#2
Posted: 7/24/07 at 9:39am
A few weeks ago, andit was godawfully boring.
I saw it, I got a really cheap ticket from someone, $3. and I Still almost walked out, but I had somewhere to be, and sinceit was raining, I decided to stay.
I liked the second act, almost, but it was terrible.
I saw it, I got a really cheap ticket from someone, $3. and I Still almost walked out, but I had somewhere to be, and sinceit was raining, I decided to stay.
I liked the second act, almost, but it was terrible.
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual."
-Keen on Kean
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
#3
Posted: 7/24/07 at 9:46am
It closed on Father's Day.
Why?
Universally poor reviews
Audience hated it (despite what the people they picked out on the Castcom said)
They weren't making money.
Inexperienced producers, a creative team with egos bigger than Kelsey Grammer's head...changes were suggested, denied. Maltby couldn't save this ship the same way he saved the other Boublil and Schoenberg shows. Terrible, repetitive, unoriginal score that sounded too 80s, overly gaudy design elements, and just a boring story.
The parts were cartoonish, the actors relied too heavily on British and Irish caricatures to play the roles (though I'm sure that was a directorial choice).
Yet they all stood by the material and were "very proud." Good for them.
Why?
Universally poor reviews
Audience hated it (despite what the people they picked out on the Castcom said)
They weren't making money.
Inexperienced producers, a creative team with egos bigger than Kelsey Grammer's head...changes were suggested, denied. Maltby couldn't save this ship the same way he saved the other Boublil and Schoenberg shows. Terrible, repetitive, unoriginal score that sounded too 80s, overly gaudy design elements, and just a boring story.
The parts were cartoonish, the actors relied too heavily on British and Irish caricatures to play the roles (though I'm sure that was a directorial choice).
Yet they all stood by the material and were "very proud." Good for them.
Updated On: 7/24/07 at 09:46 AM
#4
Posted: 7/24/07 at 11:12am
Ok, give the show some credit people.
Yes, it closed (too - IMO) soon.
Yes, it was boring at times.
Yes, there was some serious re-writing to be done.
Yes, they should have workshopped it a LOT more before bring it to Broadway.
Yes, some egos got in the way of the production and creation of a truly cohesive and exhilarating piece.
Yes, it didn't receive critical acclaim.
Yes, some audience members did not enjoy the show and walked out.
BUT
The show was beautiful.
The score was pretty - could use an overhaul to get rid of some of the "80's" rock sounds and overbearing harpsichord - but it includes some beautiful pieces e.g. "Here On This Night", "Woman", "A Day Beyond Belclare", "I'll Be There", and "If I Said I Loved You".
The performances were incredible (despite SOME subpar material).
The costumes and lighting were fantastic.
The dancing was very enjoyable.
Lots of audiences members (including myself) enjoyed the show.
I know I will get the usual tirades in reply to this post, but I truly believe that with some key additional changes (plot trimming, character development, sincere lyrical re-writing, etc.), and a scaled down cast (originally a 42 person cast), the show could have been and would have been better suited for Broadway.
I also think the subject matter itself was to blame. A historical piece about a well-regarded but mainly unknown Irish woman turned pirate and chieftain who rose above class and the gender boundaries of her time to challenge the British occupation of Ireland is a noble story but not one that would generally appeal to mainstream Americans. Perhaps a smaller venue would have suited better (of course with significantly more changes).
In the end, the show was good, not fantastic, not excellent, not the best thing to hit Broadway in the past 15 years, etc. It was good. I was and remain a staunch supporter because of my love for B&S' work and because of the potential I see in it.
That's all for now.
Let the attacks on my character, judgment, musical tastes, etc. begin.......
Yes, it closed (too - IMO) soon.
Yes, it was boring at times.
Yes, there was some serious re-writing to be done.
Yes, they should have workshopped it a LOT more before bring it to Broadway.
Yes, some egos got in the way of the production and creation of a truly cohesive and exhilarating piece.
Yes, it didn't receive critical acclaim.
Yes, some audience members did not enjoy the show and walked out.
BUT
The show was beautiful.
The score was pretty - could use an overhaul to get rid of some of the "80's" rock sounds and overbearing harpsichord - but it includes some beautiful pieces e.g. "Here On This Night", "Woman", "A Day Beyond Belclare", "I'll Be There", and "If I Said I Loved You".
The performances were incredible (despite SOME subpar material).
The costumes and lighting were fantastic.
The dancing was very enjoyable.
Lots of audiences members (including myself) enjoyed the show.
