What's the deal with bway.com's 'Going Blonde?'

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 7:04pm

It seems odd how they have only posted 3 videos online. I think it would get people excited if they put up more things. Maybe we are just spoiled because 'The Pirate Queen' put up so many.

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 7:07pm

Patience. It's supposed to be something new every couple of weeks, given as much time as it takes to have something actually develop. They can't continue posting videos of rehearsals. Things have to evolve in the show before they might even have a chance of being shown to the public. Give it some time.

[TWSFan4Ever]

Posted: 12/21/06 at 8:50pm

They'll post more & more eventually. Now they're just trying to get a handle on the show for San Fransisco

[Sylar2]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:28pm

Just heard the 2nd song released.. it's even more annoying than the first.

Oh my god you guys-- this musical is going to suck.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:31pm

I bet you feel all good about yourself now, don't you?

[Sylar2]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:34pm

Why? Because I haven't liked the first two songs I've liked? That makes me feel good about myself? LOL- huh, that makes no sense.

This is one of the funniest movies ever- I want the show to be good and love Bundy so hopes are high but so far I haven't liked what I've heard.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:39pm

So you haven't liked what you've heard.

Who knows what will be cut or rewritten before the show hits New York? You sure don't.

To say flat out that this musical is going to suck based on two songs you've heard is completely ridiculous and shows your attempt at trying to be an elite theatre snob by snubbing it before you've even seen it.

It's really quite sad.

[Sylar2]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:42pm

FO-- my last line was meant as a joke.... playing on the title of the song.. geez- calm down.

[FOAnatic]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:53pm

Yea. I'm not dumb. I got your little "play on words."

But regardless you said this "musical" is going to suck. Not these "songs" suck. So, no matter how you try to cover it up, you're passing judgement on the entire production that you've yet to see.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 12:59pm

Woah.

He doesn't like the demos. He is not judging the final project quite yet.

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 1:02pm

I agree with Foa. It annoys me when people just make a blank statement. I think the Act 1 Finale "So Much Better" is great. Yes, this music is not life changing, but this show was never meant to be the next Les Mis. I have faith in a strong cast and wonderful director.

[FosterChild]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 3:45pm

This is going to be a very interesting one to watch. It's got many of the right ingredients to be a good show. Much of the cast is terrific, Mitchell is a great choreographer (and hopefully has directorial skills as well), the songs are probably better in context of the show, it was a great movie and if they didn't stray too far from the source material, it's inherently funny. The one possible "problem" might be Bundy. I fear she simply doesn't have the voice and presence to pull off such a big role. Again, I could be wrong but I didn't see it in Hairspray (and that was an easy role to shine in) and I don't *hear* it on the sampler. I also found her acting to be a bit flat on CSI not too long ago.

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 4:07pm

No one acts anymore on CSI. You can't blame her.



I think the videos will pick up more after new years, when they go to San Francisco to rehearse there for the Try-Out.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 4:09pm

she IS flat and she doesn't have presence or a voice. I will see her in it, yes, but I hope to see her understudies SO much more.

[ruprecht]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 4:24pm

Well, that last sentence makes me sad Broadwayguy. I'm not saying I think LBB is going to suck, i'll wait to see it for myself before I go there and while I do agree her voice leaves much to be desired again, I'll hold out hope BUT, why can't "they" ever just hire the absolute *best* possible person so that people like Broadwayguy don't "wish" to get to see the understudies. It sort of defeats the purpose, don't you think?

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 4:34pm

FOA, you're right. These very threads cause shows to fail. A show would try out is CA so NY critics wouldn't have any ideas about it and they'd rehearse. Thanks to the internet, everyone knows whats good and bad before it even previews in New York.

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 4:34pm

A friend of mine, upon listening to "Omigod You Guys!", brought up an interesting point the other day about movie musicals, and this one in particular. She thinks failure stems if the lead is not played by the actor who defined such a character. Let me explain.

Mary Poppins, though people associate Julie Andrews with her, is a character. Tarzan is a character. Belle and the Beast are characters. Tracy Turnblad is a character. Celie is a character. Quite frankly, anyone can play these parts and a show will succeed because they're characters, and the actors behind them don't matter. Though the performances in movies may be fantastic, the actors attached have not defined such characters. Thus, these shows are doing well.

However, Elle Woods IS Reese Witherspoon, or rather, Reese Witherspoon is Elle Woods. Elle isn't so much a character to be played by anyone as she is defined by Reese's performance. Similar to this is Robbie Hart. Adam Sandler IS Robbie Hart, not another actor. Such roles aren't merely placeholders to be filled by anyone, as Belle or Tracy can be. (Would it even be a stretch to mention Footloose/Kevin Bacon?)

I post this because I'm curious to know what you think about it. In truth, I can see what she means, but at the same time, you can't just pick and choose who's a character and who is not. I'm interested to hear all your thoughts on such a theory.

[This isn't my opinion, though it makes some sense -- it's merely a restatement of an interesting theory brought to me. Don't shoot! ]

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 4:39pm

It is a good theory but at the same time Reese Witherspoon was never going to be in the musical version.

[FosterChild]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 5:15pm

It's an interesting theory but one that explains why Wedding Singer didn't do so well. If Elle Woods/reese Witherspoon are as intertwined as they are, Bundy is going to have to be phenomenal in order for Blonde not to possibly suffer the same fate. I think it should matter a great deal that a shows' lead be better than just passable. Did they approach Witherspoon?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 6:36pm

I don't get why people say "the music isn't life changing." Who cares? It doesn't have to be life changing, but it still has to be good. Broadway is meant to be the best the theater world hast offer. And I'm sorry, but this just isn't living up to the expectations. Where are the composers that use to make up original ideas?

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 6:37pm

I agree. I suppose, then, that she's predicting that this show won't do well simply because Reese isn't involved.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 6:49pm

Well who wants to a see a mediocre musical with mediocore music with a mediocore book and medicore acting based on a mediocore movie that was only praised because of Reese's performance?

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 7:04pm

Someone with a thesaurus for the word "mediocre," I hope.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 7:07pm

Yes, this music is not life changing, but this show was never meant to be the next Les Mis.

teehee

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 7:09pm

You don't sit there in the theatre rationalizing what you're hearing like that, though.