ALL SHOOK UP Negativity

[My Name in Lights]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 4:23am

Regarding all of the negative comments on ALL SHOOK UP's book and execution of storyline: not every Broadway show has to be profound and earth shatteringly serious to be great. Sometimes, people go to the theatre just to be entertained and left with smiles on their faces from the pleasant experience. ALL SHOOK UP delivers!

[MyNameInLights]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 4:25am

I like your username!

[My Name in Lights]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 4:36am

Thank you. You also have very good taste .

PS: I didn't think it was possible to have the same name, but maybe the spacing in between and underscoring make the difference??

[badkarma719]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 5:43am

I agree, look @ wicked and movin out and almost all off bway stuff. Sorry, golf the musical ! Hello thats just pointless. btw posted this from my fone

[leon1489]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:38am

Okay, Wicked is definitely more intelligent than All Shook Up and Movin' Out. I think the main reason that there's negativity is because there were two musicals this season of the same nature--All Shook Up and Good Vibrations. I think a lot of theatre fans are getting tired of it. It's a bit like reality TV... kind of lazy. That's not to say the show is bad, or that it's not entertaining to watch. It's just not expected to be a masterpiece.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:43am

Yep, it's the spacing.

Anyway, first of all - you can't possibly compare the "intelligence" of Movin' Out and Wicked. Movin' Out was concieved by one of the most innovative, intelligent choreographers we have - Twyla Tharp. I refuse to put it in the same boat as the other jukebox musicals, though - it's more of a ballet, and just because Wicked has an original score doesn't make it less intelligent than something so daring as Movin' Out. That's naive, but typical Wicked fan, I suppose. At least back up such a huge statement. Just how is Wicked more intelligent, besides that fact that someone sat down and penned a new score for it?

All Shook Up, though, succeeds in a way Good Vibrations and Mamma Mia! don't. What I liked (yes, liked) about ASU is that it knows just what it is. It knows it's trite and silly, and doesn't try to be high art; it makes fun of itself, and what it knows it can't be. I think that's really clever and funny, and it going to help the show to be at least a mild success.

And honestly, most people who see ASU do seem to be pleasantly surprised, and seem to like it. The press negativity is backlash against the genre, I think; the reviews for ASU weren't truly abysmal.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 09:43 AM

[liotte]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:51am

Why is it ok to take movies, such a Hairspray, Monty Python, Wedding Singer, Color Purple, Tarzan, Lion King, etc etc etc and turn them into broadway shows, but using someone's music such as Elvis (or Abba or Beach Boys) in a creative and fun way to make a musical is viewed in a negative manner?? I love ASU, almost everyone I know loves the show, and I think it deserves a lot more credit than it has received.

[leon1489]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 9:55am

For the record, I'm definitely not a typical Wicked fan...haha. I enjoy it and think it's a good idea, but I'm not saying it measures up to shows like Les Mis.

What I meant to say is that conceptually, the idea of Wicked is a very interesting one. Take a story that we all know and have come to love, and twist it around and put a new spin on it. While Wicked has "teeny-bopper" qualities, such as Popular, which is cute but it's not very intelligent, it does have some pretty good lyrics/concepts. I love the allegories to the government made in this show. The idea of musicalizing the creation of a public enemy is definitely a good idea. And also, if you look at the lyrics for certain songs "Thank Goodness" in particular, you'll notice that the character arcs are being fulfilled, and that it's more than just a spectacle.

I'm not saying it's an original idea--obviously Gregory McGuire came up with the story. But there's a lot of symbolism in Wicked that you have to really sit down and study... there's all sorts of devices such as foreshadowing used, and the references made throughout the show to the original story (while to some seem to become ad nauseum) are actually pretty clever.

Wicked is a show that I think you either love or hate. But I wonder how many Wicked haters have actually seen the show or given it a chance. (Not to say you haven't, just in general). And I will not take credit away from Movin' Out's choreography. From what I've seen, it is an excellently choreographed show.

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 10:03am

So we can't even have threads about other musicals without them turning into Wicked threads now? That's good to know.

[leon1489]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 10:05am

Well, it started off as a passing comment, but I was asked to provide a reason for my idea.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 10:12am

OK -- Did I miss something. First, Good Vibrations just sucked (period) . But I iactually think the majority of people on this board like All Shook Up. So what are we talking about.

