ADDAMS FAMILY problem — Page 4
#77
Posted: 12/5/09 at 9:09pm
I agree completely. Addam's Family is pandering, thinly-plotted (and predictable), and the score is completely forgettable. The set is fantastic, but it weighs the story down and keeps me from knowing these Addams's. The dead ancestor chorus is a clever notion, but I feel like I'm back seeing Jekyll & Hyde every time they start scurrying about. Smells of flop big-time. (and yeah Bebe comes off awful)
Bought my Pee-wee Herman Show tickets! Yahoooo!
Updated On: 12/5/09 at 09:09 PM
#78
Posted: 12/6/09 at 11:42am
Sadly, I agree with "Gavin Rehfeldt's" post.
I saw this show again on Thursday and while they have mercifully shortened the first act, the show is still disappointing.
It will be eaten alive by the New York critics.
I saw this show again on Thursday and while they have mercifully shortened the first act, the show is still disappointing.
It will be eaten alive by the New York critics.
#79
Posted: 12/6/09 at 12:58pm
Gavin for someone who just joined, it seems you've come here to only spew your sour grapes for the show. I saw it in Chicago and thought it was pure fun. I am sure kinks will be worked out but, for someone to smell a big flop, perhaps you should blow your nose?
Updated On: 12/6/09 at 12:58 PM
#80
Posted: 12/6/09 at 2:07pm
"I feel like I'm back seeing Jekyll & Hyde every time they start scurrying about. "
Luckily, the vast majority of people didn't see "Jeckyll and Hyde" so I don't see that as much of a problem. Reviews hit this week and I am quite curious to see what critics think, but I can tell you the crowds have been large and QUITE enthusiastic.
Luckily, the vast majority of people didn't see "Jeckyll and Hyde" so I don't see that as much of a problem. Reviews hit this week and I am quite curious to see what critics think, but I can tell you the crowds have been large and QUITE enthusiastic.
#81
Posted: 12/6/09 at 2:10pm
The crowds were QUITE enthusiastic at FIRST WIVES too.
P
P
#82
Posted: 12/6/09 at 2:13pm
You saying there's something wrong with FWC, P?
#83
Posted: 12/6/09 at 2:24pm
NEVER!
I'm just trying to pick a fight with JoeKv because ADDAMS is just SO GREAT and WE MUST SPEAK POSITIVELY OF IT no matter what, OR ELSE. Because, of course, ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LOVE IT HASN'T SEEN IT and THE SCORE IS DYNAMITE. Almost on the level of FWC.
P
P.S. Dynamite or... a bomb? You decide.
I'm just trying to pick a fight with JoeKv because ADDAMS is just SO GREAT and WE MUST SPEAK POSITIVELY OF IT no matter what, OR ELSE. Because, of course, ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LOVE IT HASN'T SEEN IT and THE SCORE IS DYNAMITE. Almost on the level of FWC.
P
P.S. Dynamite or... a bomb? You decide.
#84
Posted: 12/6/09 at 2:53pm
I agree that the crowds have been very enthusiastic and large but the show is not good and will not last long once it hits NYC.
#86
Posted: 12/6/09 at 3:11pm
Well, I haven't seen Addams Family yet, but the tepid response of a relatively small audience at Young Frankenstein proved to me that Chicago audiences aren't duped by EVERYTHING.
Then again, they LOVED Desire Under the Elms, so who knows? If the critics rave about Addams Family, I'm sure it will mean...
Oh, just forget it. Go see Mystery of Irma Vep at the Court Theatre. Great production.
Then again, they LOVED Desire Under the Elms, so who knows? If the critics rave about Addams Family, I'm sure it will mean...
Oh, just forget it. Go see Mystery of Irma Vep at the Court Theatre. Great production.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#87
Posted: 12/6/09 at 6:07pm
WHOA, Amneris, drastic misinterpretation of the text.
I wish I liked Addams Family more but it simply will not pass muster. If this is to be the definitive Addams Family musical that is a sad thing. It should have been more ambitious in its conception, and simply more fun. I thought the ancestor ensemble was a mite tacky and did not serve to emphasize anything about the Addams themselves. (yeah, sure, "Clandango," but maybe that should have been it? Maybe use them in smaller variations or more sparingly from that point forward? Maybe they could stop moving the set pieces around for a second and let the show breath???) They were the answer to, "How do we work dance into this show?" and they eat up valuable time that could have been devoted to sharper plotting.
I like the idea of the ancestors but the execution is, and I know I'm going to regret this, vulgar. I think a more intimate space than the Oriental would suit this property better and force focus back on the family.
I like how the curtains framed the action in the first act!
