594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 15, 2022 9:23:28 GMT
Bizarre comparison to put Dirty Dancing at the Dominion next to Into the Woods. No-one ever expected this production to be doing 2000 seats a show performances.
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Nov 15, 2022 10:35:50 GMT
Remember why this was cancelled at the Old Vic in the first place. Whatever you think of that decision, it's likely a big consideration for the big London theatre owners - is it worth finding themselves at the wrong end of a social media/PR storm?
|
|
|
Post by danb on Nov 15, 2022 11:16:01 GMT
The production was not radically different to what came before so, yes, I totally get that Gilliams name on it is has added little, and detracted a lot. The Old Vic must have lost a fortune on this, mostly due to all the Spacey business that has in turn made them oversensitive to Gilliams blustering insensitivities and archaism.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 15, 2022 12:27:34 GMT
Remember why this was cancelled at the Old Vic in the first place. Whatever you think of that decision, it's likely a big consideration for the big London theatre owners - is it worth finding themselves at the wrong end of a social media/PR storm? All in all I don’t think Theatre Royal, Bath suffered much as a consequence, nor the production itself. It was a talking point at times, sure, but even in coverage on BBC World News it was hardly painted as overly controversial and made little impact during the run. So the only way you could use the word storm to describe any potential reaction would be in the context of ‘storm in a teacup’.
|
|
|
Post by max on Nov 15, 2022 12:44:45 GMT
I liked the production shots of outsize and out-of-scale objects being dropped into the toy theatre (by a child, we'd presume) - a huge watch, a child's toy's legs as the giant, a recognisable toy for Milky White. Has it been done this way before? That seemed to be Gilliam's original take, and so fitting his imagination, thinking of the Monty Python titles animation, with the huge foot etc.
It looks stunning, compared to the Encores semi-staged version in NYC.
I would have thought that there was enough box office mileage from the production values, and (much more) the adoration of Sondheim that would make it viable for a run in London. So...
...could it be that another Director has an idea for their own Into The Woods and London producers are favouring that possibility and blocking this?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on Nov 15, 2022 13:51:28 GMT
Or London venue owners are looking at the (cheaper, critically adored) Broadway production and thinking maybe that'd be a better option
|
|
7,052 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 15, 2022 13:59:29 GMT
It's a bit naive to think Into the Woods would become a smash in London when it wasn't selling that well in Bath.
|
|
|
Post by danb on Nov 15, 2022 14:08:36 GMT
I’m not sure what other framing devices could be used, but I’m certainly aware of other productions that have used both child's play and dolls house conceits; from GCSE drama upwards.If all Gilliam contributed was a riff on his Monty Python feet and giant props his name should have been a whole lot smaller in the programme!
|
|
3,529 posts
|
Post by Rory on Nov 15, 2022 14:09:57 GMT
It's a bit naive to think Into the Woods would become a smash in London when it wasn't selling that well in Bath. I take it you're not a fan, then!?
|
|
2,676 posts
|
Post by viserys on Nov 15, 2022 14:22:31 GMT
You can be a fan and still be realistic.
The box office of the much celebrated Into the Woods revival on Broadway fell off a cliff the moment Sara Bareilles left, too.
I think the Sondheim fans must start to accept that there's a new generation of theatre lovers who just don't care that much for the man anymore and bigger revivals can only work with star names attached to them now (like Bareilles, Jake Gyllenhaal in Sunday in the Park or soon Sweeney Todd with Josh Groban). If the production from Bath transferred in, it would need to hire 1-2 big names, too and they probably can't afford it.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 15, 2022 14:25:14 GMT
It's a bit naive to think Into the Woods would become a smash in London when it wasn't selling that well in Bath. Not sure what your agenda is here... It was a slow sell but it did sell well; not a sell out run granted, but have there really been that many across the regions in recent years? It was a very full house both times I went (top and tail of the run) but as I've said earlier it was never likely to obliterate the box office with a sell out run in Bath during the summer holidays.
|
|
7,052 posts
|
Post by Jon on Nov 15, 2022 14:33:44 GMT
You can be a fan and still be realistic. The box office of the much celebrated Into the Woods revival on Broadway fell off a cliff the moment Sara Bareilles left, too. I think the Sondheim fans must start to accept that there's a new generation of theatre lovers who just don't care that much for the man anymore and bigger revivals can only work with star names attached to them now (like Bareilles, Jake Gyllenhaal in Sunday in the Park or soon Sweeney Todd with Josh Groban). If the production from Bath transferred in, it would need to hire 1-2 big names, too and they probably can't afford it. I agree, I don't have any agenda. I'm just realistic about ITW's commercial prospects and while we can complain about the quality of shows coming in, we're thinking like theatre fans and not theatre owners who have to balance between something that is risky or something that will sell and tide them over for a few months before a bigger show comes in.
|
|
872 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Nov 15, 2022 14:41:08 GMT
You can be a fan and still be realistic. The box office of the much celebrated Into the Woods revival on Broadway fell off a cliff the moment Sara Bareilles left, too. I think the Sondheim fans must start to accept that there's a new generation of theatre lovers who just don't care that much for the man anymore and bigger revivals can only work with star names attached to them now (like Bareilles, Jake Gyllenhaal in Sunday in the Park or soon Sweeney Todd with Josh Groban). If the production from Bath transferred in, it would need to hire 1-2 big names, too and they probably can't afford it. I don't think it's that there's a new generation of theatre lovers who don't care that much for the man, I think that's always been the case. Most of his shows' original productions flopped and subsequent revivals have sometimes been successful but usually because they're scaled down and they still don't run that long.
