#1
Posted: 8/11/12 at 7:24am
Why recast a old man with a boy I am sure Stephen cast an old man for a reason ? Why not ask Stephen what he meant what he wanted and James Lapine ???
#2
Posted: 8/11/12 at 7:28am
Have you seen the production yet? There is a specific reason they changed it and it has to do with the perspective this production is taking.
#4
Posted: 8/11/12 at 7:39am
It is a new production with a new concept and direction. This particular production really focuses on the theme "Children Will Listen", and many new things were added to bring forth that theme in a strong manner.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#5
Posted: 8/11/12 at 7:40am
Also, why did they cast Donna Murphy as Bernadette Peter's role, the Witch?
I'm sure Stephen and James WANTED Bernadette to play the witch, as they cast her originally.
Oh, and why did they change the trees, the Original Production had different trees, so why did they change them?
Moron.
I'm sure Stephen and James WANTED Bernadette to play the witch, as they cast her originally.
Oh, and why did they change the trees, the Original Production had different trees, so why did they change them?
Moron.
#7
Posted: 8/11/12 at 7:52am
"no and with the crap reviews not planning to"
Then you have no right to judge
Then you have no right to judge
''With the number of people I ignore, I'm lucky I work at all in this town'' - Helena Bonham Carter
#8
Posted: 8/11/12 at 8:10am
i like write style yours
....but the world goes 'round
Updated On: 8/11/12 at 08:10 AM
#10
Posted: 8/11/12 at 8:31am
Because if every production were just like the original, revivals would have little reason to exist.
Not everyone likes this concept, but I dare say, plenty do.
The reviews, by the way, were far from "crap". Most were favorable to very good.
Not everyone likes this concept, but I dare say, plenty do.
The reviews, by the way, were far from "crap". Most were favorable to very good.
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.
#11
Posted: 8/11/12 at 8:32am
Actually it received 13 positive reviews and 6 negative reviews from the major publications. If all you're seeing is "crap reviews" then you're obviously only seeing the reviews you want to see and not looking at the reviews the show actually got.
Why recast the narrator as a child?
Because the director, like a lot of revival directors, had a new different vision for the show that he wanted to express. Cabaret was set on the stage of a Cabaret, Annie Get Your Gun was an act in Buffalo Bills Wild West Show, Chicago had all black costumes, On A Clear Day changed the role of Daisy to Daivie, the current London Sweeney Todd updated the era, the Broadway Sweeney Todd set it in an asylum with Tobias as the narrator.
New concepts for classic shows shed new light on a piece. Sometimes the concept works, sometimes it doesn't. I usually like a new spin on a classic because it makes me see the show in a new way that I've never seen it before, and when a new concept doesn't work for me I don't mind because a classic stageing is usually just around the corner.
Why recast the narrator as a child?
Because the director, like a lot of revival directors, had a new different vision for the show that he wanted to express. Cabaret was set on the stage of a Cabaret, Annie Get Your Gun was an act in Buffalo Bills Wild West Show, Chicago had all black costumes, On A Clear Day changed the role of Daisy to Daivie, the current London Sweeney Todd updated the era, the Broadway Sweeney Todd set it in an asylum with Tobias as the narrator.
New concepts for classic shows shed new light on a piece. Sometimes the concept works, sometimes it doesn't. I usually like a new spin on a classic because it makes me see the show in a new way that I've never seen it before, and when a new concept doesn't work for me I don't mind because a classic stageing is usually just around the corner.
#13
Posted: 8/11/12 at 8:36am
Admittedly, Timothy Sheader's infusion of mixed metaphors and the bohemian design isn't for everyone, but I loved it at Regent's park.
#14
Posted: 8/11/12 at 8:42am
okay but I have a problem if you a re doing something why not write a new piece ?
