17 posts
|
Post by bulletproof on Feb 18, 2016 10:51:24 GMT
The Arena tour was great when I saw it. Maybe it's not transferring well. I get the impression from some of the negative reviews that it's more about the show not working rather than the cast. I don't see a problem with how a performer came to fame myself. It's whether they are up to the job. There are weak performers amongst 'star' casts just as there are weak performers amongst theatre unknowns. The show isn't all that different to the arena tour in all honesty - slightly smaller scale, a bit more theatrics and dancing on stage. The main difference, I think, is the audience. Being in a theatre means it has attracted lots of people that would have never gone to the Arena tour - people who don't know much about the show but who like shows and musicals.
Anyone going to this expecting a traditional musical and not a music concert with extras are likely to be disappointed...
|
|
33 posts
|
Post by chinatoy on Feb 18, 2016 10:58:52 GMT
The Arena tour was great when I saw it. Maybe it's not transferring well. I get the impression from some of the negative reviews that it's more about the show not working rather than the cast. I don't see a problem with how a performer came to fame myself. It's whether they are up to the job. There are weak performers amongst 'star' casts just as there are weak performers amongst theatre unknowns. The show isn't all that different to the arena tour in all honesty - slightly smaller scale, a bit more theatrics and acting on stage. The main difference, I think, is the audience. Being in a theatre means it has attracted lots of people that would have never gone to the Arena tour - people who don't know much about the show but who like shows and musicals.
Anyone going to this expecting a traditional musical and not a music concert with extras are likely to be disappointed...
That makes sense to me. I agree, it is pretty far removed from what an MT fan may expect.
|
|
377 posts
|
Post by Nelly on Feb 18, 2016 11:10:29 GMT
The show isn't all that different to the arena tour in all honesty - slightly smaller scale, a bit more theatrics and acting on stage. The main difference, I think, is the audience. Being in a theatre means it has attracted lots of people that would have never gone to the Arena tour - people who don't know much about the show but who like shows and musicals.
Anyone going to this expecting a traditional musical and not a music concert with extras are likely to be disappointed...
That makes sense to me. I agree, it is pretty far removed from what an MT fan may expect. See this is my issue with it, I went in knowing pretty much nothing about it apart from familiar with some of the score. I felt the biggest let down was the casting of it. If it's all about the music and tacky effects then why cast people like they have in it? Apart from the Journalist on video, does anyone else need to be a 'name'?? Perhaps I'm more discerning than their target audience who probably couldn't care who was standing in front of them singing as they're happy to be having a night out in a West End theatre? Though saying all that, I thought the production values of the show were pretty shoddy. Granted I went on the first preview, but having read and spoken to others who've been since, things haven't improved that much since. So I'm still failing to see what you're meant to enjoy, if you've paid a ticket to see it and the only good thing about it is the live orchestra when realistically there's lots more to it that they've thrown at it. That's why I don't really buy the argument about it being the wrong audience. If I'm paying a significant amount of money to see something live, I want to see value for my money. On another note, there's already a few offers around for those that didn't want to pay full whack. Here's one below! www.lovetheatre.com/tickets/4579/The-War-Of-The-Worlds?gclid=CjwKEAiA9JW2BRDxtaq2ruDg22oSJACgtTxckQ36cfr2kDKc2tL5sFI4f0bMm8sdygACOyWuaMJEchoCo-zw_wcB
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by bulletproof on Feb 18, 2016 11:27:24 GMT
That makes sense to me. I agree, it is pretty far removed from what an MT fan may expect. See this is my issue with it, I went in knowing pretty much nothing about it apart from familiar with some of the score. I felt the biggest let down was the casting of it. If it's all about the music and tacky effects then why cast people like they have in it? Apart from the Journalist on video, does anyone else need to be a 'name'?? Perhaps I'm more discerning than their target audience who probably couldn't care who was standing in front of them singing as they're happy to be having a night out in a West End theatre? Though saying all that, I thought the production values of the show were pretty shoddy. Granted I went on the first preview, but having read and spoken to others who've been since, things haven't improved that much since. So I'm still failing to see what you're meant to enjoy, if you've paid a ticket to see it and the only good thing about it is the live orchestra when realistically there's lots more to it that they've thrown at it. That's why I don't really buy the argument about it being the wrong audience. If I'm paying a significant amount of money to see something live, I want to see value for my money.
