Retire it, QUEEN!- Page 5

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 12:43pm

fallintoLight, you are DUMB.

That's all.

[FallintoLight]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 12:45pm

Thank you! I appriciate the personally attacks when you know nothing about me.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 12:46pm

I never claimed to know anything about you.

However, gaging from your pointless rants in this thread, I feel confident in saying that you're missing a few screws.

[FallintoLight]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 12:48pm

Like I said thank you for the personal attacks...although I don't feel it's necessary.

I'm simply trying to defend something I enjoy and my opinion. I see others doing the same...defending their opinion.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 12:49pm

What I found interesting about Foster's review was how much it reminded me of my review of Pirate Queen when it was running in Chicago. I also had plenty of people flame me for my opinions at the time. I am interested to hear the thoughts of people seeing this show for the first time, because I spent much of last night's preview enjoying the improvements over the weak writing from Chicago. I'm not sure what I would think of PQ if last night had been my first viewing.

As far as what's been done since the out of town tryout: Almost every lyric has been rewritten, and the new ones are far better. There's about three times as much Irish dancing now. Lots of spoken dialogue has been added, and I think they should just stop pretending this is an opera and add more. "Woman" was added. I think it's the strongest song in the score. It's the only Pirate Queen song that I sometimes can't get out of my head. The story and motivations in Act I have been greatly fleshed out.

[fachedaluna]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:08pm

Tech~

Thanks for bringing in the highlighted changes you noticed in the show. I am sure as the weeks go on, the show will grow tighter...I know for a fact the ending is being reworked and some other aspects to the show. I am not really sure if there will be any major adds/deletes at this point.

However, as it stands, I believe it has a great chance.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:18pm

Since this thread has migrated away from PQ (which I have not seen and will not comment on) into whether one goes to a show for entertainment or "as a critic," I do have 2 cents on that subject. I don't go to a show "as a critic" but I certainly can't turn off my intellectual faculties and "just enjoy" a show any more than I can do that in a movie or a concert. If I don't enjoy a show, it is my natural response to try to figure out why. If this leads me to express negative thoughts on the book, the lyrics, the staging, the performances, the costumes, etc., it is not because I am a "critic". It is because one of the joys of live theater is thinking about it - what is effective and what isn't, who carries a show and who kills it. And what results is MY opinion. But if it is negative, don't impugn my motives for expressing it. It takes a lot of effort to figure out and support a negative opinion of a show, too.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:22pm

"...but why would you waste the money going to a new show when you are looking for the flaws? I know many of you don't LOOK for them but a lot of you do. You go into shows AS critics. Where is the enjoyment in that? Unless I'm being paid to be a critic I'd rather look for the things I actually enjoy in a show and take in the entertainment of the evening!"

Ok, FallintoLight, I'm not really even sure where to begin with your statement up above. I guess I'll say that, firstly, I went into the Pirate Queen wanting to be entertained. I wouldn't waste my money otherwise. I was wholeheartedly NOT entertained and, in fact, was quite bored with the show. (This all comes from the Chicago show. I won't be seeing it in NYC.) There was absolutely nothing in the show that I could find interesting or vaguely entertaining. This made me a critic.

Secondly, let's take a look at the definition of criticism, shall we?

Criticism: the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

There's nothing in there about saying anything negative. Criticism is about EVALUATING A WORK. Honestly, I question your dedication as a lover of theatre if you never want to criticize something that you see.

My question to you is: How can you NOT turn a critical eye to something you see, keeping in mind that criticism is not necessarily an inherently negative thing? Imagine a world in which there was no criticism. Nothing would ever be accomplished properly!

Please take a look at your statement again. Don't turn a blind eye to criticism in general. You need to be able, as many of us on the boards have, to find a happy medium between enjoyment and critical analysis. You will never be a knowledgable and discerning theatregoes until you do.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:27pm

When is the High Fidelity Cast Recording coming out?

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:30pm

bryan-- Is that you?

