create the required impact without it seeming gratuitous can be hard to judge until you have a real audience. Directors and audience members alike have to accept that they can't please all of the people all of the time, and it's right to be wary of rushing to remove something based on what a handful of people say, but realising there is a better way of doing something shouldn't be equated with censorship. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 16, 2019 11:48:59 GMT
I'm seriously impressed by 74 viewings of a comedy play, you must know every word by now and notice any fluffs or little changes. Just out of interest what is it about that particular show that brings you back so many times, or is it that you work at the theatre ? I'm way behind with 31 viewings of My Fair Lady in the last three years but that's over 28 different amateur productions so doesn't really count.
Oh no, I have no connection with the production except that of a repeat-viewing fan who has therefore got to know some of the people involved a bit. My initial repeat-viewings were because they kept re-writing the show & I found it interesting to see the changes. I try to see all the understudies in each cast, as I like seeing different interpretations of the roles. The other, more practical, reason is that I can usually get my favourite seat on the day & it only costs £25!
|
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 16, 2019 18:40:23 GMT
I'm seriously impressed by 74 viewings of a comedy play, you must know every word by now and notice any fluffs or little changes. Just out of interest what is it about that particular show that brings you back so many times, or is it that you work at the theatre ? I'm way behind with 31 viewings of My Fair Lady in the last three years but that's over 28 different amateur productions so doesn't really count.
Oh no, I have no connection with the production except that of a repeat-viewing fan who has therefore got to know some of the people involved a bit. My initial repeat-viewings were because they kept re-writing the show & I found it interesting to see the changes. I try to see all the understudies in each cast, as I like seeing different interpretations of the roles. The other, more practical, reason is that I can usually get my favourite seat on the day & it only costs £25!
I thought I was a bit loopy for seeing Great Comet 8 times and Six 7 times... But I am merely a gifted amateur in your presence x |
|
654 posts
|
Post by ptwest on Dec 22, 2019 22:46:39 GMT
I was there this afternoon; to clarify I don’t know much of Penn and Teller’s repertoire so for me this was all new. It’s a bit hit and miss, and there’s certainly no need for the sudden “character development” part towards the end of act two, but my wife and I laughed a lot, as did most of the audience as far as we could tell. The mind mangler sequences were enhanced by some very entertaining audience interaction, but there was lots to enjoy throughout. It’s certainly not perfect but for us it was enjoyable enough to make it worthwhile.
|
|
362 posts
|
Post by JJShaw on Dec 24, 2019 9:39:24 GMT
Saw yesterday afternoon too, had a good time and enjoyed myself but upon reflection leaving the theatre it wasn't quite as strong as some of their other pieces. Will put under spoiler just in case! ALSO I was sat front row (AZ) for £35, im tall so other than a little neck ache it was a perfect view, it is a little bit of a high stage so bare in mind but if you're not too short/ have a booster seat it was fine. go for the ends because then you don't have to look back and forth from the centre. {Spoiler - click to view}
As others have mentioned the late "character development"/sentimental bit at the 11th hour is unnecessary and unearned, mainly because as fun as the show was, it does get use a little repetitive. It was like watching 2 hours of very good SNL sketches, but it is the same cycle of characters so while they do vary it all, it did wear on just a tad when I thought about just how much I had enjoyed it.
Henry Lewis usually has the characters that are the least funny to me, but his improv and back and forth with the audience was very enjoyable. Jonathan Sayer is barely in the show, Dave had the perfect sized role where his tricks were short and concise that they broke up the action between the larger ones and he is very charismatic. I missed Charlie however Bryony was very entertaining and this show further proves that I would watch Nancy read the phonebook, her facial expressions and intensity is hilarious. Both the girls did what they could with parts that felt rather small in comparison.
They clearly had a Budget for this show, it was all done very well, I'd say the idea of a magic show going wrong isn't the most sustainable idea for two hours, but they did it the best I think you could do this idea.
