USA Today Reveals First Picture of d'Arcy James in SHREK- Page 4

[Boq101]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 7:16pm

my only problem with it is that the more literal it is, the more disjointed it will look from the rest of the costumes. Nothing else is going to be as literal, it's impossible.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 7:23pm

"Nothing else is going to be as literal, it's impossible."

Were people wondering this about Lion King?

I don't think it is impossible with the right creative minds. Give it a chance...you're looking at one picture!

[BillyE]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 7:26pm

Although I don't normally go to Disney or kid shows, unless I get invited along with family, I'm looking forward to Schrek, to see Sutton Foster singing Jeanine Tesori again, Tartaglia and D'arci James to boot!
I'm making an exception for this one. Should be a fun night out!

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 7:29pm

You mean Shrek and d'Arcy James?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 7:39pm

Wow -- you go offline for a few hours and find that your comment made has been taken into several different directions and interpretations. Where to begin?

My saying what Broadway used to have and have today was intended to be short-sighted. Artforms evolve all the time and I was merely stating the facts. The shows I listed were just general examples of original works. For example, yes, the show GYPSY is based on the historical figure Gypsy Rose Lee. But that specific figure isn't really a DRAW to bring in crowds. The American Revolution, The French Revolution, Thurgood Marshall, President Bush, Nixon, Kennedy -- these are names that will DRAW in crowds to a show about them. Gypsy Rose Lee? Not so much.

Anyway -- my point is that back then, people would see anything on Broadway. Original, based-on, etc. Today, it has to have a hook. (Note: of course this isn't a sure thing. Just look at the success of August: Osage County or the brilliant Caroline or Change, as previously mentioned by another poster).

That is what (I, at least) mean by "theme park." Of course you don't judge the individual shows on how good or bad they are until you see them. Theme parks use a "theme" to draw in guests, even though they all will have the same types of rides. People flock to Disney World because they love the characters -- even though they can go to a different theme park with similar rides for much less money). That's a semi-stretchy example but you get the point.

And yes, it is exactly the American culture. We've been changed by cinema and television and technology. Broadway (and theatre in general) has raised ticket prices to catch up. People expect to see on stage what they see in the movies. I'm not saying this is a shame or it's a good thing -- I'm just recognizing how we changed.

It was so refreshing to see URINETOWN -- a show written the stage that had no "gimmick" if you will. It was an original story written for the theatre as a musical. It wasn't based on any pre-existing material -- a true rarity. Same with CAROLINE OR CHANGE and AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY.

As for SHREK -- I love Tesori so I imagine I will favor the score, hopefully. We'll see what kind of a show it turns out to be. Right now, it is discouraging to see the design for Shrek (at least to me) that it is a duplicate of how the character looks on film.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 7:58pm

I don't believe it. There's no way one person will be able to get into that every single night. Ridiculous.

What disconcerts me is that you can't see the actor, ya know? You could basically put anyone in there, and no one could tell the difference.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 8:08pm

Actually -- it doesn't seem like the makeup extent of the costume will be anything more than what the actress playing Elphaba in WICKED goes through. Just add a chin piece and a nose piece.

The head piece appears to go on like a wig, but continuing around his face. His hands are gloves. So the only makeup needed is his face -- everything else is covered. If they don't use a double for when he is transformed into a human, then they merely wipe off the facepaint and voila!

Updated On: 8/12/08 at 08:08 PM

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 8:10pm

Shrek doesn't turn into a human.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 8:14pm

Really? I thought he did...? I only saw the movies one time each when they opened and that's it...perhaps he did in a later movie?

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 8:15pm

He did in the second.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 8:17pm

He didn't turn into human in the first one.

If the guys who played the Beast in Beauty and the Beast can get into that costume every night, and Disney worked their magic during the transformation, I don't see why Shrek can't pull off the transformation.

[toanythingtaboo 2]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 8:24pm

I think you'd be surprised how quickly prosthetics can be done with well practiced make up teams. From the looks of it, it's done in sections and then the inbetweens are filled in with green. Yes it may take hours and hours on movie sets, but they don't need to be as perfect on stage.

To be honest, I'm more concerned with how incredibly uncomfortable that will be to have on for a few hours every day.

...and yeah, I reckon Ogre Fiona will be a double, makes the most sense. She's not really an ogre for much in the first film.

[alliez92092]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 9:01pm

I bet the first appearance of Ogre Fiona will be a double, but I think for her transformation it will be Sutton Foster. If it is like that, I'm sure the costume for Ogre Fiona at the end won't be as detailed as Shrek's. Even if it was, if they are following the plot of the book and movie there is time in between Fiona leaving Shrek and then the wedding.

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 10:23pm

I'm worried about Cheyenne Jackson squeezing his thighs into this every night.

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:01pm

Well I, for one, didn't complain about Mermaid being very different looking than the movie. I think copying a movie is pointless, and I actually really appreciate how bold the design of Mermaid is....... and as far as this Shrek pic goes, i'm not impressed by prosthetics at all.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:04pm

If anyone read the article concerning Fiona and the transformation it said that the dress will be able to change shapes and sizes and its girth.

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:04pm

I thought someone said that Fiona doesn't transform in the musical.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:06pm

I'm not saying it has to be overly creative. It's just... I dunno, I would have liked to have seen a different take on what an ogre looks like. They could have gone literal without doing a carbon copy of the film character.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:10pm

According to the article it says indirectly with out saying her name sutton will transform (the dress will that is)

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:14pm

sporkgoddess - i totally agree. I wouldnt' have minded him looking like a realistic ogre, but why must he look like all they did was try as hard as they could to replicate the movie?

[Gobstopper]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:17pm

I think the IDEA of Shrek: the Musical is... questionable, at best.

Still, thatcostume is really cool and impressive to me.

And OF COURSE they're going to replicate the movie! It's not like this is Julie Taymor's Shrek or anything... Although that would actually make me want to see it.

I can't wait to see the Spider-Man costumes!

*is completely sincere and feels no shame*

[Kad]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:35pm

...the question is how could they have NOT replicated the movie?

Shrek's appearance is fairly iconic. And seeing as how the show isn't utilizing a conceit like The Lion King, I really can't see how else they could've done this. Shrek has to look like Shrek. And there was no need to fix a design that wasn't broken and easily translates to the stage.

This is like faulting Beauty and the Beast for replicating Belle's yellow gown.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:44pm

I guess I just thought since they're basing it off of a book, too.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/12/08 at 11:44pm

LOL I still can't get over how people are so worked up over the design of Shrek's costume and how close it looks to the Shrek from the movie. All this talk about being "literal" or "non-literal" is crazy. I can only imagine if they tried to approach anything from out of the ordinary, people would've complained about that too (like the Little Mermaid costumes and the apes in Tarzan). People just like to complain about the weirdest things for the sake of complaining, and need to start paying attention to the things that matter, such as the amazing cast and the fact that Tesori is composing the music. Whatever the costumes look like, I think this will be a fresh reimagination of the movie given the people involved in this project.

Updated On: 8/12/08 at 11:44 PM

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 2:10am

you all are ****ing retards.

SHREK is an international success with iconic visuals and characters (including the Ogre, the Gingerbread Man, and even Puss-N-Boots)...

it's coming from the same company and it's not julie taymor.

what do you expect???

why WOULDN'T they replicate the movie???

jesus christ. it's a ****ing costume. get over it!