TABOO - What was wrong?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 3:23am

I was on Euan Morton's website and he has tons of clips from Taboo related stuff and I thought it look amazing. It just looked visually pleasing. The costumes, the lighting, the sets. The music is great. Not sure about the book. I'm a little confused on the story and the point of Boy George's character in the play - not to be confused with Euan Morton's playing Boy George in the musical. What did the reviews say? Are there still links to the reviews? What was so terribly wrong with the show?
Updated On: 10/31/05 at 03:23 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 3:23am

Double post. Updated On: 10/31/05 at 03:23 AM

[ken8631]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:06am

Rosie O'Donnel.

Clueless marketing of the show. I saw it a couple of times, thought it was great. Great music, great cast. Too bad she put it in too big a house, didn't offer discounts to get people in there to see it and spread the word, and had a csat recording MUCH too late. And lots of people just don't like her irt seems. Would probably have done much better if she wasn't involved. We still follow Raul, Liz and Eaun around to whatever show they are in - saw them all for the first time at Taboo.

[bdwaygirl]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:08am

E-u-A-n. Thank you.

The reviews regarding the show sucked. I'm pretty sure most of the reviews on Euan were good. I think most of the reviews can still be accessed.

[bdwaygirl]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:13am

Check out this link.

http://www.btinternet.com/~s.essom/taboobroadwayprofreviews.htm

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:17am

Haven't we done this already?

A lot of the problem was in the book. I remember that I knew very little about Boy George when I saw the show, and so much was missing from the story that at the end, when all of these people came together, I was a bit confused about how some of the relationships were as close as the final scene was telling me they were -- it seemed like pieces of the story were missing. I hadn't seen these relationships develop. In fact, some of the characters hardly interacted at all; maybe one mentioned the other one one line here and there, but that's not enough. The parts of the story we had weren't poorly written, per se -- they could've been worse, but it was confusing.

It was also geared to such a small group. I remember my dad driving me over to the box office to get tickets, and he looked at the marquees and things and went "why would you EVER pay money to see Boy George?" I think people were afraid of it.

ETA -- I realized how negative that all sounded. I loved the show anyway. I think the score is brilliant, George deserved that Tony. And the cast was perfect.

Updated On: 10/31/05 at 08:17 AM

[dry2olives]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 8:37am

I think the Broadway production was a huge improvement over the London production. In London, the show wasn't even about Boy George. It was about some kid from the suburbs who gets involved with the club scene and meets Boy George, and there's his mom and other characters... a real mish-mosh. And the tone of the show was very dark and confrontational.

The show was lightened up considerably for Broadway and the story streamlined so it was actually about Boy George. It became a very traditional musical comedy about a class of people who conform to their brand of non-conformity. The characters were far more likeable. But the marketing of the show pushed it as this subversive, arrogant show. ("Would you let you in?) Sure,there were second act problems where the plot went haywire, but on the whole I found it very sweet and enjoyable.

[LaeloftheLakes]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 10:40am

When I heard about it, saw the cast recording but did not buy, I thought it looked awful, like nothing I'd ever want to see. I pretty much had to be forced to experience it, and it's one of my favorite shows of all time. I'd say marketing.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 10:45am

Rosie! Rosie! Rosie!

They repeated last year's Treehouse of Horror on The Simpsons last night, and Ned got the power of seeing people's deaths. Well he walked by a theatre that said: "Rosie O'Donnell: The Musical" and Ned gets a vision that says: "Closed after 3 days", and then says something to the extent of: "That's not surprising."

[ken8631]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 10:46am

As I said before, yep, Rosie.

[mesmerized24601]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 10:57am

yeah I think it must of been the marketing of it because I loved the show but was very apprehensive about going to see it. I remember hearing everyone say oh its the boy george musical or the rosie musical but no one really talked about the show or the message. For whatever reason people love to hate Rosie and I think that tieng her in with Boy George at that time was a bad idea to throw at such a closed minded country.

[sweeedboy]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 11:57am

While i think Rosie did have a lot to do with the show's demise, there we some MAJOR problems in the show as well.

The book
As stated before some of the characters just did not interact. The biggest problem for me was the leigh/george relationship. They were suppose to be besties and leigh this huge influence and yet they never talked to eachother...they never interacted. Also Boy George's acting was ATROCIOUS. Some of the scenes were played completely incorrectly. The best example of this is 'ich bin kunst.' With george in the role it was this super campy, kind of lame song that was just kind of liek 'oh look he thinks he is art.' If one looks at the song knowing the placement and character arc it can be an INCREDIBLE emotional ride. The song, i think, is suppose ot be him getting fed up with people starting to lose notice of him and it starts out as him being all wierd and leigh like but ends with im screaming, pleading for people to notice him.
Direction: some of the direction was god awful... the huge video show of leighs death was comical instead of sad and the show just felt a bit sloppy. It was also hard to understand/hear the music because it was so freakin loud. It wasn't until i got the cast recording that i realized how good the music actually was.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 11:59am

Yes, and Rosie wanted the book changes. It all comes back to her.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:01pm

actually a lot of the book changes were because boy george can't act so a lot of his character's scene's were cut.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:04pm

The scenes existed in London, where the show was much more of a success.

