Are Special Effects Detracting from the Musical?

[kaboodles041]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 10:50pm

Hey guys,
Recently I have been thinking about musicals and how "big" they have gotten, namely with special effects, which is evident by the ever inflating budgets these shows that are going on nowadays are amassing (e.g. Wicked, any Disney musical)

My question is, do you think that all these special effects detract from the show, or what the show should be? I ask this because my friend really wants to go see Tarzan, and I didn't really want to mainly because I didn't enjoy the movie in the first place. But then I thought, "Hmm, the special effects would be cool." And then I thought, is that really the reason to go to see a show? For the special effects? Do you all think it is a good thing, by being innovative and exciting, or does it take away from the story, and the talent--one big tourist draw.

[neomystyk29]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 10:55pm

If they are used effectively to progress and enhance the show then in my opinion they certainly don't detract from the musical. However, they rarely add to the substance of the show. More often than not special effects only distract from the fact that the show lacks any real substance to its book or score.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 11:21pm

Broadway is now a middle class event, and the middle class wanna see witches on genie lifts...

[Cenoern]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 11:29pm

(Disclaimer: not a 13-year old wicked fangirl.)

I can't imagine why you would say that the special effect at the end of Defying Gravity takes away from the musical at all - if anything, it turns the otherwise mediocre Wicked into something I would even call "good".

[Matters]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 11:54pm

I'd say that, as is the case with any special effects, they're amazing if necessary to the action of the piece. I'd say a good example of this is BEauty and the Beast, but then again I saw it in Toronto about 10 years ago so it may be a different case on Broadway. A perfect example of special effects for the sake of special effects (ie-overkill) is Lord of the Rings. Get some friends to run around in a circle for five hours underscored by the theme from survivor and it's just as impressive.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 4/15/06 at 11:56pm

I never said it took away from the musical at all.

[neomystyk29]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 1:10am

Wicked to me is hit or miss with the special effects. Defying Gravity in my opinion is absolutely necessary and absolutely a phenomenal affect that gives me chills pretty much everytime. The big time dragon on the other hand, not so much. Even the bubble for me is sometimes a bit much.

[zzannahk]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 1:14am

during poto there is some (i would consider) minor pyro stuff, it only detracts from the show, when there are elderly people sitting too close to the stage that have some type of heart problems. this happened to me, and they didn't stop the show, but there was a huge commotion to get her out of the theater

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 1:15am

Just think if this...how would a show look without any special efects, fancy lights or massive sets?

I think some would be pretty embarrasing to be honest.

[neomystyk29]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 1:20am

blaxx that depends on what you mean. Some shows have material based around their effects. Wicked for example has its act one finale based around the deying gravity lift. Would a minimalist production that cut this out be embarassing, well maybe one day we'll see but I don't think it's fair to judge that.

A show like the lion king that would be left as completely mediocre with a weak book and a weak score. I agree these shows would be embarassing.

[kaboodles041]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 2:13am

True I agree that some musicals would be nothing without the special effects and would not make much sense. But to me, one of the epitomes of a good musical is The Fantasticks, which is very minimal. It just relied on good singing and story. Could they have used elaborate sets and props? Of course, but they didn't, and it obviously worked. Same goes for Chicago.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 3:10am

Well, I suppose there is nothing wrong with showcasing some special effects to enrich the experience, but I'm a true believer that a show should be just a good without any of it.

So, I understand how a couple of effects can be the "scene stealer", but I'm sure that a lot of shows right now completely depend on them, and without them, they would be nothing but a gag fest!

[creasemouse]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 6:13am

Sometimes they work and other they don't

I mean what is the point of the prolgoue in Phantom - It doesn't add any weight to the story but it introduces the chandelier - YAY! NOT !!!

The lion King, Nothing can detract from just how bad the book and score is

I liked the flying car in Chitty and it wasn't done to death

The Helicopter in Saigon was naff and now in the UK tour its a projected image on a gauze

Witches of Eastwick has a collasping church that was a joke because Hollwood do that kind of thing so much better

As you can maybe tell, on the whole I would rather have a good score, well sung and played with excellent actors...
Happy Easter

[Bruce Memblagh!]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 6:22am

"I mean what is the point of the prolgoue in Phantom - It doesn't add any weight to the story but it introduces the chandelier - YAY! NOT !!! "

The prologue here (up to and including the overture) sets both the time line and the tone in a terrific manner. Also, setting up for a flashback, if done well like this, is a great little teaser, and an effective device ie) how did the characters get to this stage. The prologue is an outstanding Coup de Théatre that gets an audience immediately wowed from the start. Although, as some critics pointed out at the time of its initial release, having the chandelier rising at that point takes away something from the chandelier falling later in the show. BUT, establishing that early on was a clever idea.

