MJ Previews — Page 6

Carnestoltes said: "TaffyDavenport said: "Carnestoltes said: "As a newbie, all the previews thing is new to me and I'm really interested in knowing to what extent this phase, prior to the official premiere, can reshape what they will present to the world.

Do critics really refrain from watching anything before Feb 1st?"

Prior to opening night, usually about a week before, the show will be “frozen,” meaning no more changes will be made before it opens. At that point, the critics will start attending, and they’ll review during the final previews, then publish them on opening night, February 1st.

"

Thanks for the answers, it's really interesting.

BTW, how do they know what works in the previews? Does the director attend every show to read the audience's reactions or does the public fill out some kind of form like they do in film test screenings?"

The creatives are usually in the back of the house watching the performance and seeing what works and what doesn't work. Because of technology and how shows are designed there usually isn't anything too drastic once the show starts previews. Usually a cut here or there, maybe some added dialogue, and occasionally a new song.

"The creatives are usually in the back of the house watching the performance and seeing what works and what doesn't work. Because of technology and how shows are designed there usually isn't anything too drastic once the show starts previews. Usually a cut here or there, maybe some added dialogue, and occasionally a new song."



Ok, thanks!

Lot666 said: "If only the media were an accurate measure of guilt or innocence. Salacious headlines and allegations do not mean guilt.

And, my goodness, all the "undisputed facts" in this thread! I'm glad someone among us was actually in the room where it happened, to tell us what to believe."

I don't know why we have to keep going round and round on this but:

1. The issue is not guilt or innocence. It's disapproval and condemnation.

2. There are plenty of admitted and acknowledged instances of conduct worthy of disapproval and condemnation.

3. If you are ok with the conduct that is admitted or acknowledged, or don't think it should keep you from patronizing this show, fine. Some others feel differently and some of those think that one's patronization (at any level) is itself worthy of disapproval and condemnation. That's their right, but as (imo) it is your right to feel differently and advocate/promote the show. We don't all have to agree about everything. Because we don't all agree about everything.

4. Were there adjudicated guilt here (we have no measure of innocence), the posture would be different but that is a red herring.

Lot666 said:


If only the media were an accurate measure of guilt or innocence. Salacious headlines and allegations do not mean guilt.

And, my goodness, all the "undisputed facts" in this thread! I'm glad someone among us was actually in the room where it happened, to tell us what to believe."

Trouble is, there were boys (now adult men) who were "in the room where it happened" and have told us what went down; you just choose not to believe them.

Lot666 said: "carnzee said: "Trouble is, there were boys (now adult men) who were "in the room where it happened" and have told us what went down; you just choose not to believe them."

Trouble is, the accused (now deceased) was "in the room where it [allegedly] happened", and told us what went down; you just choose not to believe him.

The difference between me and you is I believe the accused is innocent until proven guilty (as does the law), and you believe the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

"

I guess Robert Durst and OJ Simpson are innocent of the murders they've been aquitted of, too.

Whether or not someone was prosecuted successfully has NO CORRELATION to their guilt or innocence. The innocent are found guilty, and the guilty are aquitted all the time.

The difference between you and me is I don't think the law functions as it should 100% of the time.

Lot666 said: "carnzee said: "Trouble is, there were boys (now adult men) who were "in the room where it happened" and have told us what went down; you just choose not to believe them."

Trouble is, the accused (now deceased) was "in the room where it [allegedly] happened", and told us what went down; you just choose not to believe him.

The difference between me and you is I believe the accused is innocent until proven guilty (as does the law), and you believe the accused is guilty until proven innocent."

Trouble is, you and others are willing to ignore the FACT that he slept with little boys, just because you like the music.

BoringBoredBoard40 said: "I stil would like to understand how Christopher Wheeldon ended up as the director on this..."

I have a feeling he's sat wondering the same thing

PinniGig said: "@rpvee2 Not gonna lie that very detailed and thorough review made me go from thinking it'd be hard to go wrong with a musical featuring the best music from the last time MJ was at his peak / prime in terms of live performances to thinking I could not be more wrong. It sounds terrible.

Everything sounds terrible. I was willing to overlook the timeline they chose to set the story and expected some glossing over the facts to keep it light and loyal to the fans that don't want or need one of music's true legends picking and pulling apart but God in Heaven that sounds dreadful. "

Weird my positive review would give you such a negative opinion without even seeing it, but… okay.

MJ The Musical - "He is one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Now, Michael Jackson’s unique and unparalleled artistry has finally arrived on Broadway in a brand-new musical that takes audiences inside the creative process of one of the greatest entertainers in history. Featuring over 25 of Michael Jackson's biggest hits, MJ allows us to rediscover the man in the mirror – with an explosion of music and theatricality as unforgettable as the artist himself"

When I first heard about this and read the brief details, it conjured up a mental image that sounded potentially brilliant as a live show and tribute to MJ's best work and greatest achievements. Similar to the first part of “Moonwalker” it gave me the idea audiences would go through his career from late 60's as a young child right through to his solo career leading up to where they want to end on a high with his Dangerous world tour in 1992.

Different cast and costumes to reflect each immediately recognisable era, simple but clever set and scenery changes / lighting and use of projection in parts is what thought would carry it flawlessly from start to finish.

Given his videos featured live footage, cardboard cut outs and stop motion animation used all together as seen in "Leave me Alone" and "Dancing Machine" that too would be superb brought to life on the stage.

It's also why I was so disappointed and did a U-turn after reading the very detailed review by @rpvee2.

Sounds like someone has the right idea and is trying hard to give audiences the music, dance and legend but also want to make sure it's known how much he endured at the hands of his abusive father. That's where it loses me completely.

Described as a dazzling show taking audiences through MJ's creative process that defined him – so what is Joe Jackson doing in it? What does it want or hope to do?

Link to clip for anyone unfamiliar but this is how I saw it in my mind with full cast, projections and some nifty stage props and costumes that bring to life.

Over the Years (from Moonwalker)

https://youtu.be/ixJxfRpRjbU

Updated On: 12/24/21 at 11:44 PM

Previews resume today at 2; opening night is still set for February 1 at the moment.

Updated On: 12/30/21 at 10:56 PM

Updated On: 12/30/21 at 12:22 AM

Tonight’s preview is cancelled. Perfs resume New Year’s Day