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Nov 15, 2022 15:01:10 GMT
I don't think it's that there's a new generation of theatre lovers who don't care that much for the man, I think that's always been the case. Most of his shows' original productions flopped and subsequent revivals have sometimes been successful but usually because they're scaled down and they still don't run that long. Was going to say the same thing, Sondheim revivals generate huge amounts of chat and excitement within the theatre community and almost no interest at all outside of it. The recent Company revival did well by essentially being a very new take done in a very good way, it generated raves and hype and had a very nice run. Could it have sold out the Dominion for 6 months? Probably not. Younger generations of theatre fans like him the same in my view, on TikTok for example all these teenage MT fans do talk about his shows, but he's no more and no less commercially appealing than he ever was.
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 15, 2022 15:03:13 GMT
You can be a fan and still be realistic. The box office of the much celebrated Into the Woods revival on Broadway fell off a cliff the moment Sara Bareilles left, too. I think the Sondheim fans must start to accept that there's a new generation of theatre lovers who just don't care that much for the man anymore and bigger revivals can only work with star names attached to them now (like Bareilles, Jake Gyllenhaal in Sunday in the Park or soon Sweeney Todd with Josh Groban). If the production from Bath transferred in, it would need to hire 1-2 big names, too and they probably can't afford it. I agree, I don't have any agenda. I'm just realistic about ITW's commercial prospects and while we can complain about the quality of shows coming in, we're thinking like theatre fans and not theatre owners who have to balance between something that is risky or something that will sell and tide them over for a few months before a bigger show comes in. Not sure how you can claim to be "realistic about ITW's commercial prospects" whilst spinning all kinds of nonsensical, illogical yarn such as comparing a regional production of ITW to Dirty Dancing at the Dominion or quoting ill-informed assumption on box office sales, but hey, that's the funny thing about forums.
|
|
|
Post by max on Nov 16, 2022 17:54:08 GMT
Or London venue owners are looking at the (cheaper, critically adored) Broadway production and thinking maybe that'd be a better option This feels very possible. I've watched a few clips of the Broadway Encores version - the witch looks very good, but I didn't like the rest. I just never like the way American productions seem to do 'fairy tale' in any clips of Into The Woods productions from the first til now. Too much of it feels 'bibbidi bobbidi boo' and aware "look we're doing fairy tale" rather than being 'in it'. Self-conscious 'ensemble' with the audience too vocally joining in to self-affirm "hey, we're all making a show together, isn't it neat?". It may just be what the accent does to it that makes it feel downhome cutesy. Unfair of me - however much they may be European fairy tales by origin, it is after all an American piece. Maybe that makes me anti-American in theatre taste or a snob, or both. I'd better say both before someone else does, lol. I was looking forward to the Gilliam version.
|
|
|
Post by danb on Nov 16, 2022 18:12:03 GMT
I must stick up for ITW here because it was more like ‘A Company of Wolves’ fairytale than Humpty Dumpty. Whilst it had some childish elements it was more ‘Blue Remembered Hills’ adults playing kids than Blood Brothers style ‘childish’.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndyc4ne on Nov 16, 2022 18:15:26 GMT
Also - even though it looks like it's been stopped for now, doesn't mean it can't come in the future.
City of Angels took five years to transfer!
|
|
|
Post by max on Nov 16, 2022 18:33:14 GMT
I must stick up for ITW here because it was more like ‘A Company of Wolves’ fairytale than Humpty Dumpty. Whilst it had some childish elements it was more ‘Blue Remembered Hills’ adults playing kids than Blood Brothers style ‘childish’. This is what I like about the look of Gilliam's version. I've edited my post to be clearer it was what I've seen of American versions that I wasn't so keen on.
|
|
|
Post by bobbievanhusen on Nov 16, 2022 22:47:39 GMT
They would have to add some names to the cast for it to sell, but that just adds to the weekly running costs. In the current economy with people having to cut back, budget and generally make their money go further, people are very unlikely to go to a Sondheim show with no one they know in it.
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Nov 16, 2022 23:01:29 GMT
A name for the Baker would be sensible - he was very weak. To be honest, I would say they only have to keep Alex Young, Audrey Brisson and Julian Bleach, apart from that they could change virtually any other actor for me.
|
|
|
Post by jacob on Nov 17, 2022 11:00:28 GMT
A name for the Baker would be sensible - he was very weak. To be honest, I would say they only have to keep Alex Young, Audrey Brisson and Julian Bleach, apart from that they could change virtually any other actor for me. no Barney?? or Lauren? <//3
|
|
1,081 posts
|
Post by andrew on Nov 17, 2022 11:15:40 GMT
A name for the Baker would be sensible - he was very weak. To be honest, I would say they only have to keep Alex Young, Audrey Brisson and Julian Bleach, apart from that they could change virtually any other actor for me. Somewhere in LA, James Corden's ears start burning
|
|
5,139 posts
|
Post by Being Alive on Nov 17, 2022 11:42:13 GMT
I thought both Barney and Lauren were fine jacob but not spectacular enough that the production would be worse off without them. andrew Corden isn't headed for this, but I have heard he's headed for something else on our shores...
|
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on Nov 17, 2022 12:16:54 GMT
I thought both Barney and Lauren were fine jacob but not spectacular enough that the production would be worse off without them. andrew Corden isn't headed for this, but I have heard he's headed for something else on our shores... What about Nicola Hughes? I thought her performance as the Witch was one of the key elements that made the show, despite being somewhat impinged by her wardrobe. Agree about Alex Young needing to return to this. Barney was good but I got the impression it was a gig to get through him the summer and heart wasn't in it. Corden's prob gonna end up in 1M2G I'd guess?
|
|