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:33pm

Well said, SG.

For what it's worth, if someone were bored enough to take everything I've ever written about a show on here, I think there would be more positive comments than negative. In fact, I'm too nice sometimes. I still get accused of having liked "Mimi le Duck" (even though I was mostly negative about it).

etf: Not Mime le Duck! That would have been worse! Updated On: 3/7/07 at 01:33 PM

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:39pm

Thanks, Calvin. I was hoping it came out coherently.

*pinches Calvin's adorable cheeks*

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:43pm

yes!

[LuPonatic]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:57pm

whoo! if broadwayworld was a cafe where we all met face to face to discuss, instead of an online message board, I would be scared to go!

[FallintoLight]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 1:58pm

Like I said SG...I am not referring to everyone. I'm glad you went in with an open mind. I just fear that everyone is not like you and does not give the show a chance. I realize it's not everyones cup of tea and that it DOES have flaws. I'm not unrealistic. But I would rather spend my time talking about the good things and producing constructive criticism.

[Come Back to Me]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:04pm

great....my mom is forcing me to see this....argh

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:17pm

Hmmm...I did happen to see the show twice in Chicago. The first time, I was utterly disappointed, but I did enjoy it a bit more the second time. But it did take two viewings for me to really absorb what was happning in a rather muddled book. But for what it's worth, it sounds as if the Broadway changes have not altered the show in any significant way. Most of the problems with the show in Chicago sound like the exact same problems on Broadway. Despite all the quibbles about the book, lyrics, or songs, no one seems to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Plenty of other shows with weak books, lyrics, and/or songs have gone on to be hugely successful such as Cats, Phantom, Wicked or Miss Saigon. They had a major hook in the staging that would draw audiences in by the busload. I noticed in my first viewing that Pirate Queen does not even have that, so there is nothing to compensate weaknesses else where in the show. The standard tourist audience member can forgive weak lyrics (Miss Saigon), weak book (Phantom), a couple of weak songs (Wicked) or total lack of book entirely (Cats) if there is something astonishing happening visually (i.e. chandelier, helicopter, giant garbage, flying witches, etc.). Virtually everthing on stage other than a bit of a video projection at the beginning (if that is still in the Broadway production) and Queen Elizabeth's costumes is nothing extraordinary.

PS - Did anyone else catch that the same people in virtually the same costumes were playing two different clans? I completely missed that the first time and was really confused when they set off marching in the snow. Unless you are really catching every word and unfamiliar name, there were no visual clues for those who may have a bit of difficulty following the story (as in 90% of the typical Broadway audience). Les Miserables was easier to follow. I did catch it upon the second viewing, however producers should never count on repeat visits.

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:22pm

I didn't find the story difficult to follow at all. If anything, I thought it was incredibly oversimplified. Perhaps having to keep track of the 369 characters in the "Coast of Utopia" trilogy made it seem so.

The one thing that was confusing was who exactly she was leading at different points in the show since, as Matt just said, you couldn't really tell one clan from the other. I guess all Irish people look alike.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:23pm

Thank you for your post, Mister Matt. Hopefully I will enjoy the show more with my second viewing next Friday.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:35pm

I KNOW it sucks...and I havent even seen it.

Just thought I'd post that review.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 2:59pm

Wait, there are different clans? This shows how zonked I was by the second act.

ETA: Oh, piss, I bumped this freaking thread. Sorry!

Updated On: 3/7/07 at 02:59 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:01pm

That's OK. With the new title, we can just make it the official SG appreciation thread.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:05pm

Sweet! I suppose I could support that. But maybe it could be the Calvin and SG Appreciation Thread. I couldn't stand all the attention. And you're too cute to not be appreciated properly.

Updated On: 3/7/07 at 03:05 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:06pm

Thank God I wasn't the only one experiencing clanfusion! I was almost to embarassed to mention it.

[NDR]

Posted: 3/7/07 at 3:12pm

Updated On: 3/8/07 at 03:12 PM