Why in heaven's name didn't Little Women do better?!- Page 2

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 4:35pm

Didn't it have problems because of too many cooks in the kitchen. Like someone else wrote the score(which was supposed to be amazing), and then there was some sort of disagreement with the book writers, so the show was kind of disjoint? I heard that they produced another version with the songs that were originally supposed to be in the Broadway run. Maybe I am just talkin' out me bum, but I remember something like that going on.

[gcal]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 5:28pm

i saw the tour in San Jose- I forget which understudy for Jo I had, but she was ATROCIOUS...I probably would have liked it better had I seen Sutton in the role. McGovern was fantastic.

Astonishing? More like Big Mess.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 5:34pm

Acrocksyo...I believe that could have been the reason...I actually have the program from Seussical's tryout in Boston advertising a pre-Broadway run for 2002...three years before the NY production...Obviously something happened, and it probably disjointed along the way...I'll try to dig it up right now.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 5:39pm

Little Women was one of the worst shows I've seen in the last 3 or 4 years. I agree that the score was amateurish, and even the most memorable songs had their share of just plain weirdness. The book was practically non-existent.

Such a waste of Sutton and Maureen.

[Julian2]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 5:46pm

I wonder how it will do in community productions.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 5:55pm

I saw the last Broadway performance and I think the problem was in the advetising, Yes, I realize the title won't attract many men, but advertising it on tv as a great show to bring your daughter and granddaughter to - hurt it a lot.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 6:00pm

I think the score is pretty plain.

[eppsdaman]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 7:02pm

I saw the tour about a year ago as well, and I think the only saving grace was the cast. There are a couple pretty things (Astonishing, Days of Plenty), but there is also a lot of derivative, unmemorable things. I think it will probably do well in regional theaters, because of the novel and the fact that it is pretty accessible material. However, the period that it is set in may be expensive for a lot of community theaters, so who knows what could happen?

[singingshowgirl]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 9:03pm

i saw the show and enjoyed it....but it didn't have all the charm the way the book did. the script was very boring and it jsut didn't bring the delight....sutton foster did a really really nice job, though

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 10:07pm

and what's up with that song "Could You?" Goodness that is not a good song. Also not good Little Women songs: "The Most Amazing Thing", "Five Forever song thing", "Take a chance on me song". I don't like "How I am"
I like Astonishing. Kind of...random though
I like The Fire Within Me. Good use of Jo's character
I like Days of Plenty
I like Small Umbrella in the Rain. BUT GOD ITS SLOOOOOOW


Whenever I read a novel, I always sort of play it in my mind as I'm reading with actors I know just because that's how I kind of learned how to read...and I always thought of Victor Garber as Jo's husband.

[VonTussleGirl]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 10:18pm

"Could You?" makes me cringe.

"If you could, that would be good" is possibly one of the worst rhymes I've heard in a looooong time.

[myManCape]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 10:47pm

I enjoyed the score very much. But then again its Sutton Foster and Maureen McGover how can you go wrong. I'll agree that the show simply was not memorable in any way, just very plain.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/27/06 at 11:33pm

But then again its Sutton Foster and Maureen McGover how can you go wrong.

Aha ha ha.

I'd like to see them as Claudia and Gabrielle in Lestat, then. You can't go WRONG!!!1!

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 12:04am

It's interesting that so many say that the book was terrible, I agree and I think the music was awful as well, but I think the source material can work in a musical context.

Mark Adamo's opera that played at NYC opera around the time (maybe a year or so before) was absolutely excellent in almost every detail, the story was engaging, the music had meaning and melody, which is rare for today some say.

If you're not familiar and are a fan of the book, and long for a more satisfying Little Woman musical experience, then I urge you to become familiar with Adamo's opera, it's thrilling.

