— Page 3

OP shouldn't be called a moron.

Anyway, as someone mentioned, miss saigon is based on m butterfly, an opera set in Japan in the early 1900s. Miss Saigon is an adaptation of that story as a musical and set in Vietnam. The premise of the original story is that the woman is abandoned by the man. That, and what results as a consquence, is the tragedy of story. The musical already portrays the soldier waaay better than the opera does, and that in itself might be a flaw. On one hand he's a good guy and on the other hand he abandons her. I agree it seems off; in contrast, in the opera, he doesn't come off as a good guy at all and had no qualms about abandoning his wife. So I see how you're trying to rectify the dissonance of him being a good guy and then forgetting about Kim in 3 years. Still, what you're suggesting takes it a step further from the original story and takes away much of the tragic element of the female lead being the wronged victim. In other words, you're completely changing the story. I can see your ideas working in another context, but they're not m butterfly or miss saigon. You're also harping way too much on how true to the Vietnam War Miss Saigon was. I don't think it was the musical's goal to ever give an accurate rendition of the Vietnam War. Most historical works of art aren't completely accurate either. It's called artistic license.

Updated On: 6/14/17 at 12:05 AM

Looks like a new trend on the board these days. Newbies signing up and their first post is to bash a show. First there's the one complaining about obstructed seats and dissing the Great Comet. Now this. Gotta love it.

ChenghisKhan said: "...the play took place during the Vietnam WAR. And while no major battles that involved planes dropping bombs on villages, its at least better to incorporate them, rather than what Miss Saigon actually reenacted. At least, it would make the show more intense and give the characters a more "valiant" and "heroic" character."

Many people, myself among them, find this show to be quite "intense" as it is. It was not the creators' intent to write a musical about the Vietnam war; rather, they wanted to write a musical about how the war impacted the relationships between a group of characters whom they transposed from Madama Butterfly, a 1904 opera by Puccini (which, when I saw it, included no battle depictions either). The war here is merely a plot device to place the characters in a particular situation, thereby allowing the musical to depict how their relationships play out.

Your argument that Miss Saigon would have been more effective if it featured epic combat scenes misses the point of the piece, just as if you were to suggest that Come From Away would be more effective if it reenacted the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The audience already knows that these were horrific events, and as the story is not about global politics or battlefield strategy, there is no need to include such reenactments.

Updated On: 6/14/17 at 09:03 AM

I find Miss Saigon to be problematic as well, but I'm not really with this particular critique. There is potential, like with the OP's inability to rectify Chris, how he is written and portrayed, and his abandonment of Kim afterwards. However, I do think it's a lot more understandable than people realize especially given the context of the war, then him being back home, years passing, and Chris probably thinking Vietnam was some distant dream that he would never have to set foot in again.

As for wanting more "war", I don't think it would have added anything to the story that the creators wanted to tell. There's a thing with critique where one has to step back and critique what they are given and whether it was the best way the story could have been told rather than using it as an opportunity to write your own show and be mad that the creators didn't write the exact show you would have.

Yes, this worst broadway show was opened in 26 years ago and it had almost 5000 performances....just saying

ChenghisKhan said: " Wake up! I am the moderator of this thread"



"Look at me. LOOK AT ME. I'm the captain now"

This place would certainly be a little wilder if all OPs were mods of their own threads.

Just think children, summer has just begun. We'll have three more months of threads like these

spidernight said: "OP shouldn't be called a moron.

Anyway, as someone mentioned, miss saigon is based on m butterfly, an opera set in Japan in the early 1900s. "

So close. Miss Saigon is based on the Puccini opera, Madama Butterfly. M. Butterfly is a play written by David Henry Hwang. It's also loosely based on the opera Madama Butterfly, though it takes place in 1980's Paris and Beijing.

The OP has many problems. I am someone who loves Miss Saigon and thinks it is one of the best shows I have seen.

First, the show does not open with the Engineer saying "Welcome to Dreamland". The London revival (which I believe is the same as the Broadway revival) opens on Kim's village with explosions and soldiers. The OP must have missed the beginning of the show.

Second, the show is not about the Vietnam War. That would be a different show. Miss Saigon is about people - and was written by people who did not approve of the US actions in Vietnam. They did not view the US actions as "heroic" - even if individuals did heroic things.

Third, the OP needs to learn a little history about the US involvement in Vietnam. Miss Saigon takes place in April 1975. The US was no longer actively fighting a "war" nor were there "battles" involving US troops. Most soldiers had returned to the US after the peace accords of 1973 for which Kissinger and LeDucTho won a Nobel Peace Prize. (LeDucTho declined the prize because, well, he knew there wasn't going to be peace). So, the OP's desire for big battle scenes and jets strafing and bombing just wasn't happening (nor of course could such big battles likely be staged on a theatre stage in a way that would allow the other scenes to follow). Indeed, Chris is not fighting in any battles - if he ever did. He is "driving for the embassy". The soldiers depicted are primarily defending the embassy.

Fourth, the three year time jump is important to the drama of the show. We, the audience, do not know how Kim and Chris were separated or why. We need to keep watching to find out. You don't have your big dramatic moment in the middle of Act One. And if the show were to not take the jump, then people would not hate Ellen as much if we saw her nursing Chris back to sanity and a belief in love. Sure, he signs about it - but we've only seen his joy with Kim. (One of the issues is that the show suggests Chris and Kim's "love" is a "true love" whereas Ellen and Chris' love, which is built over time,is somehow less of a love).

Miss Saigon can be criticized for a lot of things - and has been. But, the OP's criticisms are misguided at best.

KathyNYC2 said: "I agree with many of your above statements but I am always puzzled by the hate for Ellen who is also damaged by the war. In fact to me the most successful productions of this show make Ellen very sympathetic. She married her husband in good faith and doesn't understand what went on in Vietnam. This is a show where war is the star and everyone loses... and in order to fully appreciate how many people this war has affected, it works better for me to have Ellen in the mix. Not sure that this Bway version has the right Angie on Ellen."

I've seen the current Broadway revival twice and, to me, it depicts Ellen as a more sympathetic character than she was in the original cast recording.

I've been seeing this thread over the past couple days, but have always decided not to click on it. But this morning, my curiosity got the best of me. And I gotta say...what an entertaining read. Wish I'd clicked on it sooner.

Although I would've gone with "That was the worst Broadway show I ever seen" (I hope at least one person gets that reference)

Updated On: 6/15/17 at 12:47 PM

This is my favorite thread.