Just because I joined yesterday does not mean I do not have a sound opinion and can tell when a production company (and its actors?) are trying to pander to a midwestern audience. This won't fly on Broadway. It is simply uninspired material and I can't even see many regional theaters wanting to mount it. I wish it were better.
I wish I could be comparing it to Li'l Abner and You're A Good Man Charlie Brown as the next praiseworthy comic strip musical adaptation but it is not. It's a pandering, forgettable bore that wastes the talents of immense performers. (Poor Bebe. After "Ohio! How exotic!" it was all downhill from there for her. Well, her legs looked nice.) I am forced to compare it to Jekyll & Hyde instead.
I thought "In the Arms of a Squid" was interesting and unusual. It was nice to see Terrance Mann and Carolee Carmello belt it out. The family from Ohio was significantly better musically adapted than the Addams. The sets and overall aesthetic were effective, if cumbersome. I won't forget the light bulb-mouthed chorus line anytime soon. Umm, teenage Wednesday Addams could probably have a musical all to herself. I thought she was interesting enough.... I don't think Lippa & Co. answered why the Addams ever need to sing. I mean, Pugsley? Really?
I wish I liked Addams Family more but it simply will not pass muster. If this is to be the definitive Addams Family musical that is a sad thing. It should have been more ambitious in its conception, and simply more fun. I thought the ancestor ensemble was a mite tacky and did not serve to emphasize anything about the Addams themselves. (yeah, sure, "Clandango," but maybe that should have been it? Maybe use them in smaller variations or more sparingly from that point forward? Maybe they could stop moving the set pieces around for a second and let the show breath???) They were the answer to, "How do we work dance into this show?" and they eat up valuable time that could have been devoted to sharper plotting.
I like the idea of the ancestors but the execution is, and I know I'm going to regret this, vulgar. I think a more intimate space than the Oriental would suit this property better and force focus back on the family.
I like how the curtains framed the action in the first act!
Just because I joined yesterday does not mean I do not have a sound opinion and can tell when a production company (and its actors?) are trying to pander to a midwestern audience. This won't fly on Broadway. It is simply uninspired material and I can't even see many regional theaters wanting to mount it. I wish it were better.
I wish I could be comparing it to Li'l Abner and You're A Good Man Charlie Brown as the next praiseworthy comic strip musical adaptation but it is not. It's a pandering, forgettable bore that wastes the talents of immense performers. (Poor Bebe. After "Ohio! How exotic!" it was all downhill from there for her. Well, her legs looked nice.) I am forced to compare it to Jekyll & Hyde instead.
I thought "In the Arms of a Squid" was interesting and unusual. It was nice to see Terrance Mann and Carolee Carmello belt it out. The family from Ohio was significantly better musically adapted than the Addams. The sets and overall aesthetic were effective, if cumbersome. I won't forget the light bulb-mouthed chorus line anytime soon. Umm, teenage Wednesday Addams could probably have a musical all to herself. I thought she was interesting enough.... I don't think Lippa & Co. answered why the Addams ever need to sing. I mean, Pugsley? Really?
Bought my Pee-wee Herman Show tickets! Yahoooo!
#88
Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:34am
"Well, I haven't seen Addams Family yet, but the tepid response of a relatively small audience at Young Frankenstein proved to me that Chicago audiences aren't duped by EVERYTHING."
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that NYC audiences know better or wouldn't be duped?
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that NYC audiences know better or wouldn't be duped?
#89
Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:52am
I just got home from tonight's performance, and I must say that I am very disappointed. The plot line is just aweful, and there are no memorable songs. This show is a huge waste of talent. I cannot see it getting any big reviews for anything beside the set (which was wonderful) and Nathan Lane's performance! There needs to be more Jackie Hoffman. While I love Bebe, she was just bad in this show. They have a lot of work to do in order to get it in any kind of condition for it to succeed on Broadway. As one of the posters stated, I smell a big ol' flop!
(Martha Graham from a letter to Agnes de Mille) "There is a vitality, a life force, a quickening That is translated through you into action, And because there is only one of you in all time, This expression is unique. If you block it, It will never exist through any other medium And be lost. The world will never have it. It is not your business to determine how good it is, Nor how valuable it is, Nor how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep it yours, clearly and directly, To keep the channel open. You do not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep open and aware Directly to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open. No artist is pleased. There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction, A blessed unrest that keeps us marching And makes us more alive than others."
#90
Posted: 12/7/09 at 1:10am
njohn, he was saying it in reference to the notion that it's getting an enthusiastic response in Chicago, but (implied "more sophisticated") NYC critics and audiences would be less forgiving. He was just pointing out that Chicago audiences didn't just rubber stamp positive responses for YF which a lot of us assumed was going to trump The Producers in its success.