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 1:08am

There's an opera of it? I'll certainly check it out- I always thought Little Women could succeed on stage. I'd like to see a really good play version but there's so many things you could do with music. Each of the 4 sisters has such a different personality that it could be versatile. Throw in the men and the mother and you have a diverse set of people who are bound together. Perfect for a musical. Plus it's perfectly sweet. The musical was just all wrong, sadly.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 1:23am

Yes, there was another version of Little Women that was intended to go to Broadway, but it was scrapped and the one that actually played the Virginia Theater is what was chosen.

The original version was produced earlier this year at The Spirit of Broadway Theater in Norwich, Connecticut. I saw the show on opening night and I, along with the folks I was with, was very disappointed. The music had its few good points, but was, for the most part, forgettable and the lyrics were downright juvenile and did nothing for the story. Despite this, the theater's subscribers voted for it in numerous categories in the theater's annual award ceremony, including Best Score and Best Lyrics. (It was a slow year.)

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 1:27am

Joshua, you're not referring to Adamo's opera, are you? because it was never slated for Broadway, it's not a musical.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 1:34am

Joshua, it wasn't THIS version, was it? Because it's pretty atrocious (Dave Willetts notwithstanding).
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Theatre-Review/little-women-the-musical-review

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 1:43am

This was one of the more dissapointing shows I've ever seen. I was looking forward to it more than anything else that season and was so let down. There was only one good song (Days of Plenty) and please don't even get me started on the ridiculous things they did with that story, especially having Beth get out of her wheelchair on the beach and sing a dying duet with Jo. Everyone around me just laughed.

Christ, that show was a true piece of sh*t.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 2:01am

No, it wasn't Adamo's opera or the version LizzieCurry linked to. The version I'm talking about had a book by Sean Hartley, music by Kim Oler and lyrics by Alison Hubbard.

Oler & Hubbard's Once and Future Little Women Score Gets CT Home Updated On: 12/28/06 at 02:01 AM

[jhershour]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 10:43am

I saw both the Broadway version and the tour...I do love the music and think that the overture is one of the best ever written. On top of seeing it twice, I am a huge fan of the novel having read it over 20 times. That being said, the musical book did fail to develop the characters and it failed to help the audience make an emotional connection to the sisters. In the novel, Beth's death brings me to tears everytime because she was so selfless. I could go on and on but I won't bore you.

For the person that wondered how it would fare in community theatres, I think it will be great. There are so few musicals out there that are predominatly female and yet the people auditioning are overwhelmingly female. I hope it does well.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 10:48am

I saw the tour, and I thought that the book was just a bunch of lame one-liners stringed together, and disguised as a plot.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 11:10am

Unfortunately, I'm the type of guy who heads for the hills the minute he hears the words, "Little Women." I never saw the show, period. It's got three good songs, tops. The rest of the score is cliched and generic. The cast seems to burst into song every chance they get.

I have friends who practically worship this show. That makes for some awkward times.

I just think that when it comes to adaptations in general, Little Women has been done to death. It didn't even feel fleshed out at all.

[eb412]

Posted: 12/28/06 at 2:04pm

I think that the book is so famous and beloved that there were very high expectations for the musical. I am sure there are many musical versions floating out around there and it just seemed to me...this was the best? I love most musical soundtracks but did not love or even like this one. I can not just write it off as bad though...one because it is art...and two because you said you liked it. I am not sure exactly what does not make it work. But if the score doesnt even appeal to me it cant appeal to many non musical lovers...I think the music was a little generic and old fashioned...but not in a period piece sort of way. I think when you are dealitng with characters this great you have to have music along side it just as appealing. The music needs to fit right along side a classic book! Pretty hard. If the music was not great....why would anyone need to see the story? It is already a book, play, and a few movies! It makes the musical unneeded for telling the story...the show had to really live up to a lot. Getting away from the music...its always hard to convert a book into anything...choosing the most important parts and conveying the story is harder when it was innitially meant to be read and could be as long as possible. I never saw it but from the recording...Sutton didnt seem to do the best job as JO. Almost too over the top or just not right in style for the role.....