It's a music gig, a live performance of a famous bestselling album (still one of the biggest selling albums ever in the UK), conducted by the original artist live on stage.
Plenty of people regularly pay a similar amount to see their favourite band on stage, with none of the extra drama and performance aspects this has, so the "value for money" argument is a non starter - unless you think you've paid for something you're not getting (which may well be the case if you thought it was a traditional musical).
I didn't have any issues whatsoever with the production values, but again for my money most of the stuff happening on stage is simply to give your eyeballs something to do while you're listening to the performance(!)
All that said they clearly have cast to appeal to a much wider range of people and bring in new blood - their main failure in my view is in not making clear enough what exactly the show is in the marketing - being at least slight familiar with the album is nearly essential in enjoying the show, I'd say.
|
|
2,149 posts
|
Post by richey on Feb 18, 2016 11:42:54 GMT
I want to see this now just to see if how bad it really is (I loved the arena version a few years ago). As I'm in London next Saturday anyway if I can get a (very)cheap matinee ticket I may go
|
|
1,192 posts
|
Post by Steve on Feb 18, 2016 11:43:25 GMT
It's a music gig, a live performance of a famous bestselling album (still one of the biggest selling albums ever in the UK), conducted by the original artist live on stage.
Plenty of people regularly pay a similar amount to see their favourite band on stage, with none of the extra drama and performance aspects this has
. . . their failure in my view is them not making clear enough what exactly the show is.
I agree. Here's a similar example. Kate Bush's "Before the Dawn" at Hammersmith Apollo was advertised as a music gig. The added theatrical bells and whistles, with a storyline progressing the songs from one to the next, resulted in music reviewers giving 5 stars across the board. God forbid if that show had played to theatrical critics at the Dominion, who would have evaluated the story as underproduced thin gruel, with a helicopter effect that had been done 30 years earlier to greater effect by Miss Saigon, or whatnot. And Bush didn't even stump up for an onscreen superstar, Liam Neeson either, she stumped up for an onscreen Kevin Doyle, a Downton Abbey butler. Simply put, this is a music gig with the addition of some astonishing theatrical bells and whistles, not a theatrical story with added music. Expectations and familiarity are everything.
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by bulletproof on Feb 18, 2016 11:55:11 GMT
I agree. Here's a similar example. Kate Bush's "Before the Dawn" at Hammersmith Apollo was advertised as a music gig. The added theatrical bells and whistles, with a storyline progressing the songs from one to the next, resulted in music reviewers giving 5 stars across the board. God forbid if that show had played to theatrical critics at the Dominion, who would have evaluated the story as underproduced thin gruel, with a helicopter effect that had been done 30 years earlier to greater effect by Miss Saigon, or whatnot. And Bush didn't even stump up for an onscreen superstar, Liam Neeson either, she stumped up for an onscreen Kevin Doyle, a Downton Abbey butler. Simply put, this is a music gig with the addition of some astonishing theatrical bells and whistles, not a theatrical story with added music. Expectations and familiarity are everything. Couldn't have put it better.
I'd have loved to have seen Before the Dawn, incidentally, but it wasn't to be. I can only hold out the forlorn hope that it'll one day be released on DVD (or that, joy of joys, she might do another run of it at some point).
|
|
377 posts
|
Post by Nelly on Feb 18, 2016 12:03:29 GMT
It's a music gig, a live performance of a famous bestselling album (still one of the biggest selling albums ever in the UK), conducted by the original artist live on stage.
Plenty of people regularly pay a similar amount to see their favourite band on stage, with none of the extra drama and performance aspects this has
. . . their failure in my view is them not making clear enough what exactly the show is.
