OMIGOD! A World Premiere (Legally Blonde SF Video) — Page 8

People are allowed to judge the clips.
It's what they were put out for.

But, I am content after looking at all the reviews - they are very positive for the first week and a half of previews.

---

I just reviewed the clip again, and the key issues I see with it as a marketing vehicle are:

1) the clips focus on snippets of songs that don't necessary show off the show - or even the songs themselves - to best advantage. "Chip On My Shoulder" is a strong song and Christian Borle absolutely sells it on stage. However the clip they show comes at the very end of the song and is out of context...you're missing the buildup that makes the end so satisfying.

2) the clips completely misrepresent the choreography. Because of the sections of the songs they've chosen, the dancing looks minimal and weak...basically the chorus flouncing around. "What You Want" is a hugely satisfying dance number, and many other numbers are quite strong...but you'll never know that from the clips.

3) a number of the better moments in the show - like "There! Right There!" which had the audience loving it from the start - are apparently being kept under wraps so as not to spoil the "surprise". This may not be the best choice for building excitement.

To sum up, the clips don't do the show justice, and that's a shame. But anybody who proclaims the show DOA based on a bit of botched marketing is being shortsighted. Out of town previews are not just a chance to tinker and tighten the show itself. They are also a chance for the marketing team to find out what resonates with the public and get on message.

I am going to my second preview on Saturday. If you read my earlier post, this is a show I only went to the first time as a birthday outing for my niece; I essentially had zero interest in seeing it on my own, based on the topic and the advertising campaign.

After seeing the preview I was sufficiently intrigued to choose to see it again, still in previews but closer to opening night, to see the changes a week brings.

Shows are living things...they grow and evolve. When you're in early rehersals you can deliver the same line night after night, reaching for that resonant delivery that stops the rehearsal in its track as the entire stage breaks down in laughter or tears. By previews you're obviously closer, but you're still working on pace and timing, and you finally get a chance to see how an audience reacts.

I believe this show will get stronger. Just how strong I don't know...but may have a better feel for after Saturday. There's some huge talent here, both major and minor players. Sure, we all have the right to review and snipe at the marketing campaign, but I believe some people are making the mistake of judging the show based on a set of clips that don't adequately showcase the product. (And by set of clips, I'm throwing in all the other fluff clips in the set.)

Updated On: 2/1/07 at 11:17 PM

No you really weren't. And Laura Bell Bundy is actually very pretty. Time to hit Lenscrafters again.

---

Agreed. "Remix" again feels like they're trying to dumb me down.

And just to point out, most of the people who have gone to the show have been within the target audience. I want to see a straight man in his 40s go into this show and see what he thinks.

I don't want to hear that 14 year-old-girl who grew up on "My Sweet Sixteen" liked the show. I would guess that most of them will. It doesn't take any brain power to understand this show. It's basically what's on the surface. I just prefer shows where you have to think, or at least things that don't HAND you every joke. I don't think anything should be "fluff." Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is smart fun. Hairspray is smart fun. Fluff is Wedding Singer.

Legally Blonde totally corners it's audience. No man is going to want to see a show with PINK everywhere and ditzy chorus girls singing pop songs.

While I agree with what you're trying to get across, I'd like to point out that by saying "No man" you are placing every single man into the same cardboard box. Basically you're saying, every straight macho man, which is CERTAINLY not every man, though men like yourself like to make it a given and make those who do not fit into that category feel inferior. But again, I do agree that there is a problem with the demographic that this show is going to appeal to. I don't, however, feel that it is not going to appeal to every single human being with a penis between his legs.

The other big thing is that Laura Bell Bundy, while good, is not *quite* there yet. Not that she won't ever be, but she isn't yet. Right now, her performance has this Kirsten Chenowith impersonation feel to it that makes you remember she took over for KC in Wicked. Again, she's not bad. Emulating KC couldn't be considered bad. She's just not quite come into her own yet. She doesn't *demand* your attention, the way a Broadway star should. Neither does Christian Borle, but his role doesn't require it. He's less the leading man than he is the lead ensemble character. Elle has to be a STAR for this show to really work.

From what I've seen of Ms. Bundy (HAIRSPRAY, her one-woman show at Joe's Pub, and the clips of LEGALLY BLONDE), I find that she lacks a star quality that is necessary for any perfromer to carry a show on his/her shoulders. I think that she is a great supporting player, but she does not have a presence that can consistently grab an audience's attention.

There's some huge talent here, both major and minor players.

When someone is trying to make a supporting point about a show and the example they give is that the cast is very talented, I'm sorry to say that they are not moving the argument forward. Talent--for a Broadway show, or a Broadway bound show--is a given. I can say that the cast of BROOKLYN THE MUSICAL was beaming with talent, but the material that they were given to sell was nothing less than treacherous. And the material is the show.

---

Updated On: 2/2/07 at 12:21 AM

There's some huge talent here, both major and minor players.

When someone is trying to make a positive point about a show and the example they give is that the cast is very talented, I'm sorry to say that they're not moving their argument forward.
-------------------------------------------------------------

OK, true. We should expect the cast of a Broadway-bound show to be talented. You're absolutely correct.

However the argument I was trying to move forward was not that the show is steller, but rather that a lousy marketing campaign and poorly chosen video clips are not sufficient evidence on which to pan it. IMHO there appear to be quite a few posters who have determined everything from the state of the choreography to whether Laura Bell Bunday can carry a show based on nothing more than these online snippets.

Movie trailers are an entire art form in and of themselves. A great trailer can make folks flock to a lousy film...at least until word of mouth catches up. And surely we've all seen trailers that have turned us off to excellent films. DVDs now often include trailers tuned for different audiences, and it's fascinating to see how the same film is pitched to different demographics or in different countries.

Broadway shows too have marketing campaigns, and for this show the marketeers need to figure out what resonates beyond the obvious teen-tween-pink set. But again, the argument is simply that the video clips do not display the show to its best advantage, and that judging the overall merit of the show and its actors based on the clips alone is not a particularly valid exercise.

Okay, he said "men" - which is an all inclusive word- but we know very well what he meant.

Stop splitting hairs here. Why are you arguing about phrasing or points used in the argument when you agree with what's being said??????????

---

deleted...sorry i didnt know

Updated On: 2/2/07 at 04:56 AM

DrewT, delete that or the whole thread will be deleted. Links to YouTube are not allowed.

---

Guys, Wicked is a phenomenon. Don't expect lightning to strike twice. Legally Blonde doesn't have the advantage of the Wizard of Oz lore behind it.

---

Great point, marshmallow.

Wicked benefits from the aura of all the Oz books, the iconic movie, Judy Garland, the cross-generational familiarity with and love for the legend, etc etc. At the heart of the original story there is real substance, plus it has great flights of fancy, imagination, socio-political messages, and a timeless quality. LB is firmly rooted in a narrow slice of pop culture that does not have mass appeal. It will not become a cottage industry like Wicked. It simply does not strike the same emotional chords across all demographics. It doesn't have the staying power.

lc

I really loved the movie, but I look at those clips and think, "Meh." There's no joy. This just seems like an attempt to make money, which in itself is not bad, of course. But if there's no love behind the creation then it's not going to turn out well.

---

When you mention "Wicked" and "Hi-Fi" are you talking artistically or financially?

And Wannabe Foster, I still don't get it, sorry. I don't get your point, and I don't really care. Is it that time of month?