USA Today Reveals First Picture of d'Arcy James in SHREK- Page 5

[Taryn]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 8:55am

Two things that I don't get:

1) People complaining about the people complaining about the literal approach. These people are citing Little Mermaid as an example of a non-literal approach that everyone hated. Yeah, the costumes in Little Mermaid are not well-liked: because they're BAD. Not because they're more conceptual. It's an example of BAD conceptual, non-literal costumes. Whereas I'm sure people who are disappointed with the literal approach were hoping for GOOD non-literal costumes.

2) Why should people complaining about the costumes have to come up with their own costume ideas, as one poster argued? Why is it people love using the, "Let's see you do better!" argument when people are criticizing something? Most of the people disappointed have stated that they were hoping for a less literal approach: why should they have to come up with a costume design themselves to support their opinion? Why should you only be allowed to criticize something you don't like if you're an expert in the field?

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 9:04am

That's a little scary.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 9:27am

"Two things that I don't get:

1) People complaining about the people complaining about the literal approach. These people are citing Little Mermaid as an example of a non-literal approach that everyone hated. Yeah, the costumes in Little Mermaid are not well-liked: because they're BAD. Not because they're more conceptual. It's an example of BAD conceptual, non-literal costumes. Whereas I'm sure people who are disappointed with the literal approach were hoping for GOOD non-literal costumes."

No, I actually think this is funny. People are getting worked up because the ONLY costume they see happens to be exactly like it was in the movie. I am not saying the costumes are going to be good or bad, I am saying wait until there are more pictures released until you start criticizing what approach they take. This literal vs. non-literal stuff, in my opinion, is just stupid at this point.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 9:31am

Well said, Taryn.

Instead of seeing the Shrek I would see on film, I would prefer to see a more artistic interpretation of how the character looks for the stage. Not something as dramatic as Taymor's THE LION KING (btw -- why do people always use her as an example? Because that's the only successful artistic take-off you can think of? There are other designers besides Taymor who can create, you know...).

Let's see how the rest of the characters will look. Will Donkey have to walk on all fours like Adam Whylie had to do as the cow in INTO THE WOODS? Is the Dragon going to be an animatronic robot?

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 10:26am

If you follow this link, it is another picture of d'Arcy James, different pose.

https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=31073

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 10:35am

KAD - even Belle's yellow gown was given tons of detail and made more sophisticated-looking for the Broadway show. (below)
Updated On: 8/13/08 at 10:35 AM

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 10:37am

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 10:40am

^^^It makes you kinda glad that B&TB on Bway didn't look like this^^^ (from the MGM show in Disney world)

The Bway dress is an example of how a costume/design can be literal (and faithful to a movie), yet elevate the design to a higher level.
Updated On: 8/13/08 at 10:40 AM

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 10:43am

Okay, we get your guys' points.

The Shrek costumes are absolutely horrible. Based on these two pictures, I think Dreamworks made a huge mistake and the fate of the show is doomed. They should've made them better. This one costume is too much like the movie Shrek. This show is headed for a creative disaster.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 10:46am

millie -- I haven't read this entire thread, but I don't think anyone is saying that. Don't read into more than for what it is. It's not that important to get worked up about.

[TooDarnHot]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 12:03pm

it;'s a ****ing costume, people.

MOVE ON!

[heil myself!]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 1:08pm

If I was an 8-year-old kid and was told I was seeing SHREK, then I would want to see SHREK. Not Brian d'arcy James in a green t-shirt and wooden mask representing Shrek, but SHREK. Anything less than the costume they have would be disappointing, even at my current age :). He looks perfect. They did it exactly right.

[luvred]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 1:08pm

You know what's funny.. Your right BrianIdol. Those pictures are great examples of what the Shrek costuming should have looked like. I think before it hits Broadway they should be-dazzle the hell out of that burlap sack that Shrek wears. I mean, since the costuming for a green ogre who lives in a swamp should definitely be compared to a fairytale princess and all.

