WORST Performance Ever... (Cats tour)- Page 2

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 1:50am

" "All the cats were either sitting on the rocks or standing"

Sitting on rocks? "


Well, they WERE sitting on something. (BTW, I paid 69 bucks for this, PLUS the service fee for using ticket master, which was $8.50.)

We felt like we were seeing a public dress rehersal. I thought the cast was very good, but seriously, it was like a spaghetti without the sauce. You could still eat (or in this case, see) it, but you are not that satisfied.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 2:29am

Ummm excuse me bjivie2 no one's getting "high and mighty" here. I resent that comment a little actually. I was simply saying to look at it from a different angle. People esp. around here are so quick to fault something or say something sucks. I'm not sure why you bring up everyone's experience. I don't claim to know anything about anyone else's experience. The thing of it is the theatre made restitution. If you thought it was rediculous, which I would have, you just get up and ask for a refund. The theatre legally HAS to grant your request. So you'd be able to get your $40 + dollars back. My point was that they didn't want to cancel the show. That was the only other option it seems. So they did a middle of the road production to try to give them some semblence of CATS. What if it was someone's favorite show? It would be a while till that person could see it again. If I LOVED Cats I wouldn't mind seeing a concert version. In essence they gave people a choice A)see this half assed version of Cats B) get your money back. I think it's rather noble of them to even try, esp if they were giving free tickets to later performances. In reality the performers gave what could be considered a free show (albeit a sub par one).
Updated On: 12/22/05 at 02:29 AM

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 2:35am

Completely agree with Jazzysuite82. And don't say that this happened just because it was non-Equity.

[lilprima2b]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 2:59am

That is REALLY lame... wow.

But about the technical aspects. The cast is depending on the health of their bodies for their careers - bad surfaces can be devastating for a dancer. I know it was "only" one performance, but I'm a dancer and I have tendonitis in my knees, and if I have to dance on a nasty floor (unsprung is the biggest problem - i.e., floors with a concrete base, I think a lot of older stages are built like this) it can screw with my knees for weeks. Unsprung floors can also cause shin splints. Even if they fixed the floor after just one performance with a bad floor, it would be hell on those dancers' legs and feet to dance when they had already put stress on them. You wouldn't order someone to belt on an injured vocal chord, would you?

Of course, that's all assuming it was because of the floor. Who knows what could have happened.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 3:16am

CATS without dancing? That's the saddest thing that I've ever heard. Very bad luck on your part. I wonder what happened to necessitate that...

[bjivie2]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 3:23am

As I said, not trying to start something here, Jazzy. Rereading my post, it does sound a little pissy of me. Sorry.

But just to clarify...

"You have no clue what goes on backstage and all the trap doors, wires, lights and ropes that are keeping things in place." <-- That's what I was referring to with my "experience" line. I'm sure that people can think of all the things that could go wrong with a show, espeicially a big ass show like CATS. It just sounded a little condescending to me.

As a producer, director, performer and audience member, I just think it's a stupid idea to do a show like CATS in concert. No one is going to be able to fully appreciate a show like that if you just hear the music. It's such a spectacle that without the dancing and sets and lights, it's just not the same. All I'm saying is that if I was producing, I would have cancelled the show. You're not going to uphold the intergrity of such a dance-heavy show with a concert version.

Again, didn't mean to ruffle feathers. Everyone's got their own opinions.

[Kristen_0509]

Posted: 12/22/05 at 9:33am

Cats..

[lildogs]

Posted: 12/23/05 at 1:30pm

I could try to find out the reason--my friend is the company manager...

That theatre is a sh!tbox and it's not even a real theatre--there's not telling what the real reason is...sucks for all involved.

[touringchica]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 10:10pm

Hey there..

I want to explain what exactly happened before the tour continues to be bashed. The stage had a turn table that covered about 3/4 of the stage. When they loaded in the 1200 pound tire, the turn table lifted, creating a 2 inch ledge that popped out from the marley. Once sound check began and we realized how dangerous this thick ledge would be for the dancers, who tumble, turn, jump, crawl..etc..In the long run (you must understand that we do this show 8 times a week all year!) it was not worth it to endanger our cast. We, as a company, wanted to cancel the show because, like you, we agree that Cats is a dance show. However, our presenters of the Grove Theatre were unhappy with this decision and basically gave us about 30 minutes to create a "concert version." We did the best that we could for our situation, and do know that we did not wish this upon anyone! The next morning, our crew returned to the theatre at 8am to completely unload the show and create a solution to our problem. The show continued as normal from then on. Now, before you question the "no pod" situation too, many venues that book us do not have the technical capabilities to hold our complete show.

As for the tickets, you did have the choice to return to a later date for free, so it was your choice to stay and watch. Next time before you completely bash a show, please consider that maybe you don't know the entire situation!

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 10:31pm

"As for the tickets, you did have the choice to return to a later date for free, so it was your choice to stay and watch. Next time before you completely bash a show, please consider that maybe you don't know the entire situation!"

Exactly what I've been saying the entire time...

[BroadwayRandy0711]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 10:38pm

I hear the Houston production of CATS is awful. That no one in the production has that great of a voice. I heard that it was depressing. I have not seen it, but have heard it from theater goers that are also performers themselves. Just thought that I would make a post of what I was told.

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:42pm

I actually liked the performance when I saw it on Saturday. It was much better and what a difference it made with the action!

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 3:22am

Well I guess I dont know whats worse, having a concert of CAts, or having to see it twice?

[littlgriz]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 7:10am

i sawe cats in chattanooga tn it wase like thay wer all tierd that night

[NYSinger1]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 11:05am

Thank You touringchica. There are so many technical variables in putting on a touring show. Everything is done very quickly as well to maximize the number of performances in a week. Having 1 show out of 400+ a year go wrong is pretty impressive track recrod.

Personally, the theater should have cancelled the performance all-together. This might make some people unhappy, but it might have been best PR for the show and the theater.