THIS AIN'T NO DISCO thread — Page 6

ethan231h said: "My one main problem with the show is that a transgender role is played by a cisgender person.....If this transfers I sure hope they fix that."

I don't think you need to worry about what to fix for a transfer.

Yeah. This is going nowhere. Catch it while you can.

I found a silver lining! The Hollywood Reporter states, "... and Stockman entertainingly emphasizes the sleaziness of the coke-snorting Rubell."

Vulture gives high praise to Stockman, Kennedy, and Connolly but appears to believe Chad was a blonde, so make of that what you will.

Yep, wow. Some brutal reviews:

http://www.playbill.com/article/read-reviews-for-this-aint-no-disco-off-broadway

After these reviews, I actually feel sorry for the creators. I saw the show twice, and it grew on me! I started to like the music the second time.

It baffles me that the show could go through at least two workshops that I know of, and no one pointed out the problems? Or, even worse, the creators chose not to address the problem? Rick Elice couldn't have come up with a better book?

Well, Tripp Cullman had been attached in all the workshops prior to the production, as well..

---

I wonder what feedback the creatives did get. I can't tell what parts of the show actually interested them. Did they just want to have a story about Steve Rubell and Andy Warhol and Studio 54? Because that would have been fun. I would have loved a show that was sleazier and more glamorous and more realistic. Do they actually care about Chad and Sammy and the earnest Glee version of searching for identity and chasing fame in spite of a myriad of personal issues? Well, that show seems kind of boring but strip away the other stuff and you could certainly create a story where you cared more about those two characters. Were they trying to make it RENT with the whole ensemble and the "let us in" thing? Was it about fame? There are good pieces in there. It's just that they didn't follow one direction long enough to start refining the parts that work into a cohesive whole.

It wasn't boring and aside from being a little too casual about some of the topics it picked up, I didn't find it offensive. The actors were fully committed. And it was entertaining. That's more than I can say for a lot of shows.

To me there's just such glaringly obvious things like "Sing for me" and then she does beat poetry...and then he tells her he's going to make her into a famous singer...like, none of that makes any sense.

Is it the directors job to reconfigure the play or just direct what they are given?

newintown said: ""It baffles me that the show could go through at least two workshops that I know of, and no one pointed out the problems? Or, even worse, the creators chose not to address the problem? Rick Elice couldn't have come up with a better book?"

This is far from unusual; the audiences at most workshops today consist primarily, it seems, of a blend of sycophants and hangers-on with no better insight than the creative team. And those who might know better perhaps withhold judgement in an attempt to avoid hurting feelings."

This reminded me of how Terrence McNally had the world premier of Master Class in the middle of nowhere Montana. He wanted to see how the work played in front of " normal folks" who weren't into the opera/NYC/theater scene. Not a bad way to get honest feedback.