#1
Posted: 9/20/11 at 5:53pm
Is this one still coming in? Had high hopes for it out of town.
#2
Posted: 9/20/11 at 6:17pm
It was really good, but as far as I know there are no current plans to transfer it to Broadway. The best I think we'll be getting is for a regional theatre to perform the show one day if they decide to release the rights.
Updated On: 9/20/11 at 06:17 PM
#3
Posted: 9/21/11 at 9:29am
Probably DOA. No producers attached, and the reviews weren't sufficiently exciting to merit putting any more $$ into it (unless, of course, the Scissors Sisters want to invest their considerable funds, as a vanity project).
#4
Posted: 9/21/11 at 11:24am
The word I heard in town towards the end of the run was a London production was being eyed. 'Tales' is more popular there than in NYC - indeed, the miniseries was actually British, and shot in Canada - and Maupin has many supporters there.
But that's just the word, so no official news.
But that's just the word, so no official news.
#5
Posted: 9/22/11 at 9:20pm
Some of the first miniseries was shot in SF, but yeah it was British, and apparently the books in general have more popular success there actually.
I really liked it--as I ranted on about it here enough, granted it seemed to divide people on here very sharply--though I admit it definitely needs work. I heard the London rumour too, I've also heard it'll likely pop up somewhere else, revised, but I don't think it'll come to NYC in the next couple of years. there was some surprising talk of a recording getting made, which I'd love, but nothing else.
I really liked it--as I ranted on about it here enough, granted it seemed to divide people on here very sharply--though I admit it definitely needs work. I heard the London rumour too, I've also heard it'll likely pop up somewhere else, revised, but I don't think it'll come to NYC in the next couple of years. there was some surprising talk of a recording getting made, which I'd love, but nothing else.
#6
Posted: 2/15/12 at 3:25am
Anyone know the latest on plans to stage the Tales of the City production that played SF last year, in either London or New York anytime soon?
#7
Posted: 2/15/12 at 6:21am
Jake Shears has tweeted it's still alive. I know I seem to be the one man band on here who thinks its a worthy project--it has far too much good to not try to surmount the (admittedly difficult) projects, but I really hope something happens, at least a recording. A lot of it worked brilliantly on stage--and a lot of it didn't, but if the universally panned (and awful) Little Miss Sunshine is looking at New York this season, than Tales deserves a much better chance. I would give it a few more productions to workout kinks (I liked one suggestion I rerad, which fans of the books might hate, of wrapping the completely DOA Norman subplot with Mary Ann into the Beauchamp one and making him the one blackmailing Anna who dies--Norman barely works in the novel and the miniseries, and was the only truly embarassing moment in the musical).
I've listened to the live recording an awful lot--and after seeing it (the recording reflects some changes made after the first preview I saw--which was four hours...) it really is a theatrical score. It's not just a pop band laying their sound and trying to make a musical--there's character development and a good use of themes, and a lot of great music (as even the NYTimes pointed out).
One thing Newintown mentioned (way way back, so I know this may not be relevent)--It's not a Scissor Sisters musical. In fact, though it was always advertised (not too obviously lol) as Jakes Shears from the Scissor Sisters, and he is their main songwriter, he did the score with John Garden who has done some of their more musical theatre arrangements on stage and usually tours with them. There have (reportedly been) some issues within the band about the credit. Either way they are NOT a walthy band--they are struggling to even hold a record contract, and I don't think could fund an album. On the other hand Armistad Maupin seems to be doing well enough right now to be able to help fund one--and I hope/wish he would.
(Gaveston recently asked if I read his last Tales novel, Mary Ann in Autumn--I finally did. I was kinda surprised, I really enjoyed it, though had some issues, it was a big improvement on the self indulgent Michael Tolliver Lives... We'll see what the next one holds--apparently *finally* the finale, but... :P )
I've listened to the live recording an awful lot--and after seeing it (the recording reflects some changes made after the first preview I saw--which was four hours...) it really is a theatrical score. It's not just a pop band laying their sound and trying to make a musical--there's character development and a good use of themes, and a lot of great music (as even the NYTimes pointed out).
One thing Newintown mentioned (way way back, so I know this may not be relevent)--It's not a Scissor Sisters musical. In fact, though it was always advertised (not too obviously lol) as Jakes Shears from the Scissor Sisters, and he is their main songwriter, he did the score with John Garden who has done some of their more musical theatre arrangements on stage and usually tours with them. There have (reportedly been) some issues within the band about the credit. Either way they are NOT a walthy band--they are struggling to even hold a record contract, and I don't think could fund an album. On the other hand Armistad Maupin seems to be doing well enough right now to be able to help fund one--and I hope/wish he would.