If the audience could do better, they'd be up here on stage and I'd be out there watching them. - Ethel Merman
#91
Posted: 12/7/09 at 1:29am
^ "more sophisticated": I respectfully disagree.
#92
Posted: 12/7/09 at 2:17am
actually... I think you agree with him. He was giving an example to show that Chicago audiences ARE discerning and refuting the notion that NYC is somehow more so.
If the audience could do better, they'd be up here on stage and I'd be out there watching them. - Ethel Merman
#93
Posted: 12/7/09 at 10:08am
BrianS - You understood my point perfectly. There is a rather popular sentiment that non-NYC audiences are less discriminating in their tastes, whether in their own cities or as Broadway tourists. It was refreshing to see an audience give what I felt was a rather appropriate response to a dull and dismal show instead of merely appearing grateful that a touring production graced Chicago with its presence.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#94
Posted: 12/7/09 at 10:19am
> There is a rather popular sentiment that non-NYC audiences are less discriminating in their tastes
at the risk of highjacking this thread and/or starting a revolt ...
let's be clear about something: Broadway audiences are *not* NYC audiences. the economics are such that shows on the mediocre white way succeed or fail on the buying decisions of tourists (from both near and far).
i am a native new yorker who spent six fantastic years in self-imposed exile in chicago ... what goes on out there (and in a half dozen other places across the country) is in the aggregate far more interesting than the bulk (literally) of what gets produced around Times Square.
at the risk of highjacking this thread and/or starting a revolt ...
let's be clear about something: Broadway audiences are *not* NYC audiences. the economics are such that shows on the mediocre white way succeed or fail on the buying decisions of tourists (from both near and far).
i am a native new yorker who spent six fantastic years in self-imposed exile in chicago ... what goes on out there (and in a half dozen other places across the country) is in the aggregate far more interesting than the bulk (literally) of what gets produced around Times Square.
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#95
Posted: 12/7/09 at 11:12am
No Pgenre, all I did was ask if you'd actually seen the show you were so rabidly criticizing. I did not say any of those other comments. I'd be happy to share my opinions of the show (as I have in other threads) and what I think it needs to change before it moves to Broadway.
Meanwhile, I never heard an answer: HAVE YOU SEEN THE ADDAMS FAMILY?
Meanwhile, I never heard an answer: HAVE YOU SEEN THE ADDAMS FAMILY?
#96
Posted: 12/7/09 at 11:16am
Sophisticated is the wrong word. Audiences and critics are both simply different in New York in comparison to Chicago and midwest. I mean, the cities themselves are as different as America is to Canada. I am born, raised, and currently living in Chicago and I think the theater scene in Chicago is remarkably sophisticated (and it doesn't take Broadway in Chicago to accomplish that). But, that is because there are countless small companies churning out fascinating work all the time. But, we have nothing like what Broadway has seen over the past 50+ years.
BUT, midwestern musical theater fans are more excited to host a new musical. It's an event when they come around in a pre-Broadway engagement whereas a new musical opening on Broadway is old hat. New York has seen it all, and has a different standard. A lot of Chicago audiences are made up of people from the outlying suburbs and nearby states. I saw Addams Family on the Friday after Thanksgiving so of course everyone is going to have a good time.
New York theater audiences are dominated by the tourist trade, which is a significant variable.
I'm so interested in seeing the path of Wonderland because Tampa must be freaking out a bit right now. Hosting a new musical is a boon to the economy and tourist trade wherever it may be. I think Tampa critics might be being overly kind in their reviews because the bloom is still fresh.
Man, I'm bummed about Addams Family. Lippa has lost it, fo sho. This show is in no condition for Broadway. And, yeah, Jackie Hoffman was funny.
BUT, midwestern musical theater fans are more excited to host a new musical. It's an event when they come around in a pre-Broadway engagement whereas a new musical opening on Broadway is old hat. New York has seen it all, and has a different standard. A lot of Chicago audiences are made up of people from the outlying suburbs and nearby states. I saw Addams Family on the Friday after Thanksgiving so of course everyone is going to have a good time.
New York theater audiences are dominated by the tourist trade, which is a significant variable.
I'm so interested in seeing the path of Wonderland because Tampa must be freaking out a bit right now. Hosting a new musical is a boon to the economy and tourist trade wherever it may be. I think Tampa critics might be being overly kind in their reviews because the bloom is still fresh.
Man, I'm bummed about Addams Family. Lippa has lost it, fo sho. This show is in no condition for Broadway. And, yeah, Jackie Hoffman was funny.
Bought my Pee-wee Herman Show tickets! Yahoooo!
#97
Posted: 12/7/09 at 11:57am
let's be clear about something: Broadway audiences are *not* NYC audiences.