Sure the book was flawed, but I think the problems are bigger than that. Crappy shows are successful on Broadway all the time. I think it had to do mainly with the horrible marketing "plan" and the lack of discounts at the beginning.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:20pm

Why is everyone so quick to blame Rosie? Because you can, or because you actually know what went wrong?

I highly doubt that any of you have any idea what the exact reason for the shows cold reception was, but don't be so quick to blame Rosie.

This show was in trouble before it even began. This show could have had a brilliant book, a smart marketing team, and flawless direction - and it still would not have succeeded simply because it's a musical about BOY GEORGE. Who is interested in Boy George anymore? Absolutely no one. To be honest, I thoughthe was dead until this came around. No one - particularly tourists- are going to pay money to see a show starring, by, and about an 80's gay cultural pop icon that people stopped caring about 10 years earlier.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:28pm

The book/direction. The score was sublime IMHO. The performances were lovely. The design was lovely.

I applaud Rosie--I'm sure that she has learned MUCH from the experience and I welcome her back to Broadway asap.

[EVGIRL]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 12:36pm

For me, the main problem was the book and the score didn't really fit together. The songs were written to go with the London storyline. On Broadway,they wrote a completely different story but most of the songs were the same so they didn't fit. They either should have written new songs to fit the new story. Or kept the story similar to the London one, so the songs would tell the story.
I don't buy the idea that it was doomed to fail because people aren't interested in Boy George. There are many plays and musicals that I have enjoyed that have been about things that I personally don't have an interest in. If the book is well done, it will make you care about the subject matter and understand a different world than the one you know.
But the way they approached the book, they sort of assumed that you already knew all about and cared about Boy George and his friends, instead of making you care. Like someone said, a lot of the relationships weren't fleshed out, particulary the relationship between George and Leigh, and also between Geroge and his boyfriend.
Updated On: 10/31/05 at 12:36 PM

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 1:24pm

I thought the marketing was terrible. I listened to the show (never got a chance to see it, didn't want to at the time) and found a lovely little story about a kid finding himself and finding success, only to find that people around him were eaten alive by the lifestyles they were living. Pretty relevant stuff.

But the producers advertised the show like it was a gay extravaganza: BOY GEORGE is GAY! Are YOU? COME SEE OUR SHOW! IT'S SORT OF CREEPY and VERY GAY! (fine print: do not engage in activities shown on this billboard or you will get an STD and die).

That's a bit of a caricature of the ad campaign but that's how it came across to me. The pictures of sex in restrooms and Boy George in full, fruity costume on every talk show. Didn't look like my cup of tea at all.

Not until I heard Euan Morton's "Stranger in this World" and Sarah Berry's "Il Adore" did I realize that there was a real show in there somewhere.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 1:38pm

I agree with marketing. But the story I think sort of sucks too. I think they should have threw away the Boy George storyline. The fact that it was marketed as a Boy George musical kept a lot of people away i'm sure. I think if it was just about this teen finding himself in the London night life sort of thing, it would have worked wonderfully - or like a group of friends finding themsevles in the city - sort of like RENT in London. The music is great. I love the OBC. Maybe they should have tried an out of town tryout in like San Fran. or something?

[mesmerized24601]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 1:45pm

correct me if Im wrong but wasnt it more leigh bowery's story?

Well what ever the reason for its demise the story and songs in this show will be in my heart forever.


♥

[Elizadoolittle6]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 2:44pm

NOTHING WAS WRONG. THE STORY WAS GREAT THE MUSIC WAS AMAZING AS WERE THE ACTORS. WHAT WENT WRONG.

THE CRITICS WERE SMOKING CRACK.... as usual

[LC]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 3:17pm

Marketing, not releasing the CD soon enough, and the one thing that seems to have been forgotten, timing. It was doomed, as soon as it became clear that the planned opening was the same week as Rosies' court case started. Could anything have survived the onslaught of anti-Rosie press at that time? Particularly a show which was always going to be a hard sell, and would have needed very clever marketing, which it didn't get.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 3:51pm

It was intended to be a balanced juxtaposition of Leigh Bowery and Boy George's lives at that time. It just wasn't as sharp and balanced as it could have been.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 10/31/05 at 4:22pm

For me, the biggest problem was the "so what" factor - why should I care? This goes back to the book problems, but also there was never anything that helped me to understand why the characters acted out in the ways that they did. Instead they just seemed to wear outrageousness and drug use on their lapels as badged of "coolness" for lack of a better word. Thus when the scenes turned to vulgarity (the urinal scene), it just seemed silly.