I think (Lennon) which I saw and liked the version 3 weeks ago has much more negativity directed against it. Although some of it deserved.
Updated On: 8/8/05 at 10:12 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 10:52am

Still, to compare Wicked and Movin' Out is like comparing apples and oranges.

I've seen Wicked twice. I've read the book. I certainly don't need a lecture on its merits. And I do, for the record, like the show. But, I don't think I'd call it "intelligent" theatre, when there's much more viable material out there.

I also think it's silly to applaud Wicked for using "devices." That's what art SHOULD do; it's nothing unusual. I mean, to applaud a show for using foreshadowing? Please. A fourth grader can write a story with foreshadowing. And honestly, the politics and allegorical devices in the musical are thin, at best. They're far deeper in the book - and you can't really say that the conceptualization of the *musical* is smart, because the creators of the *musical* did not create this concept of taking a story we love and turning it, etc, etc. I just think there's a lot you're overlooking and a lot you're extrapolating to an extreme just to make your point.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 10:52 AM

[worrell4077]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:32am

I don't understand why there should be a need for so much negative feelings towards different shows. I mean it's just a show. As long as you were entertained and had a good time, that's all that matters. It's not like it's the end of the world because you went to see something and thought it plain out sucked, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I also don't understand how anyone can have negative feelings towards All Shook Up because it's funny and has a good storyline and makes great use of Elvis's songs and has a great cast.
________________________________________________________________
"Someone blows their nose and you want to keep it."
-Ghostbusters

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:34am

It's pretty simple as to WHY there are negative feelings; a lot of people think that a show where music from elsewhere is lifted into a (usually crappy) story is taking away from the integrity of the art of musical theatre. They're more like rock concerts than Broadway musicals. I'm not saying I haven't enjoyed some of these shows, but I think it's pretty obvious why people have problems with them.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 11:34 AM

[leon1489]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:36am

And that luvtheEmcee, is what I think as well. Agreed? Agreed. I mean, as to why people hate those types of musical... I don't necessarily feel that way about them. I think it depends on the individual show.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:41am

Right. Example - I don't think it was right for ASU to be snubbed by the Tony noms just because most of the other shows of its type suck. It definitely deserved a few. Personally, I tend to side with the argument that they're harmful to the integrity of the theatre, especially as we see more and more of them every season. But even for what they are, I do think they shoud be individually evaluated, and not ALWAYS all lumped together. ASU deserves more of a chance than Good Vibes did, and than I think Mamma Mia! does, must such shows exist.

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 11:41 AM

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:43am

I totally agree with the first post! And, ASU was definitley snubbed out of Tony noms...it's a shame people miss such a great show with great music just because the "type" of musical it is.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:44am

Emcee - Totally agree with you on Movin' Out. Totally disagree about All Shook Up, however. I think Mamma Mia did it better. ASU certainly tried harder, but ultimately, ended up quite muddy with some rather baffling and inexplicable scenes (and an ending almost identical to Mamma Mia). I enjoyed watching the show when I stopped trying to rationalize the plot. It tried too hard to tackle serious issues and be silly while providing no feasible explanations for much of what was happening.

[leon1489]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:45am

Just out of curiosity... is a show of this nature allowed to win Best Musical?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 11:47am

Mister Matt - the stuff you disliked was just what I found funny. But I see what you're saying. It sounded like the show cleaned up quite a bit in previews, though - when did you see it? I saw it in... early May, I think. So, post-opening.

Not sure what the 'rule' is on that, leon - or if there even is one.

[joeybiltmore1]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:03pm

Of course every show has it's dissenters, but it seems to me that "All Shook Up" has had mostly favorable buzz on this board.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:14pm

Don't qoute me on this but I think that 51% of the material has to be written for the show (original material). Meaning that if the show consists of music that already existed most of it needs to be new in order to be nominated. Which is why CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG was not allowed to be up for BEST MUSICAL!

[gymman]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:24pm

ASU and Chitty were both eligible to be nominated for Best Musical; they were not because there were four stronger works that were nominated.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:35pm

Thanks for the correction. After a little searching I remember what I had read. The rule I was discussing is true for Best ORIGINAL SCORE! Here's the link, (look under the Chitty rulings)



TONY RULING 2005

Updated On: 8/8/05 at 12:35 PM

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/8/05 at 12:37pm

Hell, CONTACT won best musical - and that doesn't have a live orchestra (let alone original music).