I could have done with one or two less "celebrities donating money" sections but I can see they're there to cover scene and costume changes. I think it could have been trimmed down by just not repeating a few of the jokes just to make it a little snappier because its a shame this show is a little more repetitive just by its very nature that there's no plot and the magicians that are coming out are usually doing a similar act (mind reading, pain withstanding etc)
Still a success, clear they have a strong brand as they have sold out its initial run pretty much, wonder how the extension will fare, I know they're recasting for that so they must be covering the Mischief team going into rehearsals for their third mystery show. |
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Dec 30, 2019 13:44:11 GMT
Trying to get rid of two tickets to this but the theatre won't take them back unless we call on the day. Are they big on checking ID to pick up tickets for can somebody else use then so long as they have my name and postcode?
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 30, 2019 15:53:17 GMT
I picked up Groan Ups tickets a couple of times during that run & didn't get asked for ID, only name & either first line of address or postcode.
|
|
1,827 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stevej678 on Dec 31, 2019 20:25:46 GMT
How is Magic Goes Wrong on the audience participation front?
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 31, 2019 21:00:17 GMT
How is Magic Goes Wrong on the audience participation front? There's a fair amount, or at least there was at the first preview, I don't know if significant changes have been made since. {Spoiler - click to view}
The pre-show is similar in style to TPTGW/PPGW. Henry L's act involves the most audience participation. I guess you've probably seen the RVP appearance, so it's still similar with him asking audience members their names, jobs, etc. Near the end of Act 2 two audience members are up on stage for several minutes. During parts of the show one of the ensemble members acts as a cameraman, filming footage that is relayed onto a big screen on stage. It's mostly focused on the stage action by the audience is sometimes filmed too. Basically if anyone wants to avoid any chance of audience participation I'd suggest avoiding at least the first half a dozen rows of the stalls at a minimum & sitting in one of the circle would be safest. (I usually can't bear the possibility of audience participation but fortunately with Mischief I know I'm immune because they know I repeat-view their shows so avoid me in favour of new audience members!) |
|
656 posts
|
Post by greeny11 on Jan 1, 2020 23:04:48 GMT
Still the same as of the Sunday just gone - quite a bit of interaction with the audience throughout, and is absolutely necessary to certain sections of the show.
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jan 4, 2020 14:59:51 GMT
To cryptically feed into this, I'm sure there's more than one Brian.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen13 on Jan 4, 2020 15:40:36 GMT
To cryptically feed into this, I'm sure there's more than one Brian. I saw the matinee today sat in row N in the stalls and when the mind mangler was asking about people's jobs, we suddenly had someone sitting next to N1 who was asked to shout out their job. |
|
1,827 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stevej678 on Jan 7, 2020 9:33:14 GMT
Press night tomorrow evening! I can see this getting a very mixed bag of reviews from one star maulings to four stars.
I enjoyed it, in part perhaps due to a sense of warmth and good will towards the Mischief team, but I couldn't help thinking the concept was better suited to an Edinburgh Fringe friendly format of 60-75 minutes, with less being more.
I wonder when we'll find out what the third chapter is going to be in the Vaudeville trilogy!
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Jan 8, 2020 3:13:25 GMT
Saw this tonight and thought it was a massive disappointment. It's basically variants on one joke over and over and over again that at the very end of the show expects the audience to connect with the characters (by which time it's too late).
To my mind, the thing with magic going wrong comedy business is that at some point you need to see it go right ( as per Tommy Cooper). This is just two hours of end-to-end predictable sight gags of the kind that we've seen before in other Mischief shows.
The script is very weak compared to their other shows and the pace is way too slow. Running at around two hours, it could really benefit from some judicial editing as some of the gags really don't fly.
Finally I thought that in 2020, we were way past laughing at larger women for the sole reason that being big is apparently funny. Nancy Zammit is such a talented performer, but in this show, she is mainly wasted as the butt of a salvo of jokes based around the fact that she is larger than the other actress in their magic double act. Terrible lazy writing.