I know I will get the usual tirades in reply to this post, but I truly believe that with some key additional changes (plot trimming, character development, sincere lyrical re-writing, etc.), and a scaled down cast (originally a 42 person cast), the show could have been and would have been better suited for Broadway.
I also think the subject matter itself was to blame. A historical piece about a well-regarded but mainly unknown Irish woman turned pirate and chieftain who rose above class and the gender boundaries of her time to challenge the British occupation of Ireland is a noble story but not one that would generally appeal to mainstream Americans. Perhaps a smaller venue would have suited better (of course with significantly more changes).
In the end, the show was good, not fantastic, not excellent, not the best thing to hit Broadway in the past 15 years, etc. It was good. I was and remain a staunch supporter because of my love for B&S' work and because of the potential I see in it.
That's all for now.
Let the attacks on my character, judgment, musical tastes, etc. begin.......
Updated On: 7/24/07 at 11:12 AM
#5
Posted: 7/24/07 at 11:22am
Yeah, I know how you feel. That usually happens when you like a show that a lot of people love to hate. If you defend it, they simply won't have it. You're wrong wrong wrong for liking something even if a lot of people hate it. Jeez.
I do think Pirate Queen was good. It could have used a little more time before coming to Broadway and it kills me because they made really big improvements on it since Chicago but they just didn't go that extra mile.
However, Pirate Queen just opened at the wrong time. Broadway is moving in a different direction and they aren't craving big shows with big casts and epic scores anymore. I think if they had cleaned up a few more things and opened, say, five years earlier, it would have survived.
And I hate to say it, but the cd does not do the show justice. The performances on the cd are beautiful, but I think they should have had more strings in their orchestra, not just a solo fiddle player.
I do think Pirate Queen was good. It could have used a little more time before coming to Broadway and it kills me because they made really big improvements on it since Chicago but they just didn't go that extra mile.
However, Pirate Queen just opened at the wrong time. Broadway is moving in a different direction and they aren't craving big shows with big casts and epic scores anymore. I think if they had cleaned up a few more things and opened, say, five years earlier, it would have survived.
And I hate to say it, but the cd does not do the show justice. The performances on the cd are beautiful, but I think they should have had more strings in their orchestra, not just a solo fiddle player.
"But I can tell you that Raoul, who was so handsome in "The Phantom," is now a drunken wreck."
#6
Posted: 7/24/07 at 11:29am
Pirate Queen was like Legs Diamond
It sounded like a good idea at the time until you really step back and think about it.
It sounded like a good idea at the time until you really step back and think about it.
Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna
#8
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:03pm
Ms. Block was in the 9 to 5 reading.
Broadway Blog: 50 Amazing Broadway Performers in 50 Weekdays
Broadway Blog: 50 Amazing Broadway Performers in 50 Weekdays
#9
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:07pm
She's so wonderful, Im so glad she did that. I hope she makes it to Broadway with it. I'd love to see her to some comedy.
As for 9 to 5, I know this should be in another thread, but I hope they really spend money on the fantasy sequences.
As for 9 to 5, I know this should be in another thread, but I hope they really spend money on the fantasy sequences.
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual."
-Keen on Kean
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
#10
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:20pm
"I also think the subject matter itself was to blame."
I have to respectfully disagree with ya there, NDR. I read the novel and sadly, the book for the musical didn't do the subject matter any justice at all.
With all of the strong "girl power" type shows doing well these days, The Pirate Queen should have been right up there, but the writers homogenized the plot points, and in the end, Grania was turned into a garden variety heroine type who did a little sword fighting.
Sad. Too much love story, not enough ass-kicking, in my opinion. We never got to see Grania do what she was known for - PIRATING! We heard about it, sure, but I would have rather seen half of those laborious love songs nixed for a scene where we see Grace as a fearless sea captain - not a typical woman pining for her man.
whew!
Sorry... I get worked up.
I have to respectfully disagree with ya there, NDR. I read the novel and sadly, the book for the musical didn't do the subject matter any justice at all.
With all of the strong "girl power" type shows doing well these days, The Pirate Queen should have been right up there, but the writers homogenized the plot points, and in the end, Grania was turned into a garden variety heroine type who did a little sword fighting.
Sad. Too much love story, not enough ass-kicking, in my opinion. We never got to see Grania do what she was known for - PIRATING! We heard about it, sure, but I would have rather seen half of those laborious love songs nixed for a scene where we see Grace as a fearless sea captain - not a typical woman pining for her man.
whew!
Sorry... I get worked up.
The Overture is part of the show, people. Please shut your pie hole.
Updated On: 7/24/07 at 12:20 PM
#11
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:24pm
"However, Pirate Queen just opened at the wrong time. Broadway is moving in a different direction and they aren't craving big shows with big casts and epic scores anymore."
