Billy Elliot vs. Next to Normal- Page 2

[TBD2]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 8:23am

"My friend and I are arguing about the two. We haven't seen either shows."

So. Let me see if I got this right. You are arguing over a matter of opinion (Billy gets my vote, but N2N isn't bad). Neither of you has any actual information (like seeing either show). And you want others to join the argument?

Looks like you've come to the right place!

Enjoy the mêlée,

Ed

[wickedfan]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 8:24am

UGH.

[moowithme85]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 8:30am

Wannabe A Foster, disrespect? For me to give that argument any credit, you'll need to back it up... I thought the subject was handled VERY delicately, and quite accurately, as well.

And on to the question at hand, N2N hands down. A show has never made me feel that uncomfortable and moved all at the same time. The acting and singing are incredible; the score is brilliant.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 8:56am

WAF has discussed his issues with the show many times and perhaps felt it shouldn't be re-hashed. IF I remember correctly, he had issues with the responsibility of the story allowing Diana to go off meds thinking it would serve as a role model to others suffering to do the same.

[SingingCats]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 11:17am

My vote goes to Cats.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 11:29am

moowithme85, please do a search. As dramamama611 said, I have discussed this extensively on this board.

You also might want to research the REALITIES of REAL LIFE human mental illnesses and compare them with the misconstrued nonsense of inaccurate stereotypes presented in NEXT TO NORMAL.
BWW Search Function

[BroadwayBound062]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 12:57pm

They are two completely different shows and some elements of BE I think are better than N2N and vice versa. But one I'd have to sit through is BE.

[NDR]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 12:57pm

Very different shows but IMHO Next to Normal is not to be missed.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 2:37pm

next too Normal has better music and lyrics.

However Billy Elliot for movement is to die for, thats why Billy gets my vote, however both are great shows.

[MichaelUK92]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 2:52pm

I both hate and love this rivalry. all in good competition, but even better that the theatre's are pratically face to face :P

i know and (sort of) understand the appeal of billy. and yes the dancing is good.

but next to normal? doesn't it just hit you in a unexpected and amazing way - one of the most brutal and truthful theatrical experiences?

[Soliantu]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 4:14pm

Billy Elliot is moldy garbage compared to Next to Normal. Next to Normal has a deep emotional story you can learn from, lets not forget that its an ORIGINAL musical, ie not based off of a movie, an amazing new score, and a TALENTED, professionally trained cast... rather than little boys who have taken dance classes, but can't sing or act.. or do more than one of the things at the same time.

[MichaelUK92]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 4:29pm

Soliantu: so true. so true.

but i suppose people like commercial garbage. next to normal is so much more than billy in every way.

even the thought of billy winning all those tony's makes me shudder,

BEST SCORE? HA! next to normal deserves so much, but probably won't get it.

let's hope for a longer than expected run.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 4:55pm

Define your idea of better. Then it'll be easier to declare which one is better than the other. Each show has strong aspects and weak points. It really is pretty subjective.

[Broadwaylover26]

Posted: 7/28/09 at 7:09pm

This is such a funny conversation. It's like asking "What's better, apples or oranges?" Different people have different opinions, so there can't possibly be a "better" show.

Billy was one of my favorite musicals I've ever seen, and maybe it was because of the exuberant dance numbers that simply left me stunned in amazement. Just because it's big and flashy doesn't make it "Commercial" or "moldy" garbage. I haven't seen N2N, but from listening to the CD countless times, I can tell it's an excellent show too.

[wickedlover94]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 12:01am

i vote 9 to 5!

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 12:06am

I revisited BE again tonight, and the production already feels stale. The actors didn't have the same energy they had when I saw the show back in February. I really enjoyed my first time better. I think at this rate, the show will be very, very boring and stale once it keeps running longer and longer, unless the new actors spice things up a bit.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 12:07am

Oh and also, I like N2N better, but don't criticize the dancers in Billy Elliot. I doubt any of you can dance like that or could perform those dances a couple times a week when you were a kid.

Updated On: 7/29/09 at 12:07 AM

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 12:08am

Seeing as I cannot stand Billy Elliot, I vote Next to Normal.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 12:12am

No...I can't dance like that: but I can sing AND act. Once you take a job as an actor/singer/dancer then you are fair game for criticism.


How is it ok to call the show 'stale' (and I agree with you) but not say the boys are not great singers or actors (which they aren't)?

[xmise]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 1:30am

Personally, I think Next to Normal is a better show because it keeps me more emotionally involved and I like the music and score better. I'm not overly involved in dancing or anything, so that's not a huge aspect to me - but the dancing in Billy IS incredible and Billy Elliot is definitely a good show. I've seen both and I honestly think N2N was a little more deserving of the Best Musical Tony, but after seeing Billy Elliot, I'm okay with it taking the win - it is a really good show. But it all depends on your preference; I generally prefer musicals that relate to people's daily lives.

However, to the person who was talking about how Next to Normal disrespectfully handles its material - I wholeheartedly disagree. I have severe bipolar disorder and fell in love with the show because of the emotional connection I have to it from that.

[Billy Whiz]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 2:49am

Having seen both shows I can say that they are both excellent. As to which is best is so much a personal thing and something that you will never get total agreement on.

At the end of the day "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

[TheatreDork2]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 2:54am

I've only been here for a few days...

**Turns head & winks at camera**

But I don't like the OP.

While I don't really like either show, I would say N2N.
Updated On: 7/29/09 at 02:54 AM

[Parks]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 3:35am

My vote is DEFINITELY for Next To Normal. The acting and singing are WONDERFUL in it. Billy Elliot, I think, is incredibly overhyped. Is it a good show? Yes. Would I go see it again? Not if I had to pay for a ticket. I thought the score was decent at best. The acting was fine. The only things this show has over Next To Normal are the big set (I actually prefer Next To Normal's set--it works better for the show than Billy's does for it) and the choreography.

And the fact the the 3 boys beat out Brian D'Arcy James and J. Robert Spencer for Best Actor? Are we really to believe that these boys (who are like 12 or 13) are giving a better performance than the other more seasoned actors? Honestly, I think the Tony voting committee got carried away with the hype of Billy Elliot. Yes, they are good--but they are NOT giving a performance that is nearly as deep or well acted as J. Robert Spencer.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 7:39am

I don't think the Tony for best actor/actress is attributed to the person, even though he/she picks up the award, in this case it was 3 young boys picking up the award, but really the Tony goes to the role, not the individual, this can be justified as all 3 boys won the Tony, if it really was best actor the Tony would of just gone to one Billy.

[CSonBroadway]

Posted: 7/29/09 at 7:44am

Oh, I know they aren't great singers and actors. People were just implying that they didn't think the Billys are talented- and they are.