|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 23:27:56 GMT
I still can't get over the down-right bizarre casting for this.
Bring on the reviews!
|
|
|
|
Post by Seriously on Feb 18, 2016 0:31:51 GMT
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 18, 2016 5:05:30 GMT
Never heard the album but am now really tempted to go, just to see for myself what people are talking about!
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Feb 18, 2016 5:29:50 GMT
Thanks. Will add this to the growing list of new shows that fail on the "would go but shame about the casting" argument. Lord knows there's enough top singers resting their vocal cords they could pick from. |
|
5,906 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Feb 18, 2016 7:58:27 GMT
Love that they are selling it saying its one of the 'starriest' casts in years... What a load of z list performers who have no career anymore!
They should have cast Sinnitta too!
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 18, 2016 8:48:34 GMT
Well, Libby Purves has rated it 4-star - maybe it's one for the older audience?
|
|
816 posts
|
Post by stefy69 on Feb 18, 2016 8:50:18 GMT
The review in The Times this morning gave it no stars, first time I've ever seen that.....
|
|
3,578 posts
|
Post by showgirl on Feb 18, 2016 9:10:11 GMT
Wow, a complete range! So maybe more chance of offers for those uncertain whether to take the risk?
|
|
33 posts
|
Post by chinatoy on Feb 18, 2016 10:45:43 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.
|
|
17 posts
|
Post by bulletproof on Feb 18, 2016 10:45:47 GMT
The review in The Times this morning gave it no stars, first time I've ever seen that.....
Really ridiculous - can't track down the article online, but I can only assume that's riding on the general negative buzz of the early shows or down to a grudge of some sort...
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
2,263 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
|
|
1,499 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).
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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
|
|
751 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
|
|
679 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!!
|
|
