#101
Posted: 4/18/24 at 9:29am
Everyone complaining about lack of sets in recent shows but this one is overblown? I’ll take overblown!
THE GREAT GATSBY Broadway Previews — Page 5
#102
Posted: 4/18/24 at 9:29am
dramamama611 said: "starlightlocamotion said: "To each their own …If you’re going to see it, just get off your high horse & let it sweep you away. If you analyze to closely you’re doing yourself a disservice. Again … not high art. That’s not what this is, nor what’s it’s trying to be."
I did see it, at Papermill, and I understand not much has changed. I saw it the first week of previews, so I could hardly have any preconceived notions, and in fact, was crazy excited to see it.
The notion that it's terrific if you just don't think about it, is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I've seen on this board. Shucked wasn't "high art"; Rock of Ages wasn't "high art" but they weren't masquerading around as a literary classic, so yes, this WANTED to be.
It's fine that you loved it, but it's also fine that others don't."
100% this. Look, Bat Boy is one of my favorite musicals of all time. I don't need my art to be high to have a good time (although sometimes it helps when I am).
#103
Posted: 4/18/24 at 10:16am
dramamama611 said: "starlightlocamotion said: "
The notion that it's terrific if you just don't think about it, is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I've seen on this board. Shucked wasn't "high art"; Rock of Ages wasn't "high art" but they weren't masquerading around as a literary classic, so yes, this WANTED to be."
Preach. I suspect Gatsby will disappoint if i ever get around to seeing it, but there is this new trend of thought I keep bumping into where mediocrity is expected and those who insist on better are somehow elitist or unreasonable. no no no. the show can be silly but funny. it can be slow but meaningful/thought provoking. it can be hilarious but offensive. it doesnt have to be everything, as long as its SOMETHING. "terrific if you just dont think about it" is like "delicious if you just dont taste it" or "melodious if you turn your hearing aid off"-- it inherently makes no sense. and yes it feels like this moment, at the tender age of 38, is when i became old and cranky.
#104
Posted: 4/18/24 at 10:43am
dramamama611 said: "The notion that it's terrific if you just don't think about it, is perhaps the most ridiculous idea I've seen on this board. Shucked wasn't "high art"; Rock of Ages wasn't "high art" but they weren't masquerading around as a literary classic, so yes, this WANTED to be.."
Ew. No. It's not "masquerading around as a literary classic". It' is BASED on a literary classic. As much as the musical Legally Blonde was BASED on a classic comedy. I supposed you can be as elitist as you want on these boards but that was a nasty almost, classist take. Anyone is free to adapt anything they want to adapt, in any style, to any demographic be they "well-read" or Reese Witherspoon fans. To transform a novel with characters that could be off-putting to some, they elected to make a jazz age musical comedy with dramatic overtones. They made it into a love story with a Rogers and Hammerstein-esque secondary romantic couple. That doesn't erase the novel and it's characters and themes from existence. Yes, they are selling this new romantic musical comedy on the name of a famous book, but why is that so different than a musical based on Back to the Future. They are all there to make money and entertain the best the best they can. Most Broadway musicals-- the best Broadway musicals-- are mostly based on pre-existing materials manipulated to exist in a new form.
#105
Posted: 4/18/24 at 11:09am
Both BTTF and Legally Blonde stayed true to the themes of their predecessors. I probably would have like this more if they DIDN'T call it Gatsby....Because when you take the ESSENCE of the original away you haven't adapted it, you've borrowed character names. But I still wouldn't have loved it, because it's not well written.
HOW is it classist to want/expect a story called Great Gatsby to actually understand The Great Gastby? Certainly not by hiring a book writer that has admitted to not even liking the source material.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#106
Posted: 4/18/24 at 11:18am
MrsSallyAdams said: "Does the show allow for a GBQ reading of Nick? The films all cut Nick's ambiguous hook up with Mr. McKee but some lean into the idea that he's more infatuated with Gatsby than with Jordan Baker."
I remember reading Gatsby in either 7th or 8th grade and naturally assuming that Nick was gay and Jordan was his ... well, I don't think the term that comes to mind is acceptable anymore. Disappointing that no major adaptations have leaned into this yet and given us a patter song about elevator levers.
#107
Posted: 4/18/24 at 11:22am
People hold this show to a weird standard in comparison to the book that I just have honestly never seen with other musicals based on novels. I understand people care deeply because they have a strong relationship with the book from school and youth, and that is completely valid. But some of the comments I have seen would make you think the writers and producers slapped their grandma. Jesus.
I don’t see people freaking out that both Broadway productions of The Color Purple were far more family friendly than the book (which is also an incredibly famous novel and part of many schools’ curriculums, fwiw). AND that’s the only Color Purple we get for now-it’s not public domain, obviously. Wicked is barely a whisp of its novel, but I guess people are just pissed that their favorite book didn’t go the way they wanted it to in terms of an adaptation even though they literally get another one next month and then Hannah Corneau’s after that.
#108
Posted: 4/18/24 at 12:17pm
Gatsby is far from my favorite novel, btw...I respect it more than like it, truth be told. In fact, I put both Color Purple AND Wicked pretty high on my favorite lite.
I think the difference here is that the essence and themes of the original stories still exist... In both cases. That there would be dramatic license, is, of course, expected. I don't remember much, if any challenges... I don't think discission boards were even a thing when Wicked came out - I know I wasn't a part of them back then, anyway. And there has been plenty of discussion about the glossing over of lesbian issues in CP, which came up again for the new film, which took a big step backwards.
