Why in heaven's name didn't Little Women do better?! — Page 2

i saw the tour in San Jose- I forget which understudy for Jo I had, but she was ATROCIOUS...I probably would have liked it better had I seen Sutton in the role. McGovern was fantastic.

Astonishing? More like Big Mess.

Little Women was one of the worst shows I've seen in the last 3 or 4 years. I agree that the score was amateurish, and even the most memorable songs had their share of just plain weirdness. The book was practically non-existent.

Such a waste of Sutton and Maureen.

I saw the last Broadway performance and I think the problem was in the advetising, Yes, I realize the title won't attract many men, but advertising it on tv as a great show to bring your daughter and granddaughter to - hurt it a lot.

---

I saw the tour about a year ago as well, and I think the only saving grace was the cast. There are a couple pretty things (Astonishing, Days of Plenty), but there is also a lot of derivative, unmemorable things. I think it will probably do well in regional theaters, because of the novel and the fact that it is pretty accessible material. However, the period that it is set in may be expensive for a lot of community theaters, so who knows what could happen?

and what's up with that song "Could You?" Goodness that is not a good song. Also not good Little Women songs: "The Most Amazing Thing", "Five Forever song thing", "Take a chance on me song". I don't like "How I am"
I like Astonishing. Kind of...random though
I like The Fire Within Me. Good use of Jo's character
I like Days of Plenty
I like Small Umbrella in the Rain. BUT GOD ITS SLOOOOOOW


Whenever I read a novel, I always sort of play it in my mind as I'm reading with actors I know just because that's how I kind of learned how to read...and I always thought of Victor Garber as Jo's husband.

---

I enjoyed the score very much. But then again its Sutton Foster and Maureen McGover how can you go wrong. I'll agree that the show simply was not memorable in any way, just very plain.

---

It's interesting that so many say that the book was terrible, I agree and I think the music was awful as well, but I think the source material can work in a musical context.

Mark Adamo's opera that played at NYC opera around the time (maybe a year or so before) was absolutely excellent in almost every detail, the story was engaging, the music had meaning and melody, which is rare for today some say.

If you're not familiar and are a fan of the book, and long for a more satisfying Little Woman musical experience, then I urge you to become familiar with Adamo's opera, it's thrilling.

---

Yes, there was another version of Little Women that was intended to go to Broadway, but it was scrapped and the one that actually played the Virginia Theater is what was chosen.

The original version was produced earlier this year at The Spirit of Broadway Theater in Norwich, Connecticut. I saw the show on opening night and I, along with the folks I was with, was very disappointed. The music had its few good points, but was, for the most part, forgettable and the lyrics were downright juvenile and did nothing for the story. Despite this, the theater's subscribers voted for it in numerous categories in the theater's annual award ceremony, including Best Score and Best Lyrics. (It was a slow year.)

Joshua, it wasn't THIS version, was it? Because it's pretty atrocious (Dave Willetts notwithstanding).
http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Theatre-Review/little-women-the-musical-review

---

No, it wasn't Adamo's opera or the version LizzieCurry linked to. The version I'm talking about had a book by Sean Hartley, music by Kim Oler and lyrics by Alison Hubbard.

Oler & Hubbard's Once and Future Little Women Score Gets CT Home

Updated On: 12/28/06 at 02:01 AM

I saw the tour, and I thought that the book was just a bunch of lame one-liners stringed together, and disguised as a plot.

I think that the book is so famous and beloved that there were very high expectations for the musical. I am sure there are many musical versions floating out around there and it just seemed to me...this was the best? I love most musical soundtracks but did not love or even like this one. I can not just write it off as bad though...one because it is art...and two because you said you liked it. I am not sure exactly what does not make it work. But if the score doesnt even appeal to me it cant appeal to many non musical lovers...I think the music was a little generic and old fashioned...but not in a period piece sort of way. I think when you are dealitng with characters this great you have to have music along side it just as appealing. The music needs to fit right along side a classic book! Pretty hard. If the music was not great....why would anyone need to see the story? It is already a book, play, and a few movies! It makes the musical unneeded for telling the story...the show had to really live up to a lot. Getting away from the music...its always hard to convert a book into anything...choosing the most important parts and conveying the story is harder when it was innitially meant to be read and could be as long as possible. I never saw it but from the recording...Sutton didnt seem to do the best job as JO. Almost too over the top or just not right in style for the role.....