There's no way to prove or disprove this sort of point, but I disagree. If audiences aren't craving big casts and epic scores, why are Les Mis and Phantom doing so well? I think this production of Pirate Queen would have been just as big a flop if you had opened it at the Imperial theater in 1987 instead of Les Mis, or at any other time in the past or future.
It was heartbreaking to watch all this money being flushed down the toilet, especially since this really is an amazing story that could have made a great musical, and so many of the same mistakes were made with Martin Guerre. At least Guerre didn't make the mistake of opening on Broadway.
There's no way to prove or disprove this sort of point, but I disagree. If audiences aren't craving big casts and epic scores, why are Les Mis and Phantom doing so well? I think this production of Pirate Queen would have been just as big a flop if you had opened it at the Imperial theater in 1987 instead of Les Mis, or at any other time in the past or future.
It was heartbreaking to watch all this money being flushed down the toilet, especially since this really is an amazing story that could have made a great musical, and so many of the same mistakes were made with Martin Guerre. At least Guerre didn't make the mistake of opening on Broadway.
"I have got to have some professional music!" - Big Edie
#12
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:28pm
Actually Tech, Les Mis opened at the Broadway. It moved to the Imperial in 1990 for Miss Saigon to have the Broadway. Minor detail! :)
(But I knew what you meant.)
I agree with those who are in the "it had such potential" camp. I really liked the show...but I wanted to be able to LOVE it.
(But I knew what you meant.)
I agree with those who are in the "it had such potential" camp. I really liked the show...but I wanted to be able to LOVE it.
Experience live theater. Experience paintings. Experience books. Live, look and listen like artists! ~ imaginethis
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!
#13
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:42pm
Thanks Jordangirl, I stand corrected and will try to remember that the next 20 times I make this point. (Whenever Pirate Queen's failure is discussed inevitably someone brings up that it opened at the wrong time.)
"I have got to have some professional music!" - Big Edie
#14
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:46pm
Worse shows that got worse reviews have run longer than THE PIRATE QUEEN did. I think part of the problem was that atrocious theatre it was stuck in, easily the worst Broadway house of them all. I'll never willingly set foot in that airplane hangar again.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#15
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:48pm
I also liked it but did not love it. It seemed too long for me and many scenes should have been cut out or shortened. IStephanie Block was wonderful as well as the other actors. The Queen's costumes were beautiful and the dancing supurb. I went with three other people. Two liked it, two did not. It was near Les Miz's caliber.
"Life is not measured by the number
of breaths we take, but by moments
that take our breath away."
"Life isn't about how to survive the storm,
but how to dance in the rain."
#16
Posted: 7/24/07 at 12:49pm
IMO, the show felt like an opera... Lots of people who are into musicals dislike opera and that really hurt the show (though I saw it pre-Broadway and enjoyed it), that and the Irish dancing...
What a night! I was in more laps than a napkin!
#17
Posted: 7/24/07 at 1:26pm
It's all good Tech. I made the same mistake when I saw Coram Boy in the Imperial. Because of the Les Mis thingy in the sidewalk, I figured that's where it had been its whole original run and was confused because I thought I remembered the theatre being bigger when I saw it in 1988. Then I saw The Color Purple and read about the Broadway and investigated! That emblem thingy on the sidewalk at the Imperial makes it confusing.
Experience live theater. Experience paintings. Experience books. Live, look and listen like artists! ~ imaginethis
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!
#18
Posted: 7/24/07 at 1:35pm
I agree with those who are in the "it had such potential" camp. I really liked the show...but I wanted to be able to LOVE it.
That is literally exactly how I felt about the show. I did, however, LOVE the performers. Stephanie, Hadley, Marcus, and everyone really did the best with what they were given.
That is literally exactly how I felt about the show. I did, however, LOVE the performers. Stephanie, Hadley, Marcus, and everyone really did the best with what they were given.
"This table, he is over one hundred years old. If I could, I would take an old gramophone needle and run it along the surface of the wood. To hear the music of the voices. All that was said." - Doug Wright, I Am My Own Wife
#19
Posted: 7/24/07 at 1:43pm
I agree with those who way it had a lot of potential. I did enjoy the show, and the performers were outstanding, but it just couldn't be saved.
http://www.beintheheights.com/katnicole1 (Please click and help me win!)
I chose, and my world was shaken- So what?
