The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#1
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:12pm
Leave it to the New Yorker!
The Sound of Music and the Anticipation Trap
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#2
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:25pmBut it's kind of BS. Plenty of us can handle hearing songs not sung exactly like they did in the movie. The set of expectations I had was that it would be well sung and acted, and that voices would blend when people sang together. Although there was some decent singing and acting from the supporting roles, Underwood was tragic and every time people sang together it sounded like ass.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#2
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:44pmIt is an interesting point though. I wonder how often negative reactions to shows etc.. are the result of other factors than the performance itself (e.g., resistance to change; expectations based on original performances etc.). My hunch is it happens all the time.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#3
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:52pm
I have a negative response to bad acting. It makes me nostalgic for good acting.
Updated On: 12/6/13 at 03:52 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#4
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:57pmWhy would they be sung like in the movie? This had nothing to do with the movie. You can compare Mary Martin's performance with Carrie Underwood's, both have pleasant sounding voices. Tons of people are swimming in hate, and social media gives them a platform to voice it, whether their friends went to hear about it not. Laura Benanti had a great quote about that, saying she has no time for people that small.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#5
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:00pmI think the inclusion of Something Good shows it had a little something to do with the movie.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#6
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:21pm
I fall into the category of people who have expectations (or hopes, in my case) and then are disappointed when they aren't met.
On the flip side, sometimes it works the opposite way. For instance, Audra's rendition of Climb Every Mountain.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#7
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:25pm
It was a televised version of the stage play, the movie had nothing to do with it.
Jane, but did you enjoy it and stay for the whole three hours? Did you expect it to be similar to the movie?
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#8
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:38pmYes, I watched the entire show, and the similarity to the film that I expected was only the story. I don't see how there could be other similarities.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#9
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:39pmPeople should just put Sutton Ross on ignore.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#10
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:41pmHmm, what was her question and my answer all about , anyway? oy
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#11
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:42pm
Yes, please do Phyllis!
"every time people sang together it sounded like ass."
You seem cool.
Jane, it was genuine question and I genuinely wanted your opinion on. Nothing more.
Updated On: 12/6/13 at 04:42 PM
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/15/04
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#12
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:47pm
"It was a televised version of the stage play, the movie had nothing to do with it. "
Except it did.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#13
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:09pmThe movie is iconic. For many it is the only point of reference they have to The Sound Of Music. Of course there's going to be comparisons.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#14
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:10pmWell...I now know that I like the stage play (as a property) better than the movie.
Broadway Star Joined: 11/15/07
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#15
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:22pm
The very nature of the Internet is that is most often surfaces polarizing views, which is why the majority of Amazon reviews are either five stars or one star. Everyone in the middle isn't compelled to share their opinion.
Having only watched the movie, I found it compelling to see the differences between the two. Of course, when I feel the urge to see the Sound of Music, I'm still far more likely to go classic.
It did huge numbers, though. 18 million viewers.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#16
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:25pm
PRS, I'd love to know who you would have preferred in the role of Maria. I completely agree about Carrie's acting but strongly disagree about her vocal abilities.
Anyway, I would love to hear who you would see instead? And, for the love of God, don't say "Anne Hathaway."
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#17
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:03pmI don't know, because it would have to be someone of Underwood's stature for there to have been a project in the first place. I didn't spend the show thinking I wish __________ had played the role (although recalling that Benanti replaced Luker in the revival made me wish I was watching her Maria), I just wish it had been someone else, at the very least someone with some breath control.
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/15/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#18
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:10pmThere are only 3 people I think who could fit that phyllis. .. Taylor Swift. ANNA Kendrick or Amanda Siegfried
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#19
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:11pmIt really comes down to this: was your dislike for Carrie more than your own personal desire/satisfaction of seeing a major network take on an ambitious venture like this one? For an art form that really could use the exposure? Because without Carrie's involvement, the broadcast never happens. Meron & Zadan practically spelled that out in a recent interview.
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#20
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:21pmI.. don't know, because that's a confusing question. I guess yes, because while I'll probably watch the Elsa and Max songs a couple more times, I can't imagine ever watching this entire thing again.
Joined: 12/31/69
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#21
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:22pm
I think theater fans "Direct the show in their heads" and are almost always disappointed by the "real world" production.
While I agree Underwood's performance was lacking, the rest of the cast, the sets, the direction all more than paid back my meager investment in it.
It will be interesting to see how it is viewed in 30 years or so.
The film of Grease wasn't nominated for any Oscars.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#22
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:26pmThank you, Phyllis. It is bull****. I wasn't expecting miracles or even anything very good. I didn't expect it to SUCK!
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#23
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:27pm
Sue, what role are you referring to?
I don't think Anne Hathaway could have gotten the ratings that Carrie got. A lot of people are turned off by her.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/28/13
The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark#24
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:33pm
"Thank you, Phyllis. It is bull****. I wasn't expecting miracles or even anything very good. I didn't expect it to SUCK!"
That's your opinion. Theatre is subjective. As they say, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'
For the thousands who thought it "SUCKED" or hated Carrie, I am sure there are thousands more who fell in love with musical theatre or Rodgers & Hammerstein. Maybe hundreds of thousands were exposed to the art form that never would have previously been exposed because of Carrie's involvement. Who knows?
I work in television (both creative and production). It's frustrating to be part of an industry that shies away from genuine, live classic theatre but glorifies such drivel as GLEE. I commend a major network for taking a leap of faith. It paid off, solely based on the ratings.
Updated On: 12/6/13 at 06:33 PM
Videos
