Posted: 11/16/15 at 11:52am
"The Wiz" isn't a children's show. At least it wasn't when I saw it. Again, that's what I mean by failing to honor the original intent of the material.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 12:17pm
Here is the cast singing ease on down the road: http://www.bet.com/video/movies/2015/first-look/the-wiz.html
Posted: 11/16/15 at 12:55pm
What pact did Stephanie Mills make with the devil? The woman looks great and sings even better! I'm getting pure joy from her involvement alone. Getting her back for this is in my opinion one of the very few things they did right.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 1:00pm
I agree!
Posted: 11/16/15 at 1:00pm
(double post)
Updated On: 11/16/15 at 01:00 PM
Posted: 11/16/15 at 1:14pm
As much as I love the way Ms. Mills' sounds, the "Dorothy" I saw and whose performance is alive in my memory was Ren Woods. Ms. Woods also crushed "Age of Aquarius" in the film version of Hair.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 1:46pm
I remember seeing Ren Woods on talk shows singing "Home" at the time. She did the Los Angeles company, I believe. She was wonderful! I saw Deborah Malone on the tour, and she was also great as Dorothy.
Then there's the one and only Stephanie Mills.
And I'm not understanding the casting of Shanice Williams (so far). She's bright and energetic and has a nice voice, but nothing about her says "Dorothy" to me, not in the promos or the sing-alongs around the piano. She's tall, bold, confident, sassy, brassy, and very much into her own singing (eyes rolling back, head bobbing and weaving and drifting off).
I'm hoping (against hope) for an acting miracle when the show goes live. She has to carry the thing, and be convincing as a simple girl from the Midwest discovering a strange new world, not discovering that she can riff on a high D. That's not any journey of discovery I'm interested in.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 1:52pm
"
And I'm not understanding the casting of Shanice Williams (so far). She's bright and energetic and has a nice voice, but nothing about her says "Dorothy" to me, not in the promos or the sing-alongs around the piano. She's tall, bold, confident, sassy, brassy, and very much into her own singing (eyes rolling back, head bobbing and weaving and drifting off)."
You would be saying the same thing of Eva Noblezada if you were some obsessed Miss Saigon fan and only saw her in 2 minute trailer clips. Why can't you just wait and see the broadcast before telling the whole board how awful Shanice is as Dorothy? I mean really.
.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:16pm
Why can't you read my posts and understand I'm talking about the promos I've seen, not the live performance none of us have seen yet? They are releasing these videos and images for a (hopefully positive) reaction. It's to give us a glimpse of what's to come. That's what I'm doing, reacting to the material they have released.
It's really not hard to comprehend that, is it?
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:21pm
Sorry best12, it just seems like every comment you make on this thread is negative. "They're not doing it like this" "they're not doing the costumes this way". "They're not doing it the way I want them to" etc etc...
I understand that you're just talking about the promos, but it's not hard to tell your attitude towards this whole show is already pretty negative.
.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:29pm
Yes, it is. On that, we agree. I haven't seen or heard anything I like yet, except Adaperle's costume and the casting of Stephanie Mills (and her singing as well).
Everything else seems off to me. I'm not "trying" to be negative, but I am absolutely having a negative reaction to the creative choices made so far. And I really wish I didn't feel that way. But more important, I wish they hadn't made these choices.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:36pm
Closer to the film arrangement it seems...
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:36pm
I'm just going to watch the second half of this without paying...
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:39pm
How exciting would it have been if they had actually chose to perform the libretto and score as written and show audiences who are only familiar with the movie what the show was really like in the 70s. To me that would have been even more bold and daring than what they're doing. How long do we have to wait for an opportunity like that to come around again?
This is the equivalent of an out of town tryout for a Broadway "revisal" performed on live television with no real way of knowing how any of the new material is going to land for the audiences at home.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 2:46pm
WHERE'S THE STACCATO HORNS
That was one of the most admirable things about SOUND OF MUSIC Live, they were doing the original show and they weren't ashamed of it and actually wanted to surprise those only familiar with the film. This production wants it to be closer to the film.
Updated On: 11/16/15 at 02:46 PM
Posted: 11/16/15 at 3:20pm
Mr. Nowack said: "WHERE'S THE STACCATO HORNS
That was one of the most admirable things about SOUND OF MUSIC Live, they were doing the original show and they weren't ashamed of it and actually wanted to surprise those only familiar with the film. This production wants it to be closer to the film.
"
Well, The Sound of Music was almost the original show. They still swapped out An Ordinary Couple for Something Good. Other than that, it was the original show, and that is why I didn't hate it. It stayed very close to the piece as Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote it, and their show was the star of the evening. They trusted the material and it was strong enough to make me look past Underwood's wooden performance.
When Peter Pan was filmed for the fifth time, they didn't trust the material and we were served a mess. These shows have been successes for decades for a reason, all they have to do is trust what is written.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 3:22pm
These shows have been successes for decades for a reason, all they have to do is trust what is written.
Tell that to Cabaret!
Posted: 11/16/15 at 3:32pm
Though elements of the score and production style have changed, barring minor additions to the script, Cabaret has never been substantially different from production to production. (Except for maybe the 2006 London revival. That was pretty different.)
Posted: 11/16/15 at 3:48pm
g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Though elements of the score and production style have changed, barring minor additions to the script, Cabaret has never been substantially different from production to production. (Except for maybe the 2006 London revival. That was pretty different.)
"
The film version is an exception to the rule.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 3:52pm
Entertainment Weekly just posted these new images of Queen Latifah, Common and Uzo Aduba.
I don't know. As someone who is unfamiliar with the original production and having never seen the movie in its entirety, I kind of like the look of it. But this may be just because of my unfamiliarity with the piece.
Updated On: 11/16/15 at 03:52 PM
Posted: 11/16/15 at 3:55pm
Uzo looks amazing. I absolutely love the costume. I like common's costume. Queen latifah's costume is good but the hair and makeup could have been better
Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:33pm
True about "Ordinary Couple," totally forgot about it. As you said though other than that they presented the original show and especially hyped up that aspect in the publicity.
Updated On: 11/16/15 at 04:33 PM
Posted: 11/16/15 at 4:51pm
"I'm just going to watch the second half of this without paying.."
Haterobics, the show is free. Did no one tell you? If not, I will gladly let you give me your money so you can watch the show.
Posted: 11/16/15 at 7:02pm
If I didn't know better, that leaked image of the Glinda costume on page 36 of this thread really looks like that final product from EW.
Wonder if the others end up being "real" or similar.
