#26
Posted: 4/9/05 at 2:22pm
I 100% prefer Michael Ball anyway. I think (from what I've heard) Michael Ball would even be a much better Phantom
Crwford will NOT return to Woman in White in London — Page 2
#27
Posted: 4/10/05 at 12:12am
/quote/
Judging by the film version of The Woman In White with Sidney Greenstreet as Count Fosco, I don't see how Michael Crawford can say playing the role straight would be like re-doing Eric from Phantom.
Good riddance to him if he's stupid enough to think it's the same part.
/end quote/
If you actually READ my post instead of just reacting to it, you'd see I was discussing "Dance of the Vampires" and the things that went wrong with that production ending with the admission that Michael's decision to play Count Von Krolock as a comedic piece was ill-planned. But that there were many other problems with the production and I hardly think Michael was the be-all and end-all reason for it crashing and burning.
Judging by the film version of The Woman In White with Sidney Greenstreet as Count Fosco, I don't see how Michael Crawford can say playing the role straight would be like re-doing Eric from Phantom.
Good riddance to him if he's stupid enough to think it's the same part.
/end quote/
If you actually READ my post instead of just reacting to it, you'd see I was discussing "Dance of the Vampires" and the things that went wrong with that production ending with the admission that Michael's decision to play Count Von Krolock as a comedic piece was ill-planned. But that there were many other problems with the production and I hardly think Michael was the be-all and end-all reason for it crashing and burning.
"Now and then life hits you on the back of the head with a sock full of wet porridge. How you handle that is up to you." - Tim Rice
#28
Posted: 4/10/05 at 12:51pm
I mean, Michael Crawford did spend over a year and a half headlning the most expensive Vegas show and got to fly around the stage on a floating saucer with 70 dancers below him. That might give me an ego too if I was then put in his shoes now.
#29
Posted: 4/11/05 at 11:57am
Not to mention the fact that I think Crawford WANTED to do Fosco simply to prove his "comedic Italian" character could actually work!
"Now and then life hits you on the back of the head with a sock full of wet porridge. How you handle that is up to you." - Tim Rice
#30
It would have been better if tehy just gave Steinman the control he originally had. The script he wrote for the Broadway production was a perfect medium. In parts it was better than the German original. But Michael Crawford came in, after he was hired (for the fact they needed a 'name' for the show's success), and turned the beautiful script into a hash of bad jokes and acting. He re-wrote the script, his lines and other actor's parts, to suit his benefit and creative needs. When he signed on for the part, he demanded creative control - and I am still baffled, other than the fact the producers wanted a name, why they would agree to that. It was absurd - and bound to destroy the show. And a much better director was needed than John Caird, and John Carrafa, because their work is far too intimate - and couldn't possibly fill the productions' expectations. It was something that needed to be done on the scale of Phantom of the Opera, or an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. The script as Steinman had it was a nice medium of the West End invasion of the 80s, classic traditional operatta, Rodgers and Hammerstein and a moral play. Crawford just simply reduced it to a bad stand-up comedy, albeit a complete mockery of everything that went into it. The beautiful subtletie of Steinman's script, and even the German show, was somehow lost. And though I blame Crawford, because he had too much power, I also agree that he's not entirely responsible.
