Lestat Reviews- Page 5

[WaltSummersPI]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 11:39am

I wasn't attacking you, I was just saying that contributing to every Lestat thread with "This is the worst show in the world" isn't remarkably helpful.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 11:51am

I think it is a big asset to be able to back and forth on here with individuals who have seen a show whether they liked the show or not.

Time is a precious commodity as is money, and it is an expenditure of both when anyone goes to see a show. Marketing for a show can be deliberately vague just to pull people in when you may end up unhappy you have been conned into seeing something which if you had been better informed about, you could have avoided. And seen something closer to what you think is worth your time and money.

This is not a reference to Lestat, which I won't see until next week. It is a direct response to putting down posters who are just exercising their right to free speech, which is of tremendous value. We can always consider the source.

[Mamamia Sammy2]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 11:53am

I'm still waiting for the most important review of them all.... the review from Phantom2!

[jimnysf]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 11:57am

Thanks "nomdeplume". I agree with you 100%.

"MamamiaSammy2". Have you forgotten about "WickedPhantom"? I can't wait for his review. :)

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 12:03pm

Just like randomly walking in and judging a work-in-development, with no concept at how much time and money and effort has gone into it, is un-informed.

I haven't seen the show, so I'm not commenting on Lestat in particular, but it opened on Broadway. It's no longer a "work-in-development" and if they opened while still needing "development," than that's the producers' fault, not ours. Attack them for forcing their show to open before it was ready to withstand critical reaction, don't accuse everyone here for being so judgemental when they were just copying and pasting reviews.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 12:20pm

If Phantom2 finds discretion to be the better part of valor or is otherwise too busy to devote time to the necesssary scholarship right now I think it is all right.

His review may not find fit companionship in the middle of this bloodbath.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 12:43pm

I'm hoping Salem's Lot is next. With a score by Barry Manilow.

[Hawker]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 12:45pm

I always chuckle at the "LLoyd Weber's derivative music" barb. Derivative of what or whom?

Dear God, even Robert Frost begged a line in "Stopping by Woods" from somemone else.

Stick to the point, Madame critic. "Lestat" is about Elton John's music not that of ALW. You've already had your bloodletting with "The Woman in White".

[jimnysf]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 1:04pm

"I'm hoping Salem's Lot is next. With a score by Barry Manilow".

I'm waiting for "Dark Shadows- The Musical".

Updated On: 4/26/06 at 01:04 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 1:05pm

rockfernis - I know you mean well, but working hard on a show is part of the process for every show. And working hard is not what people pay tickets to see. They are judging the final product, not the process by which it occurred. If I go to the bathroom, look in the toilet and see a turd, I'm not inclined to thank my digestive system on a job well done. If, however, I look in the bowl and discover a couple of gold bars, then I'm likely to sing its praises. In the case of Sir Elton, he's squeezed out several gold bars, but with Lestat, he's forgotten what he ate that produced them. I just don't believe Anne Rice's novels were the food on which a hit was to emerge.

[Phantom05]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 1:27pm

- I saw it it San Fran, not yet on Broadway, but everyone is using words like "trashed, flop, etc.," and to be perfectly honest, these reviews aren't nearly as bad as the previous "undead" musicals. These reviews are "lower - end - mediocre" at best, but certainly not "trashed." The show will probably run for quite a while and honestly, ticket sales have been quite favorable. I will probably end up seeing it in NYC pretty soon. Who's to say that the creative team won't continue tweaking throughout the run. None of the critics, in fact a few mentioned, that the show is not beyond help and a lot of the problems are fairly minor..."Scarlet Pimpernel" revamped and it ended up a better show, maybe Lestat will as well. Either way, just my two cents...Tootles!

Phantom05

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 1:31pm

Mr. Matt... you need to work on your metaphors! :P

Hawker: Derivative of Puccini and rock music, maybe a little, maybe sometimes, maybe sometimes out right?

