Riedel on Frozen with costume designs

http://nypost.com/2017/08/10/the-costumes-in-frozen-the-musical-are-nothing-like-youd-expect/

Neither of those costumes look appealing in the slightest. Just what is with that shade of green?

Ew!

I think, as usual, we have to take anything Riedel says with a grain of salt. Regarding that 2nd costume: the drawing is unflattering, but it could be a cute costume in real life. The first one - who knows? Do we really know it's for Anna? And even if what Riedel says is true - that it's a gift from the "Hidden Folk" - I bet you she wears it for one number as part of their ceremonial whatever, then goes back to her regular costume. These 2 drawings alone, out of context, and skewed by the ever-unreliable Riedel, are just not enough to go off of. I trust the artists behind Disney Theatricals far more than I trust Riedel.

Speaking of - is there a reason every single freaking thing Riedel spews out in his cheap tabloid gets its own thread on this board? Does he really warrant that? I've always wanted to bring this up, but usually I don't participate in the threads in question, so I just leave it alone.

Um... dafuq? It's not an Anastasia blue dress situation but there's very little reason to not to a pretty basic transfer of the outfits from the movie. If you need to add detail like Gregg Barnes did for Aladdin, great, but don't go in a completely different direction. And before anyone says the costumer designer needs to be creative and have their own vision, Oram also did Wolf Hall and historical accuracy didn't hamper his creativity there.

JBroadway said: "I think, as usual, we have to take anything Riedel says with a grain of salt. Regarding that 2nd costume: the drawing is unflattering, but it could be a cute costume in real life. The first one - who knows? Do we really know it's for Anna? And even if what Riedel says is true - that it's a gift from the "Hidden Folk" - I bet you she wears it for one number as part of their ceremonial whatever, then goes back to her regular costume. These 2 drawings alone, out of context, and skewed by the ever-unreliable Riedel, are just not enough to go off of. I trust the artists behind Disney Theatricals far more than I trust Riedel.

Speaking of - is there a reason every single freaking thing Riedel spews out in his cheap tabloid gets its own thread on this board? Does he really warrant that? I've always wanted to bring this up, but usually I don't participate in the threads in question, so I just leave it alone. "

Regarding Riedel and his cheap tabloid, everyone here likes to crap on him. Doesn't change the fact that he breaks more stories than anyone else. BWW lifts these columns every week and passes them off as new on their main board.

Just recently, he's broken news about Meteor Shower, Spingsteen and has provided information on Comet.

His column on the vultures circling great comet has 347 comments and 67,712 views.

Does he warrant being posted? I'd say more so than the constant "what show do I see?" or the "does this person sign at the stagedoor?" threads.

Updated On: 8/11/17 at 08:21 AM

VintageSnarker said: "...there's very little reason to not to a pretty basic transfer of the outfits from the movie. If you need to add detail like Gregg Barnes did for Aladdin, great, but don't go in a completely different direction."

The article states: "We’re not doing an exact copy of the movie...We evoke the movie, but we’re creating something original for the stage.”

As with The Lion King, they apparently don't want to simply recreate the animated film in the theatre. Remember that Rafiki on stage looks absolutely nothing like the character in the film (nor do any of the other Lion King characters, for that matter).

When I saw Aladdin on Broadway, I was a bit disappointed that it looked and felt essentially like a cartoon on stage. I think The Lion King is a far more successful and worthwhile theatrical work because it breathes new life into the source material. It doesn't feel limited to the "children's story" format like Aladdin did to me, and I'm glad to see that they're taking that route with Frozen.

At least the article provides confirmation that "Let It Go" is the act one finale.



ETA: Silly me. Didn't see that the Times article posted a few days ago already confirmed that.

Updated On: 8/11/17 at 08:35 AM

As usual, DISNEY is really saving money on the cast. As talented as they may be, they are all unknowns and most likely getting paid very little.

And if they cast known celebrities or stars, they would be criticized for not taking chances on unknown talent and helping to foster careers (which they have always done with every single show). Whatever they do is usually a lose-lose among musical theatre "fans", so it really doesn't matter.

And THAT is why I'll see this.

For the sets. For that reason alone. :)

NYadgal said: "And THAT is why I'll see this.

For the sets. For that reason alone. :)



And you had best stand up and applaud them!!!!

CurtainPullDowner said: "Casting unkowns is not a "bad" idea, but they get to pay them very little.

Smart move but it is kinda taking advantage of these "unknowns" when DISNEY makes the big bucks.

It's a business, I get it."

This argument confounds me. Over in the Great Comet threads, everyone's talking about how that show's producers shot themselves in the foot by creating the expectation of star casting, which they couldn't sustain. Hamilton, a show that is certainly "making the big bucks", has been full of people who were unknowns until that show made them stars. And for the record, Cassie Levy (Elsa) has been performing on Broadway in big shows for more than 10 years.

Everyone is an "unknown" at some point, until they get that big break (if they're lucky) that makes them a star. For this particular group of unknowns, maybe Frozen will be that lucky break.

Aren't these the climbing boots?