The choice may have been mistaken, The choosing was not... "Every day has the potential to be the greatest day of your life." - Lin-Manuel Miranda
"And when Idina Menzel is singing, I'm always slightly worried that her teeth are going to jump out of her mouth and chase me." - Schmerg_the_Impaler
The choice may have been mistaken, The choosing was not... "Every day has the potential to be the greatest day of your life." - Lin-Manuel Miranda
#20
Posted: 7/24/07 at 2:54pm
Eos - I think you have a great point. Perhaps, I should have said the treatment of the subject matter and not necessarily the subject matter. I do agree that more pirating was in order, but I also do hold that the story sounds "interesting" to some but that some people are just not interested in "serious" pieces of musical theatre. Does that make more sense?
TechEverlasting - I see what you mean about the time period conundrum. You are right. There is no way to prove or disprove the success or failure of the piece in the past (or the future). I do think (IMO) that the Broadway environment is currently hostile for larger shows. The costs involved in creating, maintaining and marketing a show are so high and the risk is so great. Despite the jolt in prices post 9/11 and the continuing rise in average ticket prices, the overall costs of larger cast shows are prohibitive and daunting. Les Mis and Phantom are already "classics" in the eyes of many mainstream theatregoers. There is a built in audience for them because they are still there, are decent shows, and are an easier pick than spending money on something "new".
Roscoe - I agree that the Hilton was too big. I am not sure what the thinking was behind it - maybe big cast, big theatre? I didn't hate the Hilton, but I don't think it was the right venue for such an intimate story (unless of course there was more pirating - and even then, perhaps a smaller space (1000 or 1200 seats) would have been better suited to the show.
BroadwayLady - I agree. There were some scenes that needed to be cut and/or shortened - especially the strange dance fight scenes. I get where they were going, I just don't think it worked.
ashbash - I think the opera reference is fair especially since the Queen had such classical operatic pieces.
Ashley0139 - that sums it up for me too.
dancingthrulife04 - the performers were incredible and what an assemblage of them!
TechEverlasting - I see what you mean about the time period conundrum. You are right. There is no way to prove or disprove the success or failure of the piece in the past (or the future). I do think (IMO) that the Broadway environment is currently hostile for larger shows. The costs involved in creating, maintaining and marketing a show are so high and the risk is so great. Despite the jolt in prices post 9/11 and the continuing rise in average ticket prices, the overall costs of larger cast shows are prohibitive and daunting. Les Mis and Phantom are already "classics" in the eyes of many mainstream theatregoers. There is a built in audience for them because they are still there, are decent shows, and are an easier pick than spending money on something "new".
Roscoe - I agree that the Hilton was too big. I am not sure what the thinking was behind it - maybe big cast, big theatre? I didn't hate the Hilton, but I don't think it was the right venue for such an intimate story (unless of course there was more pirating - and even then, perhaps a smaller space (1000 or 1200 seats) would have been better suited to the show.
BroadwayLady - I agree. There were some scenes that needed to be cut and/or shortened - especially the strange dance fight scenes. I get where they were going, I just don't think it worked.
ashbash - I think the opera reference is fair especially since the Queen had such classical operatic pieces.
Ashley0139 - that sums it up for me too.
dancingthrulife04 - the performers were incredible and what an assemblage of them!
#21
Posted: 7/24/07 at 2:56pm
The Queen did NOT have classical pieces, she had a classical sounding voice, the actress, that is, but the music was about as far from classical as you can get.
Dont confuse a classical sounding voice with classical music.
Dont confuse a classical sounding voice with classical music.
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual."
-Keen on Kean
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
"Fenchurch is correct, as usual." - muscle23ftl
#22
Posted: 7/24/07 at 3:05pm
The shape the show was in on Broadway was atrocious. What I saw frozen at the Hilton should NOT have been the final product, it should have been what was playing in Chicago (which, apparently, was a shipwreck).
#23
Posted: 7/24/07 at 3:34pm
^ "...shipwreck"... heh
NDR - I completely see what you're saying.
Here's hoping the cast and crew find better projects. I'm crossing my fingers SJB will be able to remain involved with 9 to 5.
NDR - I completely see what you're saying.
Here's hoping the cast and crew find better projects. I'm crossing my fingers SJB will be able to remain involved with 9 to 5.
The Overture is part of the show, people. Please shut your pie hole.
#24
Posted: 7/24/07 at 3:36pm
Fenchurch - I stand corrected. Thank you for helping me define the difference.
#25
Posted: 7/24/07 at 3:38pm
YankeeFan
Yeah, you are right. What was frozen in NYC should have been Chicago. I only hope they continue working on it and maybe give it a new life in London. I guess we'll see.
Yeah, you are right. What was frozen in NYC should have been Chicago. I only hope they continue working on it and maybe give it a new life in London. I guess we'll see.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95