I agree. Here's a similar example. Kate Bush's "Before the Dawn" at Hammersmith Apollo was advertised as a music gig. The added theatrical bells and whistles, with a storyline progressing the songs from one to the next, resulted in music reviewers giving 5 stars across the board. God forbid if that show had played to theatrical critics at the Dominion, who would have evaluated the story as underproduced thin gruel, with a helicopter effect that had been done 30 years earlier to greater effect by Miss Saigon, or whatnot. And Bush didn't even stump up for an onscreen superstar, Liam Neeson either, she stumped up for an onscreen Kevin Doyle, a Downton Abbey butler. Simply put, this is a music gig with the addition of some astonishing theatrical bells and whistles, not a theatrical story with added music. Expectations and familiarity are everything. My own opinion was that everything bar the live orchestra was a let down or missed opportunity which means that overall it wasn't an enjoyable night out. It had nothing to do with me being expecting a dramatic musical theatre piece, from a production value point of view, I thought it sucked! This is the point I'm trying to make, it's all the other elements other than the music which I thought let it down as a whole. They've decided to stage it like this so just saying 'It's a music gig' over and over again doesn't change that in it's current incarnation, it's actually more than just that. This review seems to agree with me haha! www.westendframe.com/2016/02/review-war-of-worlds-at-dominion-theatre.html
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by bulletproof on Feb 18, 2016 12:20:59 GMT
My own opinion was that everything bar the live orchestra was a let down or missed opportunity which means that overall it wasn't an enjoyable night out. It had nothing to do with me being expecting a dramatic musical theatre piece, from a production value point of view, I thought it sucked! This is the point I'm trying to make, it's all the other elements other than the music which I thought let it down as a whole. They've decided to stage it like this so just saying 'It's a music gig' over and over again doesn't change that in it's current incarnation, it's actually more than just that. This review seems to agree with me haha! www.westendframe.com/2016/02/review-war-of-worlds-at-dominion-theatre.html While this one, by a critic of some experience, strongly disagrees with you! theatrecat.com/2016/02/17/war-of-the-worlds-dominion-w1/These things are subjective of course, and we've all got our own views. I just think you've got to try and judge something on it's own terms, for what it is. Comparing this to other West End musicals as if it wasn't a musical performance first and foremost misses the point quite a bit, I'd say.
|
|
377 posts
|
Post by Nelly on Feb 18, 2016 12:44:08 GMT
My own opinion was that everything bar the live orchestra was a let down or missed opportunity which means that overall it wasn't an enjoyable night out. It had nothing to do with me being expecting a dramatic musical theatre piece, from a production value point of view, I thought it sucked! This is the point I'm trying to make, it's all the other elements other than the music which I thought let it down as a whole. They've decided to stage it like this so just saying 'It's a music gig' over and over again doesn't change that in it's current incarnation, it's actually more than just that. This review seems to agree with me haha! www.westendframe.com/2016/02/review-war-of-worlds-at-dominion-theatre.html While this one, by a critic of some experience, strongly disagrees with you! theatrecat.com/2016/02/17/war-of-the-worlds-dominion-w1/These things are subjective of course, and we've all got our own views. I just think you've got to try and judge something on it's own terms, for what it is. Comparing this to other West End musicals as if it wasn't a musical performance first and foremost misses the point quite a bit, I'd say. Haha I'm aware I was being facetious! Yes, this is what I love about theatre (and arts) in general is that it can totally split opinions and different people can get different things out of it. Hey, that's exactly why we're all still here on this new board! It is quite amazing how it's split so many critics though!
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Feb 18, 2016 16:38:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Feb 18, 2016 21:03:47 GMT
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Feb 18, 2016 21:42:08 GMT
This makes The Hunting of the Snark look like a theatrical masterpiece!
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by bulletproof on Feb 19, 2016 10:22:34 GMT
|
|
665 posts
|
Post by westendcub on Feb 22, 2016 18:30:20 GMT
Well I now find myself going along to this tonight!
Such a mixed response..I'm not quite sure what I'm letting myself in for!!
I do not know the recording at all...I've only ever seen the Tom Cruise movie.
Well will be a interesting one indeed!!
|
|
665 posts
|
Post by westendcub on Feb 22, 2016 21:02:59 GMT
I'm quite enjoying it's campy charm thus far (no I haven't had a pinch of wine), granted I'm on a freebie...will report back later!!
lots of fire, can feel the heat in row D!!!
|
|
665 posts
|
Post by westendcub on Feb 22, 2016 23:33:04 GMT
So after those reviews & the talk on here, I went in expecting a disaster of a show but instead had an enjoyable evening.
Now this was my first hearing the score or seeing the piece so have nothing to compare it to but I loved how campy & breezy it all was. Yes the special effects are cheesy, lots of lasers & Fire (I was in stalls row D) & could feel the heat, once or twice I got rather nervous with the ensemble being so close to the flames!
