I mean, if you’ve actually watched the three documentaries/series that this musical is based on, those lyrics are perfect. This woman is not intelligent, could never sell a ‘proper’ Broadway song & lyrics to save her life, and is quite frankly a delusional (but lovely) nut. Highly recommend people watch things before they write this off.
Except, people SHOULDNT need the source material at all.
However, hearing one song, largely out of context, is never a good way to judge an entire show.
But that's what we do.
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.
I thought this is beautiful and having seen the documentary captures the spirit of who Jackie is so well. I’m not sure why we still use “memorableness” as an arbiter for quality these days but for what it’s worth the melody has totally sunk its teeth into my brain. The lyrics are … definitely a bit silly and surface level but I don’t mind. I would say the same of some of Wicked’s lyrics and I still think it has earned its place as a qualitative staple of musical theatre.
Cryptic message from Emerson Colonial theatre about the show: Did this stunning photo of Kristin Chenoweth get your attention?! Good, because we have an exciting #QueenofVersailles announcement coming tomorrow - you won't want to miss it! Keep an eye out 👀
📷: @drewxphotography
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.
I can't imagine the "rest" of the cast will be of much note - but maybe I'm forgetting characters.
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.
Yes, they've extended a week, which really isn't an "exciting announcement" for a show that still has tons of seats available for the initial block of dates.
TaffyDavenport said: "Yes, they've extended a week, which really isn't"exciting news" for a show that still has tons of seats available for the initial block of dates."
You don’t understand how advance sales work do you? The show doesn’t start for another 2 months, of course there are seats still available. Shows extend before selling out completely literally alllllll the time.
Not to derail this into an actual sociopolitical discussion and this might sound naive, but the credits list this both as based on the film and the "life stories of Jackie and David Siegel." Does this mean they have authorized the show and stand to materially benefit from it? Not that I would expect this team to go as hard on bite as the material might warrant to me, but I'm curious to know both for how it would impact the creative approach and what financially supporting the show means.
Not necessarily, it means they've used other sources beyond the documentary. I don't remember hearing they were producers on that, or that they have been involved in this.
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.
The Siegels still have an unfinished house. Would they really pour money into financing a show? Obviously, they’ve made some bad financial decisions, but I can’t imagine they’d take this risk as well. If they are producers, I can’t imagine being so desperate to cement a legacy like theirs over finishing their grand ballroom.
Scarywarhol said: "Not to derail this into an actual sociopolitical discussion and this might sound naive, but the credits list this both as based on the film and the "life stories of Jackie and David Siegel." Does this mean they have authorized the show and stand to materially benefit from it? Not that I would expect this teamto go as hard on bite as the material might warrant to me, but I'm curious to know both for how it would impact the creative approach and what financially supporting the show means."
My understanding is that Jackie and David Siegel are involved in the musical. Which probably means that they won't mention the sexual harassment lawsuit against Mr. Siegel. (He was ordered to pay 5.4 million dollars in damages, but the judge reduced it to $610,000.)
greensgreens said: "The Siegels still have an unfinished house. Would they really pour money into financing a show? Obviously, they’ve made some bad financial decisions, but I can’t imagine they’d take this risk as well. If they are producers, I can’t imagine being so desperate to cement a legacy like theirs over finishing their grand ballroom."
I didn't think they'd be producing the show (or say anything remotely like that), but the language made me wonder if the producers had paid them for the life rights in this format or they were going to get some kind of kickback from the gross in exchange.
Hearing the Siegels are closely involved with the production has been a major worry of mine and I’m afraid they’ve lost the focus of the original documentary. The Siegels are not heroes.
In our millions, in our billions, we are most powerful when we stand together. TW4C unwaveringly joins the worldwide masses, for we know our liberation is inseparably bound.
Signed,
Theater Workers for a Ceasefire
https://theaterworkersforaceasefire.com/statement