(Gaveston recently asked if I read his last Tales novel, Mary Ann in Autumn--I finally did. I was kinda surprised, I really enjoyed it, though had some issues, it was a big improvement on the self indulgent Michael Tolliver Lives... We'll see what the next one holds--apparently *finally* the finale, but... :P )
#8
Posted: 2/15/12 at 9:03am
The biggest problem with the show as it is now is that they have tried to stay too true to the book. It may be a Catch-22 situation, because the book's fans will raise a holy howl if their beloved source material isn't followed religiously; but the best adaptations make HUGE changes in their source material in order to create an entirely new animal.
The Tales books are too episodic to make compelling theatre as they are now; as a tv miniseries, that sort of thing is fine, but when you put it on a stage for a few hours, the storylines need to be unified, coherent.
Imagine how awful Mame would be if it stuck close to the novel; imagine how dull Funny Girl would be if it actually stayed true to Fanny Brice's life.
The writers of the Tales musical will need to be a lot more brutal and imaginative; they need to do more than take a few stories from the books, add songs, and mix. They have to create their own new animal. But I don't think that's ever going to happen.
The Tales books are too episodic to make compelling theatre as they are now; as a tv miniseries, that sort of thing is fine, but when you put it on a stage for a few hours, the storylines need to be unified, coherent.
Imagine how awful Mame would be if it stuck close to the novel; imagine how dull Funny Girl would be if it actually stayed true to Fanny Brice's life.
The writers of the Tales musical will need to be a lot more brutal and imaginative; they need to do more than take a few stories from the books, add songs, and mix. They have to create their own new animal. But I don't think that's ever going to happen.
#9
Posted: 2/15/12 at 10:52am
But, you know, New, I actually thought they did a fantastic job in cramming so much story into a two and a half hour show. I was actually surprised, as it never really felt crowded, that every major character (except DeDe) got their proper due. The book writing was excellent.. It was the music that mostly (with a few exceptions) let me down The song choices, the lyrics, the moments they decided to musicalize... but then again, this comes back to my complaint about letting pop writers compose theatre scores. As if writing the score for a musical is not a specific talent.
#10
Posted: 2/15/12 at 10:58am
i have to agree with owen -- one of the pleasant surprises of the SF production was how much of both the detail and the spirit of the original story lines they were able to preserve.
yes, cuts and changes are needed, but i hope not at the expense of the excellent job they've done in translating the story line to the stage.
eric: definitely not a one-man band! i'm not sure new york audiences would go for this show, but i can envision it being a wild success in london!
yes, cuts and changes are needed, but i hope not at the expense of the excellent job they've done in translating the story line to the stage.
eric: definitely not a one-man band! i'm not sure new york audiences would go for this show, but i can envision it being a wild success in london!
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#11
Posted: 2/15/12 at 11:11am
The problem isn't that material was left out - the problem is that many of the characters have nothing to do with each other.
So we get a parade of different characters with different stories, but no unified whole. There are pieces all over the place, but not enough to hold them together.
So we get a parade of different characters with different stories, but no unified whole. There are pieces all over the place, but not enough to hold them together.
#12
Posted: 2/15/12 at 11:15am
chacun a son gout, i guess.
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#13
Posted: 2/15/12 at 11:37am
I'm merely explaining why the reviews were middling and why it probably won't get a commercial production anytime soon. As to whether it's "good" or "bad" - well, we all get to make up our minds on our own there.
But the fact is, it currently has no prospects for another production, simply because there's no one to raise the cash or put a production together.
But the fact is, it currently has no prospects for another production, simply because there's no one to raise the cash or put a production together.
#14
Posted: 2/15/12 at 11:42am
actually, you write (wrote) as if the views were your own, not a summary of the critics'.
in either case, i disagree -- either with your views or with your summary of the professionals' criticisms.
but that's what makes message boards so much fun ... party on, Garth!
in either case, i disagree -- either with your views or with your summary of the professionals' criticisms.
but that's what makes message boards so much fun ... party on, Garth!
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#15
Posted: 2/15/12 at 11:51am
I'm not even summarizing the reviews; I'm explaining why (I think) the project is dead in the water (which it currently is).
If you like it, that's fine; I'd be interested to hear your theories on why it's stalled at this juncture.
If you like it, that's fine; I'd be interested to hear your theories on why it's stalled at this juncture.
#16
Posted: 2/15/12 at 4:42pm
you said, "i'm merely explaining why the reviews were middling ..."
your explanation is *not* why (some of) the reviews were "middling"; it's why YOU found the work middling.