I don't think the issue is writing a scary gothic musical. I think that would actually be pretty cool and feasible. I just think the problem is doing it right.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 2:02pm

It's a vampire musical. Some things just shouldn't be musicalized. I.E. Lord of the Rings. Just leave some things alone. Vampires shouldn't sing.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 2:09pm

I dunno, why not?

[firescape]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 2:27pm

Well, rentboy, I am going to assume you saw LOTR. Therefore you have your opinion, of course. I also have mine because I did see it. It worked great visually. It was great and has every right to live on as a stage production. Just as the movie can be in its form as well, although it isnt an exact representation of the books either.

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 2:33pm

Well sorry to threadjack, but I did see LOTR, and I agree with rentboy - I thought it was a terrible way to exploit the franchise, it was long and tedious; very desperate to put thousands of pages in the least amount of hours possible.

And for Lestat, I still need someone to remind me when a show was trashed so bad (definitely Threepenny got better reviews).

Posted: 4/26/06 at 3:44pm

"It's a vampire musical..."

I love that phrase and have seen it bantered about for quite a while. Who Cares?!! LESTAT is not living and dying (or dying and dying) based on the fact it's a "vampire musical." It's a musical that happens to be about vampires. The weakness in the project is that it's a weak MUSICAL, weak book, lackluster music, etc. And I have seen it, BTW.

I have personally been involved in live theater since I was 7, so my 36 years has given me a good sense of how tough it is to bring something creative to life. I also have been attending theater for about the same amount of years. This show is just not up to a standard that deserves the high ticket price, or frankly mine (and others) time,more precious than the 111 plus dollars. Yeah, everyone worked real hard on it, and God Bless 'em, work is work. But in the end, the promise of something good didn't materialize. And if they weren't ready, then don't open. Go back and get it right. Put the ego and vanity aside, spend the money NOW to put on a show that works and will have a healthy run.

So much of the sturm and drang on this board is born out of passion for theater and creativity and art, not hate, stupidity or narrow-mindedness. True that passion can be misguided, but it's out of love for an artform that has seen so many changes, mostly commercialization, that threatens to render it obsolete.

If it wasn't for a forum like this, where this artform can be celebrated, and future audiences perpetuated, the genre might be in even bigger trouble. If I were an active part of the community (Producer/actor/writer, etc.) I would be glad that there was active discussion. It's when they STOP talking, that one should be concerned.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 5:19pm

I just feel really bad for the cast. They are so good, and they honestly deserve so much better.

I'm sad to see most people don't see it as a fun romp that I saw it as.

[JasonM12480]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 5:32pm

Could one of the biggest problems be that the team behind this show is the same exact team behind "Disney's Beauty and the Beast"? Same director, same book writer, same choreographer. This ain't no Disney musical, babes. lol Singing teacups and forks are one thing; singing vampires is another.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 5:50pm

Jason, I agree with you. I was never thrilled about who they chose for the creative team (with the exception of Elton John & Susan Hilfery). I was very surprised when they announced Robert Jess Roth.

[OasisBroadway]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 5:50pm

"Singing teacups and forks are one thing; singing vampires is another."

LOL that line had me laughing hysterically. good job!

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 6:06pm

I'm gonna laugh when the first successful vampire musical is Mel Brooks' "Dracula, Dead and Loving It." Imagine all the joke material they will have after three flop vampire musicals.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 8:38pm

The MelBrooks movie was a flop. I love Brooks but the laughs were sparse in this one

Back to Lestat, we see it in a couple of weeks. Will they pull the pin on it or try & make a go of it ?[

[WickedPhantom]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 8:40pm

OMGZZ SO I JUST GOT BACK FROM SEEING LESTAT LAST NITE WITH MY RENTS!!! IT WAS AMAZING SO MUCH ENERGY!!! I LOVED THE SONG A NEW WORLD. HUGH PANARO IS SO HOT! SO IS ELTON JOHN AND BERNIE TAUPIN, ANNE RICE IS SEXY!!!!!

IT IS THE NEW WICKED!!!

EVERYONE NEED TO SEE IT!!!!!!!

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 8:42pm

I do not think Wicked got reviews as bad as Lestat's