Some Projections as scenery look bad on stage.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 10:18pm

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

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 10:37pm

It depends on the show.

[Tom5]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 10:49pm

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

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 10:50pm

You took the words right out of my mouth, C. C Baxter. Could not agree more. I don't want it to sound like I'm saying that all projections are horrible, cause some aren't and like you said, some can serve a purpose to the storytelling. However, sometimes you can just tell the producers computerized the show to distract the audience from the flaws of the book and/or score.

Updated On: 10/18/13 at 10:50 PM

[MorningGlow2]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 11:08pm

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

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/18/13 at 11:25pm

I haven't seen BIG FISH, but I did watch a short montage of it and thought the set looked fantastic. Perhaps it's one of those shows where the projections worked. It was only a 2 minute montage so I can't really judge.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 1:00am

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.

[SidebySidebyLogan]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 4:00am

I think a lot of it is that the theater hasn't caught up to the technology. We're just now seeing the first generation of designers who've learned their craft with projections as a major portion of their studies, rather than having to learn a new technology for the design job they've been doing for years. I think projections will only become more integral to theater sets but that their use of dimension and space will become more intriguing and designers will find ways to experiment with blurring the lines between digital projections and stage constructions.

I've always wanted to play around with a Follies that uses historical footage, recordings of the follies, TV interviews of Ben, home movies, Carlotta's tv show, newspaper clippings, pictures of the theaters deterioration, the Vogue spread of Phyllis' living room, ect. projected onto dingy tattered curtains. I think it would be especially useful during In Buddy's Eyes since she's completely lying through the whole song. It would just be another layer of ghosts and memories.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 8:22am

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".

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 9:28am

I think I was one of the only people not impressed by the Big Fish projections. They just didn't wow me. There's a sequence with Norbert and Bobby running away from the hospital and the projections getting smaller and smaller as if the building is in the distance. To me it just came off as laughable not to mention the fact that they are in a spotlight, so behind them there was a big whole in the projection where the light was hitting it. It just looked messy to me.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 10:34am

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.

[NJBway]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 10:48am

the use of things like that just show how much we are trying to compete with television, theatre has the ability to do something tv can't and that's the use of abstract i.e. glass menagerie, some shows the projections may enhance but i think we shouldnt strive for that.

[brldisteach2]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 11:00am

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.

[Idiot]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 11:47am

I'd have to add my voice to the nays here.

I don't remember ever leaving a show thinking that the projections were 'great'. They kind of make every show that uses them feel like a trip to Best Buy. I also agree with the previous poster who pointed out that the trend is young and may improve with the development of skill and seasoned strategies -- but for now, it always feels like it's the producers trying to save money (though it may actually be more expensive than three dimensional scenery -- I don't know).

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 11:49am

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.

Posted: 10/19/13 at 11:57am

I don't think you can generalize. Saying "Projections as scenery look bad on stage" indicts a lot of shows were projections worked just fine. in the Chicago suburbs, Drury Lane's production of Ragtime used skeletal set pieces and projections to great effect.

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.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 12:03pm

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.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 12:22pm

I thought the projections in the new Les Mis tour were pretty cool and worked well for the production

Posted: 10/19/13 at 7:54pm

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.

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 8:10pm

Yes, some projections aren't just used just as scenery, Some can use it as reference to help tell the story. Not sure if I am remembering correctly but didn't the original broadway production of EVITA have projections of the real Eva Peron during some scenes?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 8:11pm

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."

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 8:41pm

If anyone wants to see the worst projection design you will ever see, check out the flash dance national tour. They use both projections and some LED panels. The projections are so blurry you can barely tell what they are supposed to be. The LED panels on the other hand are super sharp and clear, but it looked like the scenes depicted on them looked like they were designed on the Sims.

[MorningGlow2]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 9:28pm

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 :)

[N2N Nate.]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 9:40pm

Well said, MorningGlow2. Speaking of special effects, Does anyone else wish scrims were used more in Broadway shows? I love scrims and think they can be very effective. Would anyone like to share their favorite use of a scrim?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 10/19/13 at 9:42pm

^ 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.