[Parsley]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 6:34am

If done well special effects can enhance a show although more often than not they cover up for deficiencies in it. But then such gimmickry is nothing new in theater. Personally I prefer musicals that do not need such effects although some of the pared-down musicals of late have been pared down so much as to lose alot of the meaning. The London version of Mack and Mabel, for instance - really left me cold. I think Doyle tried to strip it to the bare essentials and, to be honest, the essence of the story sort of came through but it just did not gel at all. While it did not need anything in the way of great effects, it did need something of a decent chorus for a couple of the numbers as the story itself was just too weak to stand up alone.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 6:45am

The digital light boards (or whatever you call them) used as backdrops in Ring of Fire were great - but I found myself sitting there wondering how they did that, as opposed to enjoying the performance as much as I could have. I'd rather see a show in a black box theatre with no effects whatsoever than sit through a huge spectacle. Small shows with great writing and heart get my vote every time.
For example - I would have like Titanic if they'd have concentrated on the characters and their stories instead of giving us a tilting stage and crashing piano - that stuff was just distracting.

[tophertilson]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 9:08am

Spectacle has always been a part of the theatre, going back to the ancient Greeks. Of course, back then they attached their SFX to some wonderful plays. Nowadays, it's sprinkled over something like TARZAN. Step forward? Step backwards? You decide.

TT

[Claire2141]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 9:36am

I personally didn't go to see The Lion King (twice) for the book. I know the songs and I know the movie of by heart. It's my favourite Disney film *goes red*

I personally went to see it for the spectical, it was part of the fun going to see how they had managed to turn humans into all these animals and how they would portray things such as the stampede or pride rock. I will admit that the opening Circle of Life sequence makes me cry every time, it's just such an amazing sight that it makes up for the book.

I have to say here I've never seen Wicked (I'm from the UK) and also point out that I'm not a fan girl. I'm 20 and have loved musical theater since my Mum took me to see SoM at 6 (ahhhh!) Anyway, I like the musical and think that the Defying Gravity moment is a big part of the show, yet doesn't take anything away from it. Yes people who know its coming will be waiting for it through-out the show but it doesn't detract from the storyline form what I've seen.

In Chitty, well you know the car is going to 'fly' and that's WHY you go to see it. The car even get's it's own curtain call and standing ovation it's that important. It's like one big pantomime and I loved that, cheering the car and booing the child catcher. So much fun, the special effect there ADDS to the musical.

[tophertilson]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 10:17am

It's one thing for the special effects to ADD to the musical. It's another thing entirely for the special effects to BE the musical. Spectacle for spectacle's sake may sell tickets, but in the end, it's just another way of dumbing down the audience.

I have friends who argue about how BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is great because it introduces a new audience to theatre. But if that "new audience" comes to expect having obvious and literal effects thrown at them at every turn, how is this good for the theatre as an institution? Crap begats crap.

TT

[Claire2141]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 10:40am

I DO believe that these musicals with the big specticals; Chitty, TLK, Wicked etc are a GOOD way to get people in and give them a taste. What child would want to see any of the less 'amazing' ones? If you get them at a young age by Disney Musicals with the show stopping special effects then you can get them in the the more 'credible' musicals (I hate that term - what defines a credible musical anyway?).

If I'm paying £55 for a ticket I want something that will amaze me, whether it be amazing effect, brilliant songs or a wonderful book. I'm not fussed which and if people want a big special effect moment then let them have them.

[tophertilson]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 11:31am

WICKED is a good example (as is MISS SAIGON) of a show with a great special effect moment. TLK is somethine else entirely, in my book. This is a show - love it or hate it - that requires the audiences to use its imagination, to fill in the gaps of what's missing on stage. This is what the theatre is all about! Or at least should be.

CCBB, on the other hand, is utterly horrible. If it weren't for the ridiculously literal flying car, would there even be a show there? I think not.

TT

[Claire2141]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 12:13pm

I adored Chitty when I saw it. It was just a different atmosphere from all other musicals I have seen, as I've said it it was far more relaxed. Admittedly the cast was brilliant. Michael Ball, Emma Williams, Richard O'Brian and Brian Belssed were all amazing in their roles.

But YES if the car, which everone has to admit is an amazing special effect, wasn't there and the cast hadn't been so good I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it so much.

BTW when I saw Miss Saigon I had to laugh at the helicopter moment...so badly done. Also in Phantom the chandelier comes down so slowly it's boring.

In Oz though there's not the same Health and Safety Rules so it comes down really quickly. I'd LOVE to see that!

[SirLiir]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 12:20pm

Avenue Q is a great example of a show that uses almost no special effects and still has an excellent book and score. A solidly written show should not need special effects to tell the story. They should only enhance it.

TLK without the special effects? I'll go rent the movie and save 90 dollars, thank you.
Updated On: 4/16/06 at 12:20 PM

[Claire2141]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 12:53pm

But Avenue Q does have the 'gimick' element of the puppets...to quote a certain song you really do have to have one if you want to get along. (Sorry that's a REALLY bad pun).

I will say though that one of the best musicals I've seen was Tell Me on a Sunday which has a good score and book. No special effects or gimicks but still had me captivated.

[SirLiir]

Posted: 4/16/06 at 2:24pm

True Claire, but my point was that besides the puppets, the show does not need special effects to drive it forward. Ditto for DRS and LitP (both require excellent actors more than excellent effects). Spamalot and Wicked, however, use special effects much more often to move the story rather than adequate dialogue.