#1
Posted: 12/19/10 at 11:57pm
Ok, what's the 4-1-1 on ELF? My friend said it was terrible. Now I have to question his judgement. Is it good or not?
ELF: Thumbs UP or thumbs DOWN?
#2
Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:14am
Down. I thought it was a stupid, thrown together attempt to put on a show just to make a buck. Awful music and a ridiculous script that makes the good parts of the movie awful.
#3
Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:21am
... and a set design that stylistically wandered all over the place, with no consistent vision. Contrary to popular opinion, projections of CG imagery will not solve every problem.
http://docandraider.com
#4
Posted: 12/20/10 at 12:22am
I had a fun time. I smiled a lot. I got what I expected when I heard Elf would be a musical.
#5
Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:29am
Question his judgement? If it's his OPINION, how can he be wrong. Even if every other human being loved it, he STILL isn't wrong.
It's ELF -- honestly, just how good COULD it be?
It's ELF -- honestly, just how good COULD it be?
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#6
Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:57am
^ Exactly. Its Elf the Musical. Its not going to be a theatrical masterpiece, but it will provide holiday entertainment. And as dramamama said, there is no such thing as a wrong opinion.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#7
Posted: 12/20/10 at 7:31am
I thought it was completely charming. It wasn't trying to be anything it wasn't and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. It was actually a pretty good adaptation from film to stage, much better than Women on the Verge.
#8
My father is a horrible bigot. He doesn't try to be anything he isn't, either. It actually *does* make me enjoy his bigotry more!
Posted: 12/20/10 at 7:57am
My father is a horrible bigot. He doesn't try to be anything he isn't, either. It actually *does* make me enjoy his bigotry more!
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#9
Posted: 12/20/10 at 9:22am
I guess my issue with throwaway shows like this -- and let's face it: it is -- is that it's McDonalds pretending to be fine dining. I can see shelling out a C-note to see WICKED or even VERGE. But this is one of those just-add-water productions that's just about making a quick buck and pretending to be a "real" show.
http://docandraider.com
#10
Posted: 12/20/10 at 9:41am
I didn't care for it at all - found the writing to be lazy, cheap, and generic. It felt quickly thrown together, with the simple goal of making a quick buck off the familiarity of the title. The songs, for my taste, went in one ear and out the other; the lyrics, in particular, were meaningless, bringing no extra dimension to the story.
Updated On: 12/20/10 at 09:41 AM
#11
Not everyone can be Sondheim or Porter, guys.
Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:12am
Not everyone can be Sondheim or Porter, guys.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#12
Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:46am
Not saying they have to, Growl. But for the kind of ticket price they're asking?
To put it in a bit of perspective: I have a huge collection of original musicals written from about 1920 to 1945, all for the high school market at the time. These were all done to fill a need before Broadway producers looked at schools and said "SECONDARY MARKET!" while rubbing their hands in glee.
These arent Sondheim or Porter either, but some of it is damn good, so much so that, with a little tinkering, it would rival some of the stuff on Bway right now.
Frankly, from what I've seen on ELF, I'd take an Arthur Penn score written in 1915 over this.
To put it in a bit of perspective: I have a huge collection of original musicals written from about 1920 to 1945, all for the high school market at the time. These were all done to fill a need before Broadway producers looked at schools and said "SECONDARY MARKET!" while rubbing their hands in glee.
These arent Sondheim or Porter either, but some of it is damn good, so much so that, with a little tinkering, it would rival some of the stuff on Bway right now.
Frankly, from what I've seen on ELF, I'd take an Arthur Penn score written in 1915 over this.
http://docandraider.com
#13
Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:55am
For this particular thread, I'm just separating shows into 2 categories:
1) Good shows
2) Bad shows
Elf simply falls into the second category. Nothing to do with Sondheim, Porter, Finn, Weill, Berlin, Kander, Ebb, Bock, Harnick, or anyone else. In my opinion, Elf is plain old bad theatre.
1) Good shows
2) Bad shows
Elf simply falls into the second category. Nothing to do with Sondheim, Porter, Finn, Weill, Berlin, Kander, Ebb, Bock, Harnick, or anyone else. In my opinion, Elf is plain old bad theatre.
#14
Not everybody can be Andy Webber and Elton John!!!
Posted: 12/20/10 at 10:57am
Not everybody can be Andy Webber and Elton John!!!
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#15
Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:17am
I'd say it's a shadow of the movie, by the numbers, with no one quite on par with the original film cast. It's not bad but I honestly recommend seeing the original movie instead... And Rare Exports at the IFC.
#16
Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:31am
Rare Exports was indeed a rare treat.
....but the world goes 'round
#17
Posted: 12/20/10 at 11:49am
Now a stage version of RARE EXPORTS, using all that left-over flying rigging from that other show down the street, would kick serious butt during the holiday season. 
http://docandraider.com
#18
Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:46pm
im seeing it today so i will be able to comment soon but i can say that im incredibly excited and i love the movie so hopefully it will live up to my expectations.
#19
I'm curious -- has there been anyone here who didn't like the movie but enjoyed the show?
Because I kind of hate the movie, and though I was tempted to take my mom to see this, I just couldn't justify it when there were so many other things to see.
Posted: 12/20/10 at 1:53pm
I'm curious -- has there been anyone here who didn't like the movie but enjoyed the show?
Because I kind of hate the movie, and though I was tempted to take my mom to see this, I just couldn't justify it when there were so many other things to see.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#20
Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:40pm
I would think that depends on what you didn't like about the movie.
#21
Mostly Will Farrell's performance.
