9 to 5 Tour: Yes or No?- Page 2

[lakezurich]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 1:29am

IDK if it was that, or maybe that Megan and Stephanie were cast, and the fact that this was another show about girl power give some people enough reason to steer clear...

Updated On: 11/29/09 at 01:29 AM

[lakezurich]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 1:35am

But, now that I'm thinking about it I don't know that that would be enough people to really harm ticket sales for the show...

[emo_geek]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 1:36am

I think the girl power musicals are usually a safe bet as statistics have shown women to be the main ticket holder. Did you just spell Megan with an H?

[lakezurich]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 1:37am

Oops... I did...

[rmusic11322]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 10:55am

Since you guys are talking about Megan and Stephanie, do you think they'll go on the tour?

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 11:02am

I wouldn't put too much on that. I don't know what either of them have said about the show or their feelings towards it, but I'm guessing they wouldn't tour. I would have a hard time believing Allison Janney would tour with it, to be honest. But then again, maybe they had really strong emotional connections with the show and a tour would allow them to continue with it.

"Cute, if so. Just sayin'. :)"

Thanks! It's one of my head shots :)

[rmusic11322]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 11:21am

If none of the ladies decide not to go with the tour, let's just hope they cast some really-close-seconds.
Updated On: 11/29/09 at 11:21 AM

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 11:23am

Agreed.

[kryst22]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 11:46am

I enjoyed 9 to 5 retrospectively. I saw it three times (once on a comp, and the other two before it changed to a lotto) and decided that although I liked a lot of the score, it was the production that bothered me. I love whenever a creative team is able to capture the essence of the show, but that was lost on me in the Marquis. It almost seemed like too much set and that's coming from someone who likes a lot of set. After the Act 1 finale, I never felt that sense of urgency to come back and finish it except for the promise of a phenomenal 11 o'clock number.

As far as the Tonys go, we had a really strong season for musicals and I think some of the changes from the LA production (Out of Control for SJB) made it more difficult to gain noms from the committee. If the tour takes off before June, maybe the can be featured again on the 2010 Tony Awards. :)

I don't see why the tour couldn't happen if they can tone down the expense of the set. Producers make more money from tours than they do from Broadway, and with the familiarity of the brand, it should sell well.

[BroadwayGuy12]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 12:09pm

I enjoyed the show when I saw it. It had flaws, for sure (my biggest problem was Mantello's direction -- or, rather, lack of direction), but there were some great performances and a fun score. If I hadn't already seen it on Broadway, I would check out the tour.

That said, saying that the show failed simply because people are tired of movie-to-musical adaptations is a bit ridiculous. That can hardly be the case, especially when BILLY ELLIOT was one of the most embraced new musicals of the season.

[scaryclowns2232]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 3:26pm

People aren't tired of movie to musical adaptations.

They're tired of movie to musical adaptations that slavishly recreate every scene and line of dialogue from the film onstage.

Musicals that assume a new identity and recreate themselves onstage work. Musicals that stick too close to the movie don't. That is why 9 to 5 failed-- there was no point in seeing it onstage, because it was essentially the same thing as the film.

[bjh2114]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 4:22pm

CAST RECORDINGS ARE SOUNDTRACKS!!! GET OVER IT!!!

Soundtrack = CD of tracked songs/sounds
A cast album is also a CD of tracked songs. It just happens to be of a show. It is a SPECIFIC type of soundtrack. Let it go, people!

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 4:26pm

bjh you are wrong and do not know what you are talking about.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

P, listening to the NINE SOUNDTRACK for the 90th time

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 4:28pm

Soundtracks: The performers who appear in Broadway shows sing the score live each night and when they make a cast album it is recorded in a studio and produced with the home listener in mind. While it is perfectly correct to call a movie soundtrack a "cast recording" since it does have the performances of the film cast, it is wrong to call a cast recording a "soundtrack".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_cast_recordings

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 4:32pm

Soundtrack = CD of tracked songs/sounds

So wait, if I get a sound effects CD it's also a soundtrack? What about The Best of A Prairie Home Companion?

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 8:10pm

And here we go again. It's never ending battle that people care too much about.

[Basely Tearful]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 11:24pm

I've seen this debate on here and I don't mean to dig up old garbage but the reluctance (I'm assuming, just assuming, by younger folks) to call a cast recording just that is mind boggling. It's the correct term and shows respect for the genre (something I imagine all of you care about).

9 to 5, where there is an actual soundtrack, is the perfect example of the need for a different name. Soundtrack also implies that the actors sing to that track each night which we all know is not the case.

If you care so much about something, doesn't it make sense to embrace the correct terminology.

It's not a debate. A cast recording is its name. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

By calling it a soundtrack you aren't showing the proper respect for the product. By calling it a soundtrack you're opening doors for everyone who knows what it actually is to see you as ignorant and uneducated. WHy would you want to be viewed that way>

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/29/09 at 11:45pm

I haven't called it a soundtrack before, I'm just saying it's silly that we're all getting so upset about it. If it's something you're truly passionate about, then I understand the argument. If it's something you are just saying to cause drama, it just seems like a waste of time to me. It's probably because I personally don't care even though I use the correct terminology anyways.