I think many of us are simply disappointed in this end result...I'm very much looking forward to the ARTs version.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
#109
Posted: 4/18/24 at 12:40pm
A name I didn't see often in Gatsby reviews was Frank Wildhorn. He's known for taking classic novels and stuffing them with radio friendly power ballads. Does Gatsby's score compare?
threepanelmusicals.blogspot.com
Updated On: 4/18/24 at 12:40 PM
#110
Posted: 4/18/24 at 12:43pm
Discussion boards were actually very popular during that time for Wicked, with one in particular being very active, though I can’t recall the name now. I do understand your point and it’s a fair one; I just happen to disagree that the themes are not there. To me, they are, but glossed over in the same way you describe the other two shows. I’m also very much looking forward to ART’s version. If we can have 8 billion Alice in Wonderlands I can handle two Gatsbys.
#111
Posted: 4/18/24 at 12:45pm
Re: Wildhorn, the score is similar to his style but I also think it has a little bit of an Alan Menken 90s Disney movie musical sound mixed in with that. But yes, definitely along the same lines.
#112
Posted: 4/18/24 at 12:52pm
If you are going to make so many changes to the story why do The Great Gatsby?
Write an original show........
I didn't hate what I saw onstage, but it certainly isn't the book I read......
Stop messing with other authors work.
#113
Posted: 4/18/24 at 12:53pm
I think maybe it's a matter of managing expectations. The book has become fairly synonymous with its themes about the American Dream and all so when there's an adaptation, it's kind of assumed that that's an integral part of the story. And the Broadway Gatsby seems to look like a fairly straightforward adaptation from the outside--all the art has all the glitz and glamor you'd expect, and there's nothing particularly "different" about it. (On the other hand, the ART Gatsby seems to have an added level of intrigue that suggests a slightly different take on the story.) And the opening number doesn't really do much to dissuade those expectations, and I don't think it's until we really meet Gatsby that we realize the characters are going to be portrayed differently from the novel.
So I think for those that meet the musical on its own terms, it's a pretty enjoyable high-value spectacle show (it maybe also raises the question of why they did Gatsby at all and not a different story altogether, but that's a different matter). But because the name and "branding" of The Great Gatsby is so known, it's hard to not have your own idea of what the show "should" be.
FWIW, if someone took my favorite book and said they were making a high-profile big-budget adaptation of it and then seemed to purposely misunderstand what was great about it, I'd probably be upset too (I'm still mad about the original Percy Jackson movie lol), but that's just something you have to contend with for an adaptation, especially of this famous of a property.
#114
Posted: 4/18/24 at 1:06pm
It’s not just that the show misunderstands the book. It’s that the story as told really had no reason for being once it’s devoid of that meaning.
Also, the show really didn’t work for me as spectacle. It looks expensive, yes, but the choreography (both in dance and just in movement around the stage) and stage pictures seemed clunky and added nothing to the storytelling.
#115
Posted: 4/18/24 at 9:41pm
I dont understand some people whinny about the 'show' does not respect the 'book' things.
Saw it last week, and absolutely love it.
Totally and strongly disagree to some of the comments in here. Wait for the professional review then we ll see.
Saw it last week, and absolutely love it.
Totally and strongly disagree to some of the comments in here. Wait for the professional review then we ll see.
#116
Posted: 4/18/24 at 10:33pm
KJ4 said: "I dont understand some people whinny about the 'show' does not respect the 'book' things.
Saw it last week, and absolutely love it.
Totally and strongly disagree to some of the comments in here. Wait for the professional review then we ll see."
That's great that you loved it. I absolutely loved the original novel. If they are trying to make this a "perfect" adaptation of the book, they missed the mark entirely. Is it a fun show? Yeah, I guess, but if this show did not have the star power of Jeremy and Eva, this show would flop faster than Bad Cinderella or Diana.
The idea is to work and to experiment. Some things will be creatively successful, some things will succeed at the box office, and some things will only - which is the biggest only - teach you things that see the future. And they're probably as valuable as any of your successes. -Harold Prince
#117
Posted: 4/19/24 at 12:13am
KJ4 said: "Totally and strongly disagree to some of the comments in here. Wait for the professional review then we ll see."
This isn't about right or wrong. These are opinions. Your opinion of the show isn't wrong; but neither is mine. They're just different.
And if the professional critics love it as you do, it still doesn't make my opinion wrong. (And vice versa, of course)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Updated On: 4/19/24 at 12:13 AM
#118
Posted: 4/19/24 at 12:28am
KJ4 said: "I dont understand some people whinny about the 'show' does not respect the 'book' things."
#119
Posted: 4/19/24 at 9:03pm
"...if this show did not have the star power of Jeremy and Eva, this show would flop faster than Bad Cinderella or Diana..."
I respect both, and actually love the specific recent work of one. But are they evidence of "star power" on Broadway? Sorry, but only on these boards. .
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#120
Posted: 4/19/24 at 9:26pm
Dariana Mullen is making her Jordan Baker debut tonight!
“I am furious, but I am sailing.”
Updated On: 4/19/24 at 09:26 PM
#121
Posted: 4/20/24 at 5:29pm
Just saw the matinee. Until the last 1/4, should have been called Gatsby!, since it was basically a musical comedy. Such an odd adaptation, but Jeremy and Eva sounded great.
#122
Posted: 4/21/24 at 11:41am
Jeremy Jordan is so good in this but it's hard to fix a musical when the supporting cast/ensemble have ****ty songs to work with. I'm guessing critics will be mixed/negative on this.
#123
Posted: 4/21/24 at 3:20pm
Do they keep having to stop the show after the first car scene?
#124
Posted: 4/21/24 at 5:41pm
What a disjointed, disappointing mess.
Saw a couple of shows that I didn't love recently and hoped this one might save it but it seems we can't get composers/lyricists to write anything more than basic, mediocre scores at best anymore.
Not even going to talk about the book of whatever this show is.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95