3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Jun 6, 2016 20:19:44 GMT
She has the right not to like the genre, infofreako.
I read the tweet again. She doesn't even say what I thought she said. She says she doesn't like musicals but like "theatre" i.e. she likes straight theatre/non-musicals. What's the big deal? I actually happen not to like non-musical theatre. I really don't understand why people feel insulted when there is nothing disrespectful in what she says.
|
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2016 20:24:45 GMT
hmmm...I might sound like a self-loathing musical theatre fan, but I do get what she's trying to say, despite how clunky and pedestrian she comes across. Musicals are not considered high performance art. They are not ballet, opera or classical music, and they are not Shakespeare or drama like Ibsen, Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, etc. The reality is that musicals are actually pretty simplistic, popular and earnest. Nothing wrong with that, clearly I am on a musicals board and musicals are the thing I am most passionate about in life. To call musicals not "theatre" is factually wrong. I think what she means to say is that musicals is not the highest form of theatre, which, I think she is entitled to. Transfering this to literature, aren't her Harry Potter books considered as being the Musicals of literature? I read the tweet again. She doesn't even say what I thought she said. She says she doesn't like musicals but like "theatre" i.e. she likes straight theatre/non-musicals. What's the big deal? I actually happen not to like non-musical theatre. I really don't understand why people feel insulted when there is nothing disrespectful in what she says. Maybe she should have used the word Plays instead. |
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jun 6, 2016 20:29:10 GMT
hmmm...I might sound like a self-loathing musical theatre fan, but I do get what she's trying to say, despite how clunky and pedestrian she comes across. Musicals are not considered high performance art. They are not ballet, opera or classical music, and they are not Shakespeare or drama like Ibsen, Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, etc. The reality is that musicals are actually pretty simplistic, popular and earnest. Nothing wrong with that, clearly I am on a musicals board and musicals are the thing I am most passionate about in life. To call musicals not "theatre" is factually wrong. I think what she means to say is that musicals is not the highest form of theatre, which, I think she is entitled to. There are some musicals I wouldn't classify as 'simplistic' at all (Sondheim's work pops to mind first- Passion for example) but there are others too.. But I get what you're saying. She could have worded it "straight theatre" or "plays" and this debate wouldn't be... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 20:48:20 GMT
It's not that she doesn't like musicals, it's that she doesn't class them as theatre. Mind you I've see people on here say the same thing about shows like Thriller, let it be, the illusionists etc
Anyone else I'd say it's a mistake, but jk rowling seems to canny and knowing to do something like that
|
|
751 posts
|
Post by horton on Jun 6, 2016 20:53:18 GMT
It's ok because I don't count Harry Potter as Literature. As Truman Capote would say, "that isn't writing, it's typing".
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jun 6, 2016 20:56:25 GMT
Unrelated at all, but there is a rumor (from a less than legitimate source, but still funny, even if untrue- just the notion) that when Rowling was in NY recently she went to see Hamilton and walked out at intermission.. ha
|
|
19,656 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 6, 2016 21:17:17 GMT
Pompous moo!
|
|
527 posts
|
Post by Hamilton Addict on Jun 6, 2016 21:18:33 GMT
She went to see Hamilton and walked out at intermission.  |
|
40 posts
|
Post by kenneth on Jun 6, 2016 21:23:23 GMT
Well I don't like straight plays based on a successful franchise that greedily play in two parts forcing fans to spend double!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 21:25:00 GMT
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Jun 6, 2016 21:25:59 GMT
I saw JK Rowling come out of the Savoy a couple of weeks ago when I was day seating for Funny Girl.
Maybe the rowdy day seaters cluttering up the hotel exterior have helped form this opinion...
