#51
Posted: 8/16/12 at 6:44pm
RippedMan - i have to disagree, I brought a bunch of people with me to see the show a couple weeks ago and we all really liked the idea of the child narrator.
Riedel: No 'Woods' on B'way — Page 3
#52
Posted: 8/16/12 at 10:19pm
I think GIANT might work because LaChiusa has a bookwriter who can reign him in, make him re-write, and take some of the burden off of him. I'll be interested to see how it works.
#53
Posted: 8/16/12 at 10:22pm
I think I'd like the idea of the child narrator better if it were played by a man in his 50's or 60's.
#54
Posted: 8/16/12 at 10:30pm
And then have the Baker turn out to be his Daddy in Act II. This pleases me.
"These rabid fans...possess the acting talent to portray the hooker...Linda Eder..." -The New York Times
#55
Posted: 8/17/12 at 12:29am
Yeah, I'm not saying it's some awful idea, but I don't think this production was brought over for that sole reason.
I'm saying it's a show about being lost in the woods and the show itself is actually "lost in the woods" meaning it's in the middle of central park and using that as it's background. It makes perfect sense. It wouldn't make sense to put Sunday in the Park with George outside; but this makes sense because it's set in the woods. Duh.
The show just works now in its current state.
I'm saying it's a show about being lost in the woods and the show itself is actually "lost in the woods" meaning it's in the middle of central park and using that as it's background. It makes perfect sense. It wouldn't make sense to put Sunday in the Park with George outside; but this makes sense because it's set in the woods. Duh.
The show just works now in its current state.
#56
Posted: 8/17/12 at 1:28am
^Actually, you raise an interesting idea. That could work.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#57
Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:04am
i just don't see how the production utilizes the outdoor setting to the point of it being a necessity. It has a 4 story set that, in fact, obscures any view of the surrounding park and creates it's own faux woods. Yes, I get that people enjoy sitting outside and being in the park, but countless productions of Into the Woods have been able to function just fine without it on a traditional stage.
#58
Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:13am
A few reasons -
The set actually does incorporate surrounding trees/nature. As many shows at the Delacorte have done, the set is designed to kind of blend in with the environment so it's difficult to tell where the set ends and the park begins. The lighting is also designed around a performance where sunset happens at some point during the first act. Obviously, these are changeable fixes but another issue needs to be considered with a transfer. A transfer on to Broadway would require people to pay money, and a lot of it, to make it sustainable. In the park, tickets are free and obviously attendance isn't a problem.
The set actually does incorporate surrounding trees/nature. As many shows at the Delacorte have done, the set is designed to kind of blend in with the environment so it's difficult to tell where the set ends and the park begins. The lighting is also designed around a performance where sunset happens at some point during the first act. Obviously, these are changeable fixes but another issue needs to be considered with a transfer. A transfer on to Broadway would require people to pay money, and a lot of it, to make it sustainable. In the park, tickets are free and obviously attendance isn't a problem.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#59
Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:39am
Eh, I think Midnight Radio's points are well taken. And they can use the house of the theater to incorporate woodsy elements.
#60
Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:46am
Sunset was at 8:20 pm when the show opened, and will be at 7:30 the day of its last performance. The lighting design is fixed, and not making accommodations for quickly narrowing days as summer winds down.
But this is a perfect example of the nit-picky nature of how so many have greeted this production. I saw it last Saturday night, and was dreading - according to many posts - a frenetic, unfocused mess, with an out of tune Baker and a deadly second act.
What I saw was a performance that contained some of the best performances and wonderfully creative direction this show has ever received. The reception of this production has me perplexed. It seems to be touching many peoples inner After Eighty.
But this is a perfect example of the nit-picky nature of how so many have greeted this production. I saw it last Saturday night, and was dreading - according to many posts - a frenetic, unfocused mess, with an out of tune Baker and a deadly second act.
What I saw was a performance that contained some of the best performances and wonderfully creative direction this show has ever received. The reception of this production has me perplexed. It seems to be touching many peoples inner After Eighty.
#61
Posted: 8/17/12 at 10:51am
Weighing in on the OT comments about "Giant" in Dallas. I did see the show in Dallas, it was at most three hours, but IIRC it was 2h45m at the first preview.
That said, the audience response was tepid at best, and I think the general consensus (Ignore most Dallas papers, they want something to transfer to Broadway) was that it was an enjoyable-ish evening that needed focusing and re-working.
It also needed a show stopper or two to break up the monotony.
And a set design that looked like Texas and not Florida.
That said, the audience response was tepid at best, and I think the general consensus (Ignore most Dallas papers, they want something to transfer to Broadway) was that it was an enjoyable-ish evening that needed focusing and re-working.
It also needed a show stopper or two to break up the monotony.
And a set design that looked like Texas and not Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/huskcharmer
#62
Posted: 8/17/12 at 11:43am
some people act like it's THEIR money that they have to pay to get this to transfer. Producers are rich and if they want to see this on Broadway, I say go for it.
#63
Posted: 8/17/12 at 2:55pm
I just don't see why this production needs to be on Broadway is all. I mean, I understand the Public wants to make some of it's money back that they spent getting it up and running, but it just would look weird in a normal theater space. The set would just come off as looking a little silly to me.
#64
Posted: 8/18/12 at 1:28pm
Or they could do a limited engagement on Broadway and then send the show out on tour.
INTO THE WOODS has consistently been one of Sondheim's (and Lapine's) most popular shows...check the listing in the Sondheim review: Each month there are dozens of productions across the U.S. and Canada. I am not convinced that it would attract a large enough audience to play an open-ended Broadway run these days.
INTO THE WOODS has consistently been one of Sondheim's (and Lapine's) most popular shows...check the listing in the Sondheim review: Each month there are dozens of productions across the U.S. and Canada. I am not convinced that it would attract a large enough audience to play an open-ended Broadway run these days.
Cast albums are NOT "soundtracks."
Live theatre does not use a "soundtrack." If it did, it wouldn't be live theatre!
I host a weekly one-hour radio program featuring cast album selections as well as songs by cabaret, jazz and theatre artists. The program, FRONT ROW CENTRE is heard Sundays 9 to 10 am and also Saturdays from 8 to 9 am (eastern times) on www.proudfm.com
#65
Posted: 8/18/12 at 8:37pm
He reported early on that the show was not broadway worthy taking his cue from Morgan James, you was horribly judged for stating hard cold facts about the production. May it go into the woods and stay there.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95