[Basely Tearful]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 12:01am

Oh wasn't directing that at you, sorry.

I honestly don't think anyone who insists it should be called a cast recording is trying to be dramatic. I think it's out of respect for the genre.

It just amazes me that people are more apt to believe itunes over every recording (save the spine of the Debbie Allen Sweet Charity) and countless musical theatre books,

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 12:18am

Oh I see, yeah that is silly. I guess I just didn't realize there were people who insisted it was a soundtrack and NOT a cast recording. I can see it either way, but always refer to it as a cast recording because that's what it is. If someone slips up, however, I also don't attack them. Because that's silly.

[blaxx]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 1:41am

It's not silly. There is a soundtrack AND a cast recording to 9 to 5. They are completely different!

[sipos]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 3:18am

9to5, in essence, should tour.

I thought 9to5 was excellent. It was really entertaining, had a tuneful Tony-nominated score, and any copying/recreating of the movie it's based on looked like a playful homage to it, not anything slavish.
How else to tell the story with the great dialogue people liked and related to (with the original)? The changes were cute and certainly didn't kill the show. Didn't like the movie, you say? Then yeah, you probably didn't/won't like the musical. Fine, but seriously, it wasn't crap. But I do believe overall that the show is or was a production for people who like musicals, you know? Meaning, how average Joe Blow goes to Mamma Mia!, Phantom, or now Wicked and Rock of Ages. Yeah, maybe sees a few more. Then BAM, they're the voice on boards like these and then on the streets or whatever. They're not all completely right, not all the time ... and this is just about me but I hope message boards don't get worse than they are today with overshadowing bitterness and jaded influences (anywhere on the internet). Many people also LOVED this show.

I guess I tend to lend an ear to those who actually know a show got Drama Desk noms too. An opinion based on more interest in theatre thriving and succeeding generally has more truth to it. Not that everyone here who didn't care for 9to5 had no merit, but I think most will get what I'm trying to say.

Some haters of 9to5 are vocal, but hey! I thought it was a great cast, all around. Again, I thought the casting complimented on the movie. The 3 ladies, Allison, Megan, Stephanie, (respectively) added a lot of beauty and humor to the stage version's roles. I thought they told a great story through their specific acting choices, and yes through song too. It worked for me. I saw a very clean and electric performance in August.

I didn't think 9to5 the musical was too close to the movie and therefore failed. I didn't/don't think it closed because it wasn't good enough.

It didn't catch on in NY because, well honestly, I think it was lack of a Best Musical Tony Award nomination that really hurt it. It's not possible for every new Broadway musical to last, and that's it. It's how it is and 9to5 didn't get a full performance on the telecast. Well, like that really cool Tony clip from that show theatre people and people beyond theatre spheres have to watch and share.

The opportunity for real good exposure was lost. Add to that 'major' lukewarm reviews helping unpopularity sales wise, and it's gone too soon. Not enough marketing, hype, and draw after a lackluster opening ultimately killed it from what I saw. Dolly closed and recouped what she could with Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede in Orlando, FL last year when the attraction started to feel effects of poor business (not to mention the economy). She's not a fool. I'm sure that the giant technical aspect of 9to5, the set, added to decisions about the final fate of the show on Broadway too.
So I hope it tours and I love the idea of it getting a chance to be on the Tony's again in the future (if they're still going to go in the direction of showcasing more national tours on the Tony telecast). Is there anything I didn't like about it? Yes. I didn't like the choreography when it didn't seem to fit the time period enough in too many numbers. The style of the dancing seemed off to me too many times.

Too long. I love you all, sorry for not cutting this, and if anybody gets on me about typing 9to5 not 9 to 5 so help me God.

And I really think 9to5 is a better show than The Wedding Singer. Sorry, WedSingheads (not that you are, CapnHook).







Updated On: 11/30/09 at 03:18 AM

[sing_dance_love]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 3:57am

"People aren't tired of movie to musical adaptations.

They're tired of movie to musical adaptations that slavishly recreate every scene and line of dialogue from the film onstage.

Musicals that assume a new identity and recreate themselves onstage work. Musicals that stick too close to the movie don't."

Thank you scaryclowns2232. Same goes for movie musicals. To expect one thing written for one medium to work just as well transplanted to another medium, without thought and revision, is foolish.

These things have to be TRANSLATED from one medium to another, not transplanted. The best ones are reinterpreted to the new medium, while keeping the spirit of the original. Legally Blonde accomplished this for me.

[rmusic11322]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 2:54pm

To make things clear... When I said,

"I bought the soundtrack a week ago on eBay and got it today."

I meant I bought the CAST RECORDING OF 9 TO 5 THE MUSICAL!

[jv92]

Posted: 11/30/09 at 8:37pm

9 to 5 was pure mediocre fun. That's all I'll say.