[misto625]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 1:47pm

Well first of all, I think the costume looks really great and better than I was thinking it would turn out!! I don't understand what people were expecting to see- in most of the interviews about the production, the creative team seemed to be talking about the production in terms of mounting it on a fairly literal scale. I think that a stylistic approach for Shrek would come off as looking somewhat cheap and tacky, considering how vivid and detailed the movie's visuals were. Additionally, the three movies combined to gross $1 billion domestically, and $2.2 billion worldwide, so why would Dreamworks want to depart from a visualization of the character that obviously brought in a lot of money for them?

Capn Hook-Chad Kimball played Milky-White and not Adam Wylie. I imagine Chester Gregory II will be on all fours at least some of the time and upright at other times. I mean he is playing a donkey, and so him being upright all the time in a somewhat literal approach would be weird. Now I am thinking of the hyenas for Lion King. One of the articles from Seattle stated that the dragon will not be animontronic but rather a large puppet controlled from inside by three actors.

Many people probably use Lion King and Julie Taymor as an example of a stylistic approach that worked because it was relatively recent and took a movie that was wildly successful, still is the 18th highest grossing of all-time, and re-invented the material for the stage in a way that enhanced it. I can't think another show that has done that successfully. Wicked and Beauty and the Beast have used a more literal approach while Tarzan and Little Mermaid went more stylistically and received a lot of negative opinions. I know there are other inventive designers who have worked on Broadway, I think Catherine Zuber and Susan Hilferty have done great work, but Julie Taymor still leaps to my mind first.

All of the original vs. adapted from other source material debates annoy me. I think people sometimes forget that original, innovative theater productions often have an even greater propensity of becoming a steaming pile of dog**** than "commercial" theatrical productions do. Some of them employ some weird gimmick to entice audiences, like audience interaction, or a funny title but an unfunny or even production, and most original shows seem to involve some sense of irony or self-mocking of musical theatre, such as Drowsy Chaperone and Urinetown, both of which I am underenthused with. The only new shows on Broadway willing to be musicals without being self-deprecating seem to be the shows based on movies like Legally Blonde, Hairspray, and Disney shows which were already musicals.

Shows based on well-known properties (books, movies, not referring to jukebox musicals) tend to run longer than original shows on average. Glory Days is a prime example, although High Fidelity had a short run as well, and both of them seemed to be courting the same demographic. People have been forecasting the demise of Xanadu, Hairspray, and Legally Blonde for a long time but they are still there. How come Chicago and Rent have never received the same amount of dismal predictions? It just annoys me to no end when people harp on shows that have a chance at doing well because they are deemed as being too mainstream, as if Broadway should only be reserved for a select group of slobs. I'm willing to bet that I will enjoy Shrek at least 7x more than I enjoyed Grey Gardens, which was my second least favorite Broadway experience. And these kinds of shows do bring in new audiences. Someone asked before which shows turned as into theatre fans. For me, it would be the combination of Lion King and Peter Pan. Let the show actually open before you harp on it, and the demo sounds just fine for the show. Let the attacking commence

Updated On: 8/13/08 at 01:47 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 2:16pm

Goodness gracious me and mine, TooDarnHot, you do seem to take this terribly seriously, don't you? Such language!

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 2:50pm

luvred - i though shrek was a fairy princess?!?!?! OMG I'VE BEEN WRONG THIS WHOLE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 4:49pm

BrianIdol -- with some people, it's just impossible to have an educated discussion. We call them 12-year olds.

[mallardo]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 5:24pm

According to Michael Riedel today Shrek is not selling!! The advance sale is poor. Uh oh...

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 5:50pm

thx Hook:)

[Amharclann]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 5:52pm

Oh dear although I am not surprised. A lot of the people this will attract will not have heard of it yet. We need to give it time. I hope for Sutton's sake this is a success as if not that is two non critically aclaimed shows in a row although she in gneral at least tends to do well with the critcs.

[Amharclann]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 5:52pm

Oh dear although I am not surprised. A lot of the people this will attract will not have heard of it yet. We need to give it time. I hope for Sutton's sake this is a success as if not that is two non critically aclaimed shows in a row although she in gneral at least tends to do well with the critcs.

[Spider Woman]

Posted: 8/13/08 at 7:17pm

The things about theatre is that it is subjective. You are entitled to your preferences and trying to persuade or argue with someone who does not share your opinion is pretty pointless.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 8/14/08 at 1:32am

Adam Wylie played Jack in INTO THE WOODS. Not the cow.