Actually, Broadway audiences are made up of NYC audiences and tourists. Clearly, tourists make up the majority of the Broadway audiences, but if there were no NYC audiences attending Broadway shows, then who is complaining about all the annoying tourists?
Actually, Broadway audiences are made up of NYC audiences and tourists. Clearly, tourists make up the majority of the Broadway audiences, but if there were no NYC audiences attending Broadway shows, then who is complaining about all the annoying tourists?
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
#98
Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:22pm
I'm kinda disappointed for all the non-love for the Addams clan.
Personally, I really liked the show. I found it charming, inventive, and a wonderful way to spend an evening. I really don't mind the predictable plot - it's a pretty universal one that has proven to be successful time and time and time again, so there must be some reason it has endured over the years. And, if ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the beauty of the entire thing is that even though the Addamses are completely unique, their situations and familial relationships are universal.
Clearly, the visual design is what separates the show from anything else I've seen. Some of the inventiveness on that stage was mind-blowing and with nearly every scene I was surprised and impressed with some aspect of it.
I think some of the songs were a bit of a stretch - but it was a good blend of the macabre/traditional Broadway fusion the writers have made quite clear was their purpose. The casting was clearly genius and, although Nathan Lane is normally "Nathan Lane" more than a character, I actually thought there were more moments in this show where he seemed to really be acting - especially in the "fatherly" moments. Bebe was a joy, although I completely agree with those who have wished she had more intense dancing moments. The tango near the finale was clearly a moment to offer that and it just fell flat. But, she's also made it clear in a few interviews that she is trying to segue into more "acting" and less triple threat roles. I think this is a good blend and step in the right direction for her. Everyone else in the show was great and really ideally cast. I didn't care much for Grandmama's character much, but that was more to do with the concept than Jackie. That was the only character I just didn't enjoy.
So, overall, this clearly is a fluff show - it's not meant to reinvent the wheel and it doesn't. But, it offers some pure entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that at all. It was a typical Broadway show with the Addams twist and really isn't that what this family is about - a typical family with a different lens through which to see the world...
Personally, I really liked the show. I found it charming, inventive, and a wonderful way to spend an evening. I really don't mind the predictable plot - it's a pretty universal one that has proven to be successful time and time and time again, so there must be some reason it has endured over the years. And, if ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the beauty of the entire thing is that even though the Addamses are completely unique, their situations and familial relationships are universal.
Clearly, the visual design is what separates the show from anything else I've seen. Some of the inventiveness on that stage was mind-blowing and with nearly every scene I was surprised and impressed with some aspect of it.
I think some of the songs were a bit of a stretch - but it was a good blend of the macabre/traditional Broadway fusion the writers have made quite clear was their purpose. The casting was clearly genius and, although Nathan Lane is normally "Nathan Lane" more than a character, I actually thought there were more moments in this show where he seemed to really be acting - especially in the "fatherly" moments. Bebe was a joy, although I completely agree with those who have wished she had more intense dancing moments. The tango near the finale was clearly a moment to offer that and it just fell flat. But, she's also made it clear in a few interviews that she is trying to segue into more "acting" and less triple threat roles. I think this is a good blend and step in the right direction for her. Everyone else in the show was great and really ideally cast. I didn't care much for Grandmama's character much, but that was more to do with the concept than Jackie. That was the only character I just didn't enjoy.
So, overall, this clearly is a fluff show - it's not meant to reinvent the wheel and it doesn't. But, it offers some pure entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that at all. It was a typical Broadway show with the Addams twist and really isn't that what this family is about - a typical family with a different lens through which to see the world...
#99
Posted: 12/7/09 at 12:42pm
I believe the Addams Family deserve a better musical than "fluff." And if this is to be a "fluff" musical the humor could have been derived more from the very specific prism the Addams see the world through, instead of the pandering texting and marijuana gags that don't fit in with their universe at all. It's a weak show, not an embarrassment, just not up to the standard of a big-budget star-headlining Broadway musical.
And, yeah, the sets are awesome but also burdensome The lack of an exciting score undermines everything--without a stronger book the show is doomed, I fear.
And, yeah, the sets are awesome but also burdensome The lack of an exciting score undermines everything--without a stronger book the show is doomed, I fear.
Bought my Pee-wee Herman Show tickets! Yahoooo!
#100
Posted: 12/7/09 at 1:13pm
You mean like when Morticia comforts Puglsey (who is scared there is no monster in his bedroom closet) by saying "I'm sure there are monsters hiding somewhere in here" and we see a scaly beast poke out from under the bed? Or when she plays "this little piggy" with him, counting off several extra toes? Yes, I wish there was a scene like that in the show that would have shown the very specific prism the Addams see the world through. Oh wait...
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95