That said, however, I find his presence so overbearing that it's hard to judge the material without seeing it through his playing every line like anvil landing. So maybe the screenplay has some merit, but having only seen the movie once all the way through and in snatches here and there subsequently... I'd not comfortable saying how firmily I believe that to be true or not.
Posted: 12/20/10 at 2:52pm
Mostly Will Farrell's performance.
That said, however, I find his presence so overbearing that it's hard to judge the material without seeing it through his playing every line like anvil landing. So maybe the screenplay has some merit, but having only seen the movie once all the way through and in snatches here and there subsequently... I'd not comfortable saying how firmily I believe that to be true or not.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#22
Posted: 12/20/10 at 3:09pm
The story and character were created expressly for Ferrell. If you don't like him or his performance, perhaps your problem is more with the heart of what the work is.
I found that Ferrell, no matter what one thinks of him, is such a strange performer, he is what made the character of Buddy make any sense - precisely because it makes absolutely no sense.
With an actor more tied to the ground (like Arcelus), the character just becomes a boring array of bad clowning, with no strange, other-worldly bizarreness to justify the absurdity.
I found that Ferrell, no matter what one thinks of him, is such a strange performer, he is what made the character of Buddy make any sense - precisely because it makes absolutely no sense.
With an actor more tied to the ground (like Arcelus), the character just becomes a boring array of bad clowning, with no strange, other-worldly bizarreness to justify the absurdity.
#23
Posted: 12/20/10 at 4:16pm
Then perhaps my problem is with the heart of the material, if it requires Will Ferrell to "work"... which I don't think it does. I don't think Will Ferrell's a strange performer at all, though. I think he's totally pedestrian. He may make perpetual use of odd inflections, but they seem prompted by a desire for abritrary silliness rather than having roots in text or motivation. And considering he's been doing the same schtick for 15 years makes pretty much everything that much less surprising. Those are just my $0.02. Obviously, the question of Will Ferrell's merits as an actor or comedian is a horse of a different stripe.
That said, however, I wonder even more about the possiibility of an affirmative answer to my question because, to me, it makes perfect sense for people who love the move to hate the show... but the opposite seems far less likely, if the material suffers as much as you say from the lack of Ferrell-type qualities in the leading man.
That said, however, I wonder even more about the possiibility of an affirmative answer to my question because, to me, it makes perfect sense for people who love the move to hate the show... but the opposite seems far less likely, if the material suffers as much as you say from the lack of Ferrell-type qualities in the leading man.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#24
Posted: 12/20/10 at 4:22pm
I enjoy Ferrell in the film, but I'm hardly a die-hard fan. And I think we're more in agreement than you suspect - when I say he's strange, I mean he's weird because what he does is, as you say, prompted by a desire for arbitrary silliness rather than having roots in text or motivation. He never seems like a human being in his work.
Sometimes that sort of thing works and sometimes it doesn't, and it never works for everyone (remember Jerry Lewis?). But then, nothing really works for everyone, does it?
Sometimes that sort of thing works and sometimes it doesn't, and it never works for everyone (remember Jerry Lewis?). But then, nothing really works for everyone, does it?
#25
Well, sure, whether a performer can make it work is one thing and whether or not a given spectator will find it funny when it does work is one thing. But it's gotta be a means to an end, I think. It works best (for me) in the service of satire -- for Jerry Lewis, to take your example, in maybe "The Nutty Professor" or Pyton"s "Meaning of Life" or the Marx Bros. in "Duck Soup." They're not just pulling faces to pull faces, ya know? Not to mention that all of the aforementioned had enormous range, brains, and performance variety proven over many projects... whereas Ferrell just... doesn't. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir, and obviously we're off-topic. I'm just chatting now because I'm interested. But I don't think his presence has ever enhanced a movie experience for me. Even "Wedding Crashers," which was clever enough in spurts and breezy enough to keep my interest, came grinding to a halt as soon as he showed up... that shameless egotistical mugging. Ugh. I just have such a hard time wrapping me head around people who love him, especially after all these years of sameness.
One time I found him genuinely funny, back when he did Harry Caray on SNL in the late 90's. I don't think I've laughed at him since.
So, the book and music of ELF do nothing to buoy themselves on their own merits? I question the value of a text that depends on a particularly narrow interpretation to come off as not being a complete snore. That's sad.
Posted: 12/20/10 at 4:48pm
Well, sure, whether a performer can make it work is one thing and whether or not a given spectator will find it funny when it does work is one thing. But it's gotta be a means to an end, I think. It works best (for me) in the service of satire -- for Jerry Lewis, to take your example, in maybe "The Nutty Professor" or Pyton"s "Meaning of Life" or the Marx Bros. in "Duck Soup." They're not just pulling faces to pull faces, ya know? Not to mention that all of the aforementioned had enormous range, brains, and performance variety proven over many projects... whereas Ferrell just... doesn't. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir, and obviously we're off-topic. I'm just chatting now because I'm interested. But I don't think his presence has ever enhanced a movie experience for me. Even "Wedding Crashers," which was clever enough in spurts and breezy enough to keep my interest, came grinding to a halt as soon as he showed up... that shameless egotistical mugging. Ugh. I just have such a hard time wrapping me head around people who love him, especially after all these years of sameness.
One time I found him genuinely funny, back when he did Harry Caray on SNL in the late 90's. I don't think I've laughed at him since.
So, the book and music of ELF do nothing to buoy themselves on their own merits? I question the value of a text that depends on a particularly narrow interpretation to come off as not being a complete snore. That's sad.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95