Okay, Okay, Okay--EVERY Revival's a Disappointment to SOMEONE!- Page 2
Okay, Okay, Okay--EVERY Revival's a Disappointment to SOMEONE!
#25re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 12:42pmI can't imagine anyone finding the recent SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE revival less than perfect . . .
#26re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 1:38pmA Chorus Line(2006)
TheCharleston
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/18/08
#27re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 2:03pm
Perhaps some may disagree but I found the INTO THE WOODS revival to be leagues above the original....
More of a matter of taste, I suppose.
PiraguaGuy2
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/10/08
#28re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 2:07pm
Perhaps some may disagree but I found the INTO THE WOODS revival to be leagues above the original....
Snort.
Unknown User
Joined: 12/31/69
#29re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 2:10pmscarywarhol, the (2000?) Music Man was my first Broadway experience and I loved it. Rebecca Luker is a goddess - still one of the people I try to emulate in vocal training. everyone has said everything else that comes to mind, though.
#30re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 2:37pm
And Mr Abbott directed "On Your Toes" at age 93 and did a great, faithful version of his original 1936 production that made the world fall in love with his show all over again.
Are you listening Arthur Laurents?
#31re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:03pm
Lots of people listed their FAVORITE revivals, but that was not the question I posed.
The question was: Which are those revivals--and we all know they happen--that receive UNIVERSAL approval?
That's the interesting thging to me. That sometimes these revivals happen and, magically it seems, they are perfect.
#32re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:09pm
Jennyish....we need to have a long talk.
Plus, any person who thinks the revival of Into the Woods was better than the original....I just don't have any words that come to mind right now.
husk_charmer
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/19/06
#33re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:17pm
I really adore what I know/have seen of the Hal Prince Show Boat.
I found the La Cage revival to be a total travesty with Gary Beach. Bryan Batt made it bearable.
#34re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:19pm
I can't imagine anyone finding the recent SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE revival less than perfect . . .
But almost everyone who saw the original did.
Once again, this thread is not to campaign for the revivals you liked. It's to collect the list of revivals that made the kind of magic on which everyone agrees.
#35re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:42pm
I'm confused. So you want anyone who has the ability to remember all of both the critical (theatre critics) and popular NY theatre community (theatregoers who saw the Broadway shows live) of the period to list shows that matched both as universally positive, and were carbon copies of the original?
So this would leave out the SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE and recent SWEENEY TODD revivals, even though they received universal critical acclaim, and even the people who weren't alive to see the originals have beautifully shot video footage of the originals to compare them to, and the majority loved these revivals, but were not carbon copies?
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#36re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:50pmNo one said anything about carbon copies.
#37re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 3:56pm
But you said the SUNDAY and SWEENEY revivals wouldn't apply, even though they both received critical and theatregoers acclaim.
I mean, we can't include every theatregoer. But let's say the approximately 99% of theatregoers and all of the popular critics responded overwhelmingly positive to them.
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
Borstalboy
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/9/04
#38re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 4:00pm
THE HOUSE OF BLUE LEAVES
GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS
#39re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 4:45pmAgain, "On Your Toes" had great critical acclaim (especially in London where the show ran for twice as long as on Broadway - in a city where the original lasted on 70 performances).
dg22894
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/22/08
#41re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 5:09pmThe LITTLE SHOP revival received mostly negative reviews, and every person I spoke with or read from on this board, said the original production was eons better. The show didn't belong in a Broadway house. It was the intimacy of the Off-Broadway setting that made the original work.
-Kad
"I have also met him in person, and I find him to be quite funny actually. Arrogant and often misinformed, but still funny."
-bjh2114 (on Michael Riedel)
#42re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 5:17pmWell, to legitimately answer your question PalJoey, I guess BOEING-BOEING and THE SEAGULL were the only true non-disappointments. They both achieved great critical praise (though the jury's still out award-wise) and what the author intended. SEAGULL walked the fine line of comedy and tragedy just as Chekhov intended and BOEING was the over-the-top, delirious, silly, uproarious farce it was intended to be.
jimmycurry01
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/05
#43re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 5:26pmIt seems this question is highly subjective. Even the 1992 Guys and Dolls has people who did not care for it and found it disappointing. Nothing is universally liked or disliked. You can really only look for a general consensus, and that will always be a subject for debate, especially here.
#44re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 7:55pm99% of theatregoers liked the Sweeney revival? Yeah maybe after it broke even. Not so much when it first opened. The only thing 99% of people agreed on were that instruments were distracting. It wasn't until well into the next year when the Sweeneyboppers emerged and the show was a critical and financial success that it became this beloved revival people are trying to claim it was in retrospect. Let's not try to rewrite history- those posts are all still on this site.
Wanting life but never knowing how
#45re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 8:14pm
Gypsy (200
would have to be my favorite of all of them!Patti was outstanding and the rest of the cast were amazing!!
#46re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 8:56pm
Most are already mentioned, but:
South Pacific
The Pajama Game
Assassins
Kiss Me, Kate
Cabaret
Chicago
She Loves Me
Carousel
Candide (1976)
No, No, Nannette
Pal Joey
On Your Toes
Give or take a few, these are the revivals that received nearly unanimous praise and are considered to be some definitive productions.
#47re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/8/09 at 11:37pm
Okay, so let's remove the Guys and Dolls from the list. And yes, WBAF, if the majority of people who saw the original--live or on video--prefer it to the revival, then that revival is not on the list.
But there are still revivals that answer the question posed: I know of no one who saw the original Cabaret or Candide prefers them to the 1990s revivals. Same goes for the current South Pacific.
JimmyCurry--do you know of anyone who dislikes any of those 3?
#48re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:31am
I saw the original "Cabaret", with Joel Grey, Bert Convey and Lotta Lenya and Jack Guilford. It was an amazing experience. Lotta Lenya for God's sake. And Grey doing the Emcee. Do you REALLY want to compare them to Ron Rifkin and Mary Louise Wilson and Alan Cumming? Seriously?
The big thing is, Sally Bowles is just another character in the show. The original star could barely sing the role acceptably - that was the idea - and in London it was Judy Dench who basically croaked the songs (and sometimes off-key) but it didn't matter. After Liza did the movie, people kept casting real singers as Sally. But in the original, three of the greatest performers in the history of musical theater carried the show and made a searing, unforgettable impression that the revival didn't come anywhere close to.
Alan Cumming? Please.
#49re: Revivals That Were NOT Disappointments
Posted: 3/9/09 at 12:32amOh, for crap's sake, I give up.
Videos