Some Projections as scenery look bad on stage.

Does anyone else feel this way? I am watching a bootleg of the London Charlie and the Chocolate factory and the sets are wonderful, but the projections just aren't needed and really make the show look cheap. You don't need a big projection of a building to convey to the audience that the show is set in New York, it just looks cheap and gimmicky. Less is more, if you ask me. I was downright flabbergasted when I saw those horrible projections in the 2009 GUYS AND DOLLS revival. Some shows make it work with the fancy computer scenery, but I prefer a beautiful backdrop to a projection any day.

---

Updated On: 10/19/13 at 10:18 PM

I have no problem with projections as scenery so long as the show in question is clearly promoted as a staged reading.

Wait till you watch Big Fish. Or wait, maybe in this case you shouldn't.

It's definitely a judgement to be made on a case-by-case basis but I'm having a hard time disagreeing. It's really moving digital projections that I find offputting because it so rarely GELS with the physical production. I'd say it's the frame-rate but that can't be it because then projected film would look weird and I rarely have an issue with that, or even with slides or most kinds of still projection. Whatever it is, it rubs me the wrong way. I feel the same about digital light effects, spinning digital gobos and that sort of thing.

Of course, then there's always the issue of light bleeding onto the screens and fading the image, which is pretty butt-ugly.

Sometimes in the right situation it might work. I remember seeing a touring company of Miss Saigon where they used a projection for the helicopter and frankly to me it worked better than having a real helicopter on stage, which to me was just distracting. Of course, it was amplified by great sound and lights and the effect was striking.

I do agree it should not be overdone - and used only in meaningful ways, not just as a "trick" or "novelty".

Just to play devil's advocate, I think SOME shows could benefit tremendously with more computer style scenery. The first show that came to mind is THE LITTLE MERMAID. The shipwreck scene with the projections of the bubbles floating up looked great if you ask me. The show needed a more animated and colorful feel to it. It definitely depends on the show.

---

I also think it really depends on the show and how they are used. The original Kiss of the Spiderwoman Musical with Chita Rivera used them brilliantly for the movie/fantasy sequences. I prefer when they complement the show rather than distract from it. I can't stand when the projections are just random images or symbols that just distract from what's happening on stage.

It all depends on execution.

I saw a production of Charles Mee's The Trojan Women in college and they'd be running projections simultaneously with the action onstage of all sorts of different news footage and what not and I just had no clue where to look at certain points.

Another time (also college), a fella mounted his own adaptation of An Enemy of the People (set in modern times, of course) and opened the show with footage of the two main characters playing with their kids....trouble is, he decided to have the footage overlap on the walls of the set and so if you were sitting dead center, you had no idea what the crap was a-goin' on! I did because I was working behind the scenes and had a peek at some of the footage beforehand but for the rest of the audience, I can only imagine what the audience was thinking.

---

In the Op I stated that some shows make it work. I also agreed with others that it really depends on the show.

"And it's like saying "Patti LuPone onstage is ALWAYS a painful experience." Even though it's true of every single production so far, there is always a chance that some genius someday will find a way to make it work."

LMAO.

---

Well, of course they look bad in a taped recording (especially a bootleg!) The human eye has a much bigger range of light it can see, so projections which are WAY dimmer than stage lighting work much better in person than they do on tape.

I also think that using them as "scenery" is just one tiny facet of using them. What about in Motown? I thought they were very successful and they added a lot to the story.

Agreed. I think the new Les Miz tour and B'way production are a really great use of projections. They're just projections like "oh look, a window" it's more like an abstract landscape, and the lighting compliments it.

Projections are great to add depth to something, but when they're the sole scenic element it's a little "eh."

I also agree that designers and directors alike haven't quite figured out how to use projections effectively yet. It's all opinion of course, but I personally felt the over use of projections detracted from BIG FISH more than it did good. The son singing alone on a prop-less stage in front of the enormous "Central Park" projection was memorably bad. Handful of these scenes are enough to leave a bad aftertaste post show even if some moments really did shine through.

In fact, I think one of the best use of projection is the going-to-be-10-year-old WICKED - specifically the flying house and the melting scene (though I guess technically the melting scene isn't a "scenery"). Limited, but effective and far better than say using gobos, moving lights, or LEDs. Take MATILDA for instance - so many scenes they could have used projections, but instead chose not to at all (except for the Acrobat/Escapologist story of course - which worked great). With traditional + moving lights, the show worked wonders visually.

Again, all my opinion of course :)

^ Matilda was just the eighth wonder of the world IMO. Visually it was just stunning, and they handled all the visual effects perfectly without overdoing it with projections. I liked Bonnie and Clyde's use of projections as well. I also like when shows use projections for just a couple fitting moments. The Annie revival comes to mind - the newsreel then cityscape projected onto the clothesline at the beginning were amazing.

---