It's definitely a pop rock concert rather than a musical, the ensemble & the orchestra are definitely the players doing most of the work but the stunt cast voices were in fine form & the big surprise of the night was Daniel Bedingfield..he nailed his big song in Act 2 & got the biggest cheer at curtain call.
Went to this last minute, low expectations but enjoyed the spectacle & the cheese!!
|
|
|
Post by Honoured Guest on Feb 23, 2016 0:18:11 GMT
Where's Parsley? I want to hear how this is the best thing since Bend It Like Beckham.
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Feb 23, 2016 0:31:48 GMT
Where's Parsley? I want to hear how this is the best thing since Bend It Like Beckham. Well this production is culturally significant for half a million Tripods.
|
|
255 posts
|
Post by grannyjx6 on Mar 14, 2016 20:53:19 GMT
Well I went with my husband on Saturday night having watched the Arena tour several years ago. Sorry to say I found it boring. The music is good but the story (such as it is) dragged on...and on.... We got our tickets for half price and there were lots of empty seats so obviously not selling well.
|
|
1,639 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Mar 15, 2016 23:20:05 GMT
I've just booked to see this Mid June after finding a front row seat for £20. I hope people don't get caught out with the print at home ticket having more Aldwych Theatre branding than Dominion!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 12:40:38 GMT
Is this still going?
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 17, 2016 21:55:09 GMT
This is high on spectacle, which in turn makes the piece fail even more, it was exasperating watching a screen being lowered and raised all the time to accommodate Liam Neeson, oh hell I can't be bothered to write anymore on this, it is crap................. period!
1 star
|
|
6,333 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by danb on Mar 17, 2016 22:52:48 GMT
This is high on spectacle, which in turn makes the piece fail even more, it was exasperating watching a screen being lowered and raised all the time to accommodate Liam Neeson, oh hell I can't be bothered to write anymore on this, it is crap................. period! 1 star On tour Liam had his own permanent 'framework', if you will. I wonder why they didn't give him his own spot on the 'not exactly small' Dominion stage? It wouldn't make it any better, but maybe a touch shorter.
|
|
18 posts
|
Post by missmelon on Mar 22, 2016 11:12:42 GMT
I went to see this on Saturday and absolutely loved it. I've only ever seen the show in the form of the New Generation dvd so this was the first time I've actually seen it live. A couple of dodgy notes from some of the performers near the start, but then they were great. Saw the understudy for the artilleryman, who was absolutely incredible! Will be going to see it again if me and my friend can match our schedules up
|
|
1,936 posts
|
Post by wickedgrin on Mar 22, 2016 13:29:04 GMT
Emailed an offer for this for top price seats down to £30 from £69 Mon - Fri performances -lots of good availability! Go to the Dominion website and put TWOTW30 into the voucher box. I think available to 15th April.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 13:37:28 GMT
This is high on spectacle, which in turn makes the piece fail even more, it was exasperating watching a screen being lowered and raised all the time to accommodate Liam Neeson, oh hell I can't be bothered to write anymore on this, it is crap................. period! 1 star You sound like Mark Shenton. You'll be putting your face on a tea towel next.
|
|
33 posts
|
Post by chinatoy on Mar 22, 2016 16:14:58 GMT
This production really seems to have the Marmite factor. I don't think I'll risk it, just hang on to my memories of the arena tour which was awesome and included the legendary Justin Hayward.
|
|
372 posts
|
Post by hitmewithurbethshot on Mar 23, 2016 21:12:46 GMT
Is Daniel Bedingfield alright? Looks like Simon Shorten's been on for the Artillaryman quite a bit recently.
|
|
617 posts
|
Post by loureviews on Apr 2, 2016 18:02:02 GMT
Simon Shorten was on again today - he's fabulous!
I really liked this. Great score, big on spectacle, and a joy to see Jeff Wayne conducting proceedings.
I would replace Jimmy Nail though - terrible actor - remove the flying ghost and cut down on the screen drops to accommodate Liam Neeson's narration.
It is very hot on the front row with all the frequent flames and there is also a foul smell from the smoke which spills into the stalls in Act Two.
Edit: forget to mention thumbs up for Michael Praed and David Essex!
|
|