239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Apr 12, 2017 8:15:36 GMT
No one goes to Dreamgirls to see anything other than incredible vocal power. Amber and her alternates are doing what the show asks of them. Exactly, and it is clearly working! Tickets are selling hugely, Amber got her Olivier and, unless I am mistaken, the only standing ovation of the night at the Oliviers. Audiences are loving it! Its almost a gurantee that is one show that isnt Arry Potter benifited last night, it ws Dreamgirls because of Ambers performance. Agreed - and that performance was selected, very specifically, to show people why Amber won the Olivier. For most of the TV audience, she's 'Mercedes from Glee', and they sort of needed to introduce her as 'bonafide stage star'. It doesn't hurt the Dreamgirls that they got a big primetime advert for their show - one of the only ones that will likely benefit, because so many of the others (Jesus Christ Superstar, Groundhog Day) aren't actually running right now. She was spectacular - but I'm a Gleek from way, waaay back, and always knew she was amazing! I'm hoping that she's still with the London production at the end of this year, so that I can see the show with her in it, but I suspect that the end of the current booking period (end of Oct) is pretty much the end of her run, and then she'll move (with absolute certainty now) to the Broadway production in the New Year. The awards themselves were messy, a bit unfocused, and it was such a shame that Half a Sixpence didn't get a performance slot. Next year will be the Hamilton awards, and I expect a total clean sweep for them - so at least we'll likely get a TV performance out of it! I think they just need to up their game for the TV broadcast - it's laudable (as others have mentioned) that this got a primetime ITV weeknight slot, but 2 whole days after the awards just feels too delayed to me. Fingers crossed there's more than just Hamilton to get excited about, next time round. The Albert hall was packed with huge talent this year, as the Oliviers are every year, they just need to find more interesting ways of using that talent to showcase the West End and British theatre on primetime TV!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Apr 10, 2017 9:19:04 GMT
Guys I'm not denying that they have plenty of time, it just seems bizarre because it's a role you could cast in about ten minutes. If they hadn't have got the rest of the cast together then I wouldn't be questioning it but it seems like they're looking for someone special for this role if they're bothering to wait this long. I still think King George will be a 'name', someone who'll bring that extra bit of mainstream media interest to the show, leading up to opening night - and someone who can help introduce Lin Manuel Miranda and Hamilton into the wider public consciousness. I think people here get a tiny bit blinkered as to exactly how not ubiquitous Hamilton is in the UK, compared to the US. Yes, within the theatre geek community, everyone knows it's the next huuuuge thing, but the general public (AKA the tourists going to the West End over the next few years) are not quite there yet. It may not be him, but I can't help think that John Barrowman is the type of name they'll end up going for - and, if it's actually him, I expect there's a few contract negotiation issues, around his recurring roles in the CW shows in the US. Hence why the part is not officially filled yet (or Lin's just playing coy and they're 90% there with the casting, but the contract isn't quite signed yet). if they can get a commitment for someone like John for a 3-4 month run, to open the show, it gives them an easy promo person to have on The One Show and similar! I know everyone will scream 'but they don't need to have a name, they're already sold out!', but that's not the point of this specific piece of casting. This is about media interest merging with the great British public lack of theatre knowledge - also for the non-theatre groupie type TV producers, who will screw their faces a little if they're asked to put Lin Manuel Miranda on their show, without a British household name as the 'in' for their idiot viewers to understand why he's their big guest! Just think whether This Morning could have just Lin on, without Phil and Holly asking 5 minutes of idiot questions, about who he is! With John or another household name, they can go straight into 'so, this new show........'! BTW, the bit I'm really excited/intrigued about is the Hamilton role casting is now confirmed - we need to know who it is! Pleeeeeease!!!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 17, 2017 15:23:57 GMT
Switch one smart funny lesbian for another, and one panto comedy sidekick for another. I'm actually more willing to give it a go now than I was when they originally announced the move. Can't guarantee I'll like it, but I'll certainly give it a fair go. That's really not what Mel and Sue were - is essence, they are the female Ant'n'Dec, close friends, comedy partners and perfectly middle class! I'd argue a lot about who the 'panto sidekick' is in their duo, cos I'd wager it's neither! Do Noel and Sandi even know each other? If not, then the chemistry is going to have to be created from scratch - it may work, but it's the very definition of an odd, slightly random, pairing. Individually, I like both Sandi and Noel, and Sandi in particular comes across as an incredibly warm, funny person, as well as terrifyingly clever and sharp witted! It's just that neither (as far as I can recall) have presented a TV show anything like GBBO, so we're in unchartered territory for both.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 17, 2017 12:14:32 GMT
Toksvig - too smug and clever Leith - too cold and posh Fielding - too daft and scruffy. Out of all of them Prue Leith is the worst appointment. The appeal of Mary was that despite being incredibly middle class, she's never claimed to be anything other than a good and possibly rather plain home cook. Prue Leith is an ex Michelin star chef, she has a cookery school and sits on a panel on Great British Menu with other posh people judging other professional chefs. She does not have the common touch and THAT is what made this show great. It will run two series on 4 then die on its arse. Agree with all of this - Prue Leith is not a Mary substitute, unless you're just looking at the 'window dressing' - older, female cook! Beyond that, there is a vast canyon of difference between them, not least that Mary is instinctively a warm, friendly presence, tough when needed, but never harsh. Prue has spent the past 10 years (god, it's been going a long time), on GBM, very harshly criticising the very best British chefs and their Michelin star-level food. The balance of judging on GBBO was that Paul was the 'tough to please, focus on technique, professional baker' and Mary was the 'home cook, who knows how things should taste'. As for the presenters, I suspect they've just seen Mel and Sue as two comedians, who can be replaced with almost any comedic presence on the show - this might be the bigger mistake than employing Prue! If you look at GBBO for Comic Relief specials, when they didn't have Mel and Sue presenting, showed just how much was lost from the show when they weren't there. I agree this is a line-up that will struggle to connect with the public, in the way that the original one did. I'll give them a few episodes to see if they can bed it in, but I'm not hopeful!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 11, 2017 13:06:15 GMT