(and fair play to you ... i just want to be clear about whose opinions are whose.)
i don't know anyone associated with this property well enough to say with authority whether it's dead in the water or not -- do you??? (and if so, please tell us more!!!)
and shows stall for a variety of reasons, often having nothing to do with the merits. just as, as we all know, shows proceed to open for reasons having nothing to do with the merits!
all i'm saying is that: (1) i disagree with the substance of your criticism -- which (again) is YOUR criticism, not the published critics'; and, (2) i can see this show doing very well in london, given the strong affinity for the source material there. neither of those assertions should be remarkable.
your explanation is *not* why (some of) the reviews were "middling"; it's why YOU found the work middling.
(and fair play to you ... i just want to be clear about whose opinions are whose.)
i don't know anyone associated with this property well enough to say with authority whether it's dead in the water or not -- do you??? (and if so, please tell us more!!!)
and shows stall for a variety of reasons, often having nothing to do with the merits. just as, as we all know, shows proceed to open for reasons having nothing to do with the merits!
all i'm saying is that: (1) i disagree with the substance of your criticism -- which (again) is YOUR criticism, not the published critics'; and, (2) i can see this show doing very well in london, given the strong affinity for the source material there. neither of those assertions should be remarkable.
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#18
Posted: 2/15/12 at 5:14pm
Guys, guys, guys! I realize it isn't always obvious, but there are those of us who are interested in ALL your opinions and appreciate you sharing them. It's fine that you don't agree. Unless a show is damn-near perfect (and often even then), intelligent people will disagree as to why it doesn't work; if anybody knew for sure, we'd have a lot more successful musicals.
And Eric, you are not a one-man band. A close friend whom I respect very much echoes your account of the show, its potential and problems. (And thanks for the capsule review of MARY ANN IN AUTUMN. It's been on the bedside table for a year now. Time I opened it and started reading.)
And Eric, you are not a one-man band. A close friend whom I respect very much echoes your account of the show, its potential and problems. (And thanks for the capsule review of MARY ANN IN AUTUMN. It's been on the bedside table for a year now. Time I opened it and started reading.)
#19
Posted: 2/15/12 at 10:32pm
EricMontreal22 wrote:
I know I seem to be the one man band on here who thinks it's a worthy project - it has far too much good to not try to surmount the (admittedly difficult) projects, but I really hope something happens, at least a recording.
Nuh uh. I also hope it goes further - at least a recording, but hopefully another production that takes forward what was presented in San Francisco.
I know I seem to be the one man band on here who thinks it's a worthy project - it has far too much good to not try to surmount the (admittedly difficult) projects, but I really hope something happens, at least a recording.
Nuh uh. I also hope it goes further - at least a recording, but hopefully another production that takes forward what was presented in San Francisco.
Musical Cyberspace: a tribute to the musicals of Broadway and beyond.
Updated On: 2/15/12 at 10:32 PM
#20
Posted: 2/16/12 at 12:14am
This show is so fantastic. I want a cast recording and I want the project to continue with its original cast!
"You have two kinds of shows on Broadway – revivals and the same kind of musicals over and over again, all spectacles. You get your tickets for The Lion King a year in advance, and essentially a family... pass on to their children the idea that that's what the theater is – a spectacular musical you see once a year, a stage version of a movie. It has nothing to do with theater at all. It has to do with seeing what is familiar.... I don't think the theatre will die per se, but it's never going to be what it was.... It's a tourist attraction." Stephen Sondheim
#21
Posted: 2/18/12 at 3:21am
Newintown has a point. While some of the criticism about the show has been about what is left out (I still find it ridiculous that anyone cares that Jon is Black and not a blond) it DOES have to be better shaped into a show. Ihave paid way too much attention to this project, I realize,but I think the main problem is you can'tcome to a conclusion for a serialized story (which even in book form, the stories are). But, like any good serial the true appeal is the characters, not the crazy plot points.
I disagree with Owen about the songs--I know some friends complained it wasn'tenough "Scissor Sisters" but I think love Comes Coming and Paper Faces are both some of the best show tunes and most appropriate I actually was impressed with how well Shears wrote in characters' voices and not in his usual lyrics. It's a strong score--and a show that almost doesn't sadly work
I disagree with Owen about the songs--I know some friends complained it wasn'tenough "Scissor Sisters" but I think love Comes Coming and Paper Faces are both some of the best show tunes and most appropriate I actually was impressed with how well Shears wrote in characters' voices and not in his usual lyrics. It's a strong score--and a show that almost doesn't sadly work
#22
Posted: 2/18/12 at 11:07am
Dear Eric:
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but "It's a strong score" ??? It is so, SO not.
