Titanic the Musical

[Ready 2 Defy Gravity]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 11:03am

Did anyone see this? Can you tell me how the y did the sinking on stage?

[Jon]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 11:08am

The stage floor was on hydraulic lifts, and all through the second act, it slanted more and more. ou never actually saw a long shot of the ship "sinking".

[Ready 2 Defy Gravity]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 11:11am

o0o are there any legal clips out there that I could see of it?

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 12:15pm

Frankly, I dont know how they could have staged the collision, but what they did do was remarkably silly: a toy ship rolling offstage, followed by a sound effect. Then... intermission. It was just laughable, but, like I said, I'm not sure what else they could have done.

The hydraulics work in Act Two salvaged things a bit, but it all still looked a little weird. The sets were all this 60s style line work: pinstriping against solid colour, and I'm not sure what the intended vision was supposed to be.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 12:17pm

It was a ridiculously expensive undertaking for them to rip up the stage and install hydraulics, which failed often enough to cause a lot of headaches for the crew and producers. It was interesting, but I didn't find it to be a tremendously amazing effect.

I've seen smaller productions that used much lower-tech methods (such as extended ramps) to suggest the sinking nearly as effectively, and for $3 million less.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 1:53pm

I have a certain dvd of this show( all legal of course) and have to say that i thought it looked quite good.

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 1:53pm

They should have ripped up the floor, put in some enormous sub-woofers like some movie houses have, and then shaken the crap out of the audience for the collision. That would have been fun.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 2:55pm

from where I was sitting the "toy" ship looked really cool and the effect, at least for me, was heart-stopping. one of the coolest effects I think I've ever seen in the theatre. the sinking did not live up to that. which was kinda odd cuz' Folies Bergere in Vegas sinks the Titanic on stage every night with a pretty effective model of the ship shown sinking into the stage.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 2:58pm

There was a production of this show in California that had an impressive set.

[BwayBaby18]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 2:59pm

I have to agree Cats..... i thought the ship was effective. i mean in retrospect it was midly amusing but at the time it thought it was intresting.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:03pm

I have to agree with those who say it looked silly.

All those millions of dollars, and the effects were either blah or laughable.

And boring.

What they really should have done was rip up the floor... and put in a better musical.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:03pm

I thought the collision was extremely effective. There's no way you could possibly convey a huge ship hitting a huge iceberg to keep costs under their budget, so they did the next best thing. They did it from the side of a bird's eye view.

The stage tilting is the best effect I've seen on a stage, a list that includes Bert dancing upside down in Mary Poppins and the giant swastika in The Producers.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:05pm

I disagree. You can do all kinds of things with lighting, sound effects and imagination.

Instead we got a toy boat pulled on a string, and and tilting stage... for a gazillion dollars, apparently.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:08pm

Not to mention the score is dreadfully boring. They should have let Andrew Lloyd Webber do it...

I guess one got PHANTOM, one got TITANIC, the other tried PHANTOM, and we all got screwed.

[EugLoven]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:15pm

I have to disagree with you BSoBW2. I think the score is one of the most beautiful of today's musicals, next to "The Light in the Piazza." I simply adore "Titanic" and treasure the musical. The staging may have had its technical difficulties, but it was nonetheless a beautiful show with some great talent, interesting set and costume design, and such gorgeous songs and storytelling. It's not so much what *didn't work* but what it was presenting. How epic a tale.

Unrelated but still related:

The Queen Mary 2 entered the San Francisco Bay Sunday afternoon to dock at Pier 27. It's the largest passenger ship to ever pass under the Golden Gate Bridge. It departed last night, February 5, and I was there to watch it off (with a big crowd). I filmed it and then edited in the overture of "Titanic" as supplementary music. You can watch it here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kKrnP4t8qKk

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:21pm

Count me in as one who loves this musical. Although the set looked somewhat cheap, I enjoyed the show on a whole.

[D2]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 3:27pm

Me too. The physical production, despite costing millions, was not pretty, and while any view of a ship all lit up and sailing across a smooth sea is a thrilling visual, whatever they used to simulate the ocean looked like a quilt made up of hefty bags taped together.

But the show itself is excellent, much better than the production it got.

[dramaqueen2]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 5:16pm

to be perfectly frank, i really dislike this musical. not a fan of the music, staging, anything.

broadway has clearly seen better. ick. i really don't think this was meant to be a musical..

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 5:54pm

I know! What on earth are those bars on the blue backdrop? A metaphorical path to death?:

I must say though, I thought it had a sweeping score (although I think it dragged much in many places). I saw the US Tour, and thought the set was impressive, but not lush. The ugly backdrops somewhat ruined it for me.

Updated On: 2/6/07 at 05:54 PM

[Kgshrauder]

Posted: 2/6/07 at 5:56pm

Eug...I liked your video, although it was night.