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Jun 6, 2016 21:27:22 GMT
Well I don't like straight plays based on a successful franchise that greedily play in two parts forcing fans to spend double! Or a book split into two films instead of one?! |
|
834 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stuartmcd on Jun 6, 2016 21:28:00 GMT
Well I don't like straight plays based on a successful franchise that greedily play in two parts forcing fans to spend double! Well the top price tickets for both parts is £130 altogether. Compare that to say Book of Mormon whose top price ticket is £150 I think it's pretty reasonable that you are getting around 5 hours of theatre for that price. And like I said that is top price. There are cheaper options. |
|
527 posts
|
Post by Hamilton Addict on Jun 6, 2016 21:40:51 GMT
|
|
40 posts
|
Post by kenneth on Jun 6, 2016 22:07:47 GMT
Well I don't like straight plays based on a successful franchise that greedily play in two parts forcing fans to spend double! Well the top price tickets for both parts is £130 altogether. Compare that to say Book of Mormon whose top price ticket is £150 I think it's pretty reasonable that you are getting around 5 hours of theatre for that price. And like I said that is top price. There are cheaper options. Oh come on...you are citing the only production on the West End stage that can get away with charging 100% above face value. The standard top price is £65/70. If you take your kids to one part, they'll want to see both...I am a Parent, take it from me this is blatant greed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 22:09:23 GMT
I think we need a spoiler thread for people who haven't read the original tweet yet
|
|
834 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stuartmcd on Jun 6, 2016 22:17:53 GMT
Well the top price tickets for both parts is £130 altogether. Compare that to say Book of Mormon whose top price ticket is £150 I think it's pretty reasonable that you are getting around 5 hours of theatre for that price. And like I said that is top price. There are cheaper options. Oh come on...you are citing the only production on the West End stage that can get away with charging 100% above face value. The standard top price is £65/70. If you take your kids to one part, they'll want to see both...I am a Parent, take it from me this is blatant greed. Wicked - £125 Les Mis - £127 Matilda - £122 Lion King- £127 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - £125 Funny Girl - £125 |
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jun 6, 2016 22:31:51 GMT
Oh come on...you are citing the only production on the West End stage that can get away with charging 100% above face value. The standard top price is £65/70. If you take your kids to one part, they'll want to see both...I am a Parent, take it from me this is blatant greed. Wicked - £125 Les Mis - £127 Matilda - £122 Lion King- £127 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - £125 Funny Girl - £125 Those are musicals though, don't plays usually charge less? Edit: I take it back. Did some googling and this came up: According to the survey, the average price for the best seat at a commercial West End play has increased from £78.24 in 2013 to £80.45 And this is from 2014, I imagine it rise since too... So 130 for 2 shows is somewhat low in comparison... I wonder if they'll raise their prices at some point |
|
834 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by stuartmcd on Jun 6, 2016 22:38:37 GMT
Wicked - £125 Les Mis - £127 Matilda - £122 Lion King- £127 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - £125 Funny Girl - £125 Those are musicals though, don't plays usually charge less? Oh absolutely but let's face it this has the broad appeal of a musical and a production level to match. For just one part the top price is £65 which is what you'd expect from a play but two parts together takes it up to top musical pricing. It's not like each part is only 1 hour each and could easily be one play. The running time in total is around 5 hours! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 22:56:44 GMT
With ali973 and Michael on this one. Yes, she probably should have said 'plays', but her basic point is fair enough: she prefers plays to musicals.
I prefer plays to musicals as well. If that makes me a pompous moo, so be it. I've seen some very good musical theatre performances, but none of them have come close to making me feel the real depth of emotion that an equivalent actor in a play has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 23:15:47 GMT
Blimey, I have some very good friends who love theatre but can't stand musicals, are you going to rip holes in them too? What a bile-filled thread we have here.
|
|
448 posts
|
Post by ShoesForRent on Jun 6, 2016 23:17:27 GMT
Those are musicals though, don't plays usually charge less? Oh absolutely but let's face it this has the broad appeal of a musical and a production level to match. For just one part the top price is £65 which is what you'd expect from a play but two parts together takes it up to top musical pricing. It's not like each part is only 1 hour each and could easily be one play. The running time in total is around 5 hours! Yes I guess (re: the production values). Also see my edit- I corrected myself later |
|
1,476 posts
|
Post by Steve on Jun 6, 2016 23:41:40 GMT
So JK Rowling doesn't like musicals. That's fine. She isn't telling anyone else not to like them, and she hasn't said there's anything wrong with them, just that she just doesn't like them herself. That's a matter of her taste, and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, there may be some musicals, the magic of which she hasn't yet experienced, so she might change her mind one day. And that would be ok too.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 0:16:15 GMT
I find it quite amusing that there's a four page thread on this...
Has it crossed anyone's mind that she probably said the first word she thought of to describe the type of show she meant (and thus said theatre instead of plays, which is perfectly correct as plays are straight theatre in its original form), and the Guardian reporter simply moved on rather than asking her to elaborate, with the result that they couldn't report it any other way. Or, you know, it might have been entirely obvious to the Guardian reporter what she meant...
How that leads people to spout vitriol against her for use of a single word, without thinking any more about what it might have meant, I will never understand.
|
|
7,051 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Jon on Jun 7, 2016 0:39:49 GMT
JK Rowling is protective of her characters and probably the idea of Harry Potter as a musical didn't appeal to her. I suspect it was worded wrongly and it'll blow over. She doesn't like comics either hence why she never given approval for a comic book adaptation of the books even though it would make a lot of money for both her and Warner Bros/DC Comics.
I like musicals but I understand that many people don't like them but there are plenty of plays that have struck a chord with audiences like War Horse, Curious Incident and I suspect it was those sorts of plays which made JK think there was potential for Harry Potter to work in the theatrical medium.
|
|