There were a couple songs I enjoyed, not so much for the lyrics, but I thought they had strong melodies. But so many of the songs didn't.
One of the reasons I'm taking you to task is this allowing pop writers, hiring pop writers, to write theatre scores is so unproductive and just plain stupid. It's one of the things that is killing musical theatre.
"Spring Awakening" and some Elton John notwithstanding, there are very few modern musicals written by pop writers that have attained creative (though, sadly sometimes, commercial) glory. Have you HEARD the score to "Spiderman" or "Ghost"? As melodic as parts of "Capeman" were, it was so not a theatre score. "Dance of the Vampires"? "Mask"? "Thou Shalt Not"? "The First Wives Club"? "Nine to Five"? The only reason "Color Purple" ran is because of stunt casting. Yet now we have "Kinky Boots" (Cyndy Lauper) "Nowhere Boy" (Scottish pop star Paolo Nutini) and "Bridget Jones" (Lily Allen) in the pipeline, and I'm sure there are, sad to say, more I can't remember.
Just because Shears is gay and writes songs, doesn't make him a theatre song writer. There are people who study at NYU, BMI and ASCAP to BECOME theatre writers. It is a SPECIFIC talent. Each new pop written theatre score (and your championing of the music and lyrics of "Tales From the City") lowers our standards bit by bit.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but "It's a strong score" ??? It is so, SO not.
There were a couple songs I enjoyed, not so much for the lyrics, but I thought they had strong melodies. But so many of the songs didn't.
One of the reasons I'm taking you to task is this allowing pop writers, hiring pop writers, to write theatre scores is so unproductive and just plain stupid. It's one of the things that is killing musical theatre.
"Spring Awakening" and some Elton John notwithstanding, there are very few modern musicals written by pop writers that have attained creative (though, sadly sometimes, commercial) glory. Have you HEARD the score to "Spiderman" or "Ghost"? As melodic as parts of "Capeman" were, it was so not a theatre score. "Dance of the Vampires"? "Mask"? "Thou Shalt Not"? "The First Wives Club"? "Nine to Five"? The only reason "Color Purple" ran is because of stunt casting. Yet now we have "Kinky Boots" (Cyndy Lauper) "Nowhere Boy" (Scottish pop star Paolo Nutini) and "Bridget Jones" (Lily Allen) in the pipeline, and I'm sure there are, sad to say, more I can't remember.
Just because Shears is gay and writes songs, doesn't make him a theatre song writer. There are people who study at NYU, BMI and ASCAP to BECOME theatre writers. It is a SPECIFIC talent. Each new pop written theatre score (and your championing of the music and lyrics of "Tales From the City") lowers our standards bit by bit.
#23
Posted: 2/19/12 at 12:19pm
Dear Owen...
It's the guy's opinion. Much like what you wrote is your opinion. There is no such thing as a definition of a "theatrical score". Whether something is a success or enjoyable is in the eye of the beholder.
It's the guy's opinion. Much like what you wrote is your opinion. There is no such thing as a definition of a "theatrical score". Whether something is a success or enjoyable is in the eye of the beholder.
#24
Posted: 2/19/12 at 12:56pm
well, unfortunately, you are wrong there. A theatrical score is more than just a score written for or utilized in a musical. But just by your comment, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what I meant by that.
#25
Posted: 2/20/12 at 2:33am
LOL I think it's a strong score. For me it worked in a theatrical context (something I was worried about when I heard the demo--over half of which was dropped). Lyrics are written in character, it carried off both a sense of plot and, again, character, and it *worked*. Again, for me. But your argument that it "so, so not" hasn't convinced me.
I think most of the shows you mention suffer for exactly the reasons you give. I don't see the connection. I really am not worried that the fact I liked Tales of the City means I am contributing to the end of musicals. Jake SHears isn't even a big enough name in the US to say he was hired for cynical reasons--he was friends with Jeff Whitty and they were both fans of the books. to me it IS a theatrical score. And I think I have enough knowledge of musical theatre to stand behind that.
I think most of the shows you mention suffer for exactly the reasons you give. I don't see the connection. I really am not worried that the fact I liked Tales of the City means I am contributing to the end of musicals. Jake SHears isn't even a big enough name in the US to say he was hired for cynical reasons--he was friends with Jeff Whitty and they were both fans of the books. to me it IS a theatrical score. And I think I have enough knowledge of musical theatre to stand behind that.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95