I'd say this show might have been ok in Edinburgh, but is no way ready to be a west end show. That said, Mischief Theatre are riding on the crest of a wave right now so it may well garner good reviews and large audiences, but to me it feels thrown together without the finessing it needs to match up to their previous work.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Jan 8, 2020 12:12:12 GMT
Edit: meant to say that (paraphrasing) ‘for the sole reason that making a joke out of the fact that a woman is larger size isn’t intrinsically funny’.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 8, 2020 13:40:17 GMT
I'd say this show might have been ok in Edinburgh, but is no way ready to be a west end show. That said, Mischief Theatre are riding on the crest of a wave right now so it may well garner good reviews and large audiences, but to me it feels thrown together without the finessing it needs to match up to their previous work. Given they first tried it out 18 months ago, then did another try-out at the Lowry, and have had nearly 4 weeks of previews, it's a bit worrying if it's still giving the impression of being "thrown together".
I will be very interested to see what the critics make of this, given the comments I have read on here & on Twitter seem to either be love or dislike with not much in between.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2020 14:50:21 GMT
Majority 3* with a couple of 4* too
|
|
460 posts
|
Post by pianowithsam on Jan 11, 2020 20:27:09 GMT
Have just heard that audience and cast have just had to have been evacuated due to a ‘suspicious package’ at this evenings performance.
Appears to be a serious incident with people in nearby restaurants and area being evacuated too.
Hope everybody is okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcs316 on Jan 12, 2020 0:04:30 GMT
Have just arrived home after today’s performance and abstloved the show. Thoroughly entertaining. Very funny overall and although it would have benefited from a little editing and trimming in places would highly recommend. Am slightly obsessed by the amazing Bryony Corriggan though....
|
|
|
|
Post by gregsp on Jan 13, 2020 19:32:34 GMT
Hmm... Not particularly impressed with MGW overall.
I mean, it's definitely better than Groan Ups, but it all felt rather stale to me.
There are a handful of really funny moments which are well delivered, but not enough to sustain a 2 hour show.
With the TV show not hitting any real heights either it's making me consider whether Mischief Theatre are in danger of becoming a busted flush.
On the plus side it has invigorated me to go and see Penn & Teller again.
#NeedsMoreNancy
|
|
1,759 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by marob on Jan 13, 2020 23:00:47 GMT
I saw it last night and while I enjoyed it, it was a little bit hit and miss, which is odd for a show that's been in development for a good long while now. I did wonder if there was a darker ending originally {Spoiler - click to view}
considering the backstory of the contested will, the dead doves being heirs, the mother being sawn in half, the half sisters repeatedly attacked by a bear. I was expecting them to reveal Henry Shields was bumping them off deliberately. The happy ending felt a bit tacked on at the end.
Highlights for me would, as ever, have to be Dave Hearn as The Blade and Nancy as Bär. Also can't help wondering how much of the audience participation is actually spontaneous given that a guy on the end of the row was told in the interval what to say when called upon. Not one of their best, but still great fun. Looking forward to seeing Peter Pan Goes Wrong next week. |
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Jan 14, 2020 2:40:43 GMT
Hmm... Not particularly impressed with MGW overall. I mean, it's definitely better than Groan Ups, but it all felt rather stale to me. There are a handful of really funny moments which are well delivered, but not enough to sustain a 2 hour show. With the TV show not hitting any real heights either it's making me consider whether Mischief Theatre are in danger of becoming a busted flush. On the plus side it has invigorated me to go and see Penn & Teller again. #NeedsMoreNancy I agree with all of this. Already having three very successful shows under their belt, I wonder if taking the Vaudeville residency was a bit previous, given the underwhelming quality of both Groan Ups and Magic Goes Wrong? The TV show seemed like a dubious idea to me. What works in live theatre with an audience willing to suspend their disbelief, rarely works on TV. The last episode that was transmitted about a Trial used the conceit from Peter Pan Goes Wrong about one of the cast needing to have lines fed to him/saying other people’s lines but without the device of the headphones feeding him the material, so it made no sense at all. Also they had blatantly ripped off the idea from Spinal Tap about a designer’s mistake with measurements for the scenery, which was disappointing. Although I’m sure the company are doing very well financially from the current productions, it would be a shame if they torpedo their artistic reputation by churning out material that is thin, repetitive and just basically not up to scratch on any front. i absolutely agree about Nancy Z too who was criminally underused in Magic Goes Wrong. |
|