The Minskoff was far too big a venue for that production. They needed a more intimate space, like the Raumond in Vienna. DOTV resembled a school production in the Himalayas. The sound design was absolutely atrocious. Even on the lowest volume, it's still ringing in your ears - and imagine what it was like for the audience. Sitting through Carpe Noctem, in Act Two, is sheer hell - the most painfil experience in the history of musical theatre. But the subtle version on the German recording, and Steinman's intention in his English draft, are refined and poised. The general portrayal of the characters, the total lack of subtlety, which I blame on Crawford - because he changed most actor's lines - did the show in. And also that fascination to spoil the show's intentions, to create something differrent, following the direction of what was 'in' on Broadway. But I understand the financial side to that... so I can't argue with business
Plus, as a passionate Steinfan, I WOULD have a biased opinion - but, still, this show had great potential. And, for some reason, iut happens to be one of the greatest musical phenemonems in Germany (explain that). But it's over, ancient history, but I still resent Crawford for playing an important part in the productions demise - and I thought, with his part in Woman in White at the same venue (if he's still involved lol) would be dancing on DOTVs grave
Posted: 4/12/05 at 2:58am
It would have been better if tehy just gave Steinman the control he originally had. The script he wrote for the Broadway production was a perfect medium. In parts it was better than the German original. But Michael Crawford came in, after he was hired (for the fact they needed a 'name' for the show's success), and turned the beautiful script into a hash of bad jokes and acting. He re-wrote the script, his lines and other actor's parts, to suit his benefit and creative needs. When he signed on for the part, he demanded creative control - and I am still baffled, other than the fact the producers wanted a name, why they would agree to that. It was absurd - and bound to destroy the show. And a much better director was needed than John Caird, and John Carrafa, because their work is far too intimate - and couldn't possibly fill the productions' expectations. It was something that needed to be done on the scale of Phantom of the Opera, or an Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. The script as Steinman had it was a nice medium of the West End invasion of the 80s, classic traditional operatta, Rodgers and Hammerstein and a moral play. Crawford just simply reduced it to a bad stand-up comedy, albeit a complete mockery of everything that went into it. The beautiful subtletie of Steinman's script, and even the German show, was somehow lost. And though I blame Crawford, because he had too much power, I also agree that he's not entirely responsible.
The Minskoff was far too big a venue for that production. They needed a more intimate space, like the Raumond in Vienna. DOTV resembled a school production in the Himalayas. The sound design was absolutely atrocious. Even on the lowest volume, it's still ringing in your ears - and imagine what it was like for the audience. Sitting through Carpe Noctem, in Act Two, is sheer hell - the most painfil experience in the history of musical theatre. But the subtle version on the German recording, and Steinman's intention in his English draft, are refined and poised. The general portrayal of the characters, the total lack of subtlety, which I blame on Crawford - because he changed most actor's lines - did the show in. And also that fascination to spoil the show's intentions, to create something differrent, following the direction of what was 'in' on Broadway. But I understand the financial side to that... so I can't argue with business
Plus, as a passionate Steinfan, I WOULD have a biased opinion - but, still, this show had great potential. And, for some reason, iut happens to be one of the greatest musical phenemonems in Germany (explain that). But it's over, ancient history, but I still resent Crawford for playing an important part in the productions demise - and I thought, with his part in Woman in White at the same venue (if he's still involved lol) would be dancing on DOTVs grave
Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try
-South Pacific
Updated On: 4/12/05 at 02:58 AM
#31
Posted: 4/12/05 at 6:23am
At least you're being honest about your bias. You'll excuse me if MY bias doesn't accept YOUR bias as gospel.
"Now and then life hits you on the back of the head with a sock full of wet porridge. How you handle that is up to you." - Tim Rice
#32
Posted: 4/12/05 at 6:36am
Well see, it is not. It is called an opinion.
But some people happen to agree with it
But some people happen to agree with it
Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try
-South Pacific
#33
Posted: 4/14/05 at 6:17am
...and quite a few don't. Me for example, I've acknowledged that Michael made a major mistake in playing Count Krolock for laughs, but I don't think it was the be-all and end-all reason for the show's destruction. There were far too many other causes as well.
"Now and then life hits you on the back of the head with a sock full of wet porridge. How you handle that is up to you." - Tim Rice
#34
Posted: 4/17/05 at 3:55am
Well we cann discuss those. Go to my biased, pathetic website at www.freewebs.com/lordofexcess - under MUSICALS - and rea dwhat I have to say. Then we can talk at my email-address, rather than me blabbwering about this sad failure for the umpteenth time
Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try
-South Pacific
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95