I think Amy Adams while okay from the clips needs to go to broadway acting camp
I think if the nyt says you are crap you need to close
I think Amy Adams while okay from the clips needs to go to broadway acting camp
I think if the nyt says you are crap you need to close
#16
Posted: 8/11/12 at 9:05am
"I think if the nyt says you are crap you need to close"
I think you need to go see the ****ing show.
I think you need to go see the ****ing show.
Updated On: 8/11/12 at 09:05 AM
#17
Posted: 8/11/12 at 9:08am
So productions should just pack it in if the NYT says its bad? Regardless of audience response? Ridiculous.
If they have an audience, they have a show. Period.
And really, you cannot fully judge any performance from reviews or video clips.
If they have an audience, they have a show. Period.
And really, you cannot fully judge any performance from reviews or video clips.
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.
#18
Posted: 8/11/12 at 9:11am
The NYT also said Wicked was crap. So I guess it should just close because obviously nobody's going to want to see it since the NYT said it was crap. And the NYT loved [TOS] which is why it's to most successful show on broadway right?
Why not write a new show?
First off, a director isn't a writer and it takes more than an interesting concept to write a new musical.
Second, some of us enjoy new concepts applied to old shows. It's simple supply and demand. As long as there's an audience who wants to see it there's going to be directors who want to produce it.
Finally, if you don't like reconceptualized revivals ignore them.
Why not write a new show?
First off, a director isn't a writer and it takes more than an interesting concept to write a new musical.
Second, some of us enjoy new concepts applied to old shows. It's simple supply and demand. As long as there's an audience who wants to see it there's going to be directors who want to produce it.
Finally, if you don't like reconceptualized revivals ignore them.
#19
Posted: 8/11/12 at 9:19am
If the only shows on Broadway each season were the once loved or even very much liked by the Times, you could count them on one hand. Not to say the Times is wrong to be discerning (although I certainly don't always agree with them), but to say a show should automatically close up shop if the Times says "no!" is not a workable model for Broadway.
#20
Posted: 8/11/12 at 10:07am
I would ask if you know how this has been discussed ad nauseum (that means very much) in the main Into the Woods discussion and several others. However, I'm pretty sure you do know that.
#21
Posted: 8/11/12 at 10:15am
Why recast a old man with a boy I am sure Stephen cast an old man for a reason ? Why not ask Stephen what he meant what he wanted and James Lapine ???
The changes for this production were fully approved by Sondheim and Lapine. They wouldn't be possible otherwise.
The changes for this production were fully approved by Sondheim and Lapine. They wouldn't be possible otherwise.
"Tracy... Hold Mama's waffles."
Updated On: 8/12/12 at 10:15 AM
#22
Posted: 8/11/12 at 10:47am
Because every revival of every show needs something to set it apart from the original/previous revival. Just like in the 1st revival of ITW, there was the big storybook that the narrator opened. So they set it apart in their own way.
Theatre is my life. No one can take that away from me.
#23
Posted: 8/11/12 at 10:57am
"How about INTO ELLE WOODS, a fusion musical"
Ooo! I like! Kinda like the "inside the human body" episode that every children's show in the 90s had. Starring Bailey Hanks, of course, after her FEAST (including the brownie) to show the effect of all that hate-saturated food. She'll feel SO much better than before.
Anyone #horrified?
Ooo! I like! Kinda like the "inside the human body" episode that every children's show in the 90s had. Starring Bailey Hanks, of course, after her FEAST (including the brownie) to show the effect of all that hate-saturated food. She'll feel SO much better than before.
Anyone #horrified?
"These rabid fans...possess the acting talent to portray the hooker...Linda Eder..." -The New York Times
#24
Posted: 8/11/12 at 11:03am
I think if the nyt says you are crap you need to close
Best.comment.in.this.thread.
Best.comment.in.this.thread.
#25
Posted: 8/11/12 at 11:35am
Drunk Hulk presents INTO WOODS
"ME WISH
MORE THAN ANYTHING..."
"ME WISH
MORE THAN ANYTHING..."
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95