My theory: she took her eyes off the kids because she was watching her husband live on TV, and had a moment of horrified realisation and a mad dash across the house when they appeared on TV with him. You can actually hear the muted screech of her realising the kids have wandering into their dad's room, before she runs in. I think my favourite moment (there are so many to choose from!), is seeing her actually skid across the floor to a halt inside the room! Although, the little girl's jaunty march towards her dad is pretty tough to beat as a perfect lol moment!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 10, 2017 20:47:19 GMT
This is really fab and getting everyone talking. Someone on twitter says that the assumption the woman is the nanny is racist and it is his wife. But she seems v subservient. I can't imagine I'd not have acknowledged the situation and taken out the kids nicely. Why didn't he look at the kid? Well, from this snapshot one can't make judgements I suppose but hey, I hope his mates make the most of this. I don't read her crawling on the floor as subservient, just the actions of a desperate woman, hoping against all hope the the camera is reasonably tight on her husband's face, and she won't be visible if she crawls in and out of the room, with the kids under her arm, like a marine commando!!! . I suspect he didn't look at the older child, because he knew he'd never be able to continue with the interview, if he engaged her in any way. The whole sequence is just hilarious, and you just know he will never live it down, and she will rue the day she (probably) decided it was safe for her to nip to the loo and take her eyes off the kids for 3 seconds, whilst her husband was 'safe' in his study!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 9, 2017 13:34:47 GMT
Funny Girl, with the moustache and the "oops I just walked into the wall (again)" business. I agree Emi and we're going to look like killjoys again but fir me that's kind of disrespecting the audience. Ack bring it on, us enlightened few will sit with our arms folded at the back knowing we are the right ones
(ugh yes hated that in Funny Girl too)
I'm in agreement, especially about the Funny Girl scenes. The mustache especially took me so much out of the performance, that it stopped being an enjoyable number, and just became annoying to watch. Actually, at the show I saw, Sheridan did corpse (it looked genuine), during the 'You Are Woman, I Am Man' scene. She bounced rather awkwardly on Chris Peluso's knee, whilst they were on the chaise lounge, and she dropped her head, started to crack up, and then couldn't stop. They finished the scene whilst both giggling slightly (which set the audience off, and in turn, made them laugh even more!), kissed and the set darkened...... and then there was a set problem! The sheer curtain, supposed to draw over them, got stuck, and they ended up kissing for waaaay longer than I think they expected, and then just had to get up and scurry off in the semi-dark. The house brought down the safety curtain, and there was an announcement that the show would continue shortly. The problem was, we were no more than 4-5 minutes away from the interval anyway (only Don't Rain On My Parade to go), and people started to dash out to the toilets, hoping to get there whilst they fixed the technical problem. This led to the ushers having to march around to tell everyone to go back to their seats - utterly disastrous! They performed the Act 1 finale as normal, once the curtain was back up (10 minutes later) and then had the interval as usual. Bit of a giant mess, not really helped by the fact that the corpsing had totally messed up the last scene we saw. I had presumed that that scene was a genuine corpse moment, but I would be extremely cross to discover performances where it was 'planted' to get audience laughs.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 9, 2017 11:40:10 GMT
Hi @supertrooper thanks for your input! I'm also in favour of more matinees/mixing up the matinees- feels like it doesn't impact performers/techies/theatre staff as much but allows for more performances (personally love a 'late' Friday matinee too- the 5.30 ones that some shows have done) Seconding the 'more matinees, fewer days' idea. The Harry Potter format is there for a specific reason, with the 2-part play, but I'd love to see more of that scheduling. Give performers 2 consecutive days off a week, and have one more matinee performance somewhere in the schedule. If they can sustain Wed/Thur matinees on wet and cold winter weekdays, why can't either an additional Fri matinee also work? You could have Wed, Fri and Sat matinee and evening shows, plus Tue and Thur evening only shows, or Wed, Fri, Sat 2 show days, and Thur, Sun single show days. I love the idea of Friday daytime matinee - perhaps 5.30pm is too close to the evening show time, but I think a 3pm show would get plenty of interest, given just how many people finish early on Fridays, or choose to start their weekend breaks in London on a Friday afternoon anyway. I do get the difficulty when considering Sunday shows as standard - family time is a big sacrifice for the many hundreds of cast and crew, in favour of getting another weekday off. For all that I'd selfishly like to see Sunday shows across the board, which would give me more options when spending a weekend in the West End, it does have to be balanced against the needs of the people working in London theatres.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 5, 2017 20:07:30 GMT
I've never heard of him either, and even Lin himself wouldn't be known by vast majority of the general public Rogue One took over £65 million in the UK alone ($1 billion worldwide) - I think you may be underestimating the sheer quantity of people who now know exactly who Riz Ahmed is! That wasn't a walk-on role he had! You may not have heard of him, and I hadn't until last year, but he's pretty much the definition of a British rising star. He's Golden Globe and SAG nominated this year, he's releasing relevant music (he's part of the Coachella line up this year - the very definition of who's 'in'!), and I suspect even a short run in Hamilton will benefit both him and the musical. Of course, they may go with a complete unknown, but I think whoever they pick will have at least a vaguely recognisable name.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 3, 2017 22:46:40 GMT
BTW, I keep fixating on Riz Ahmed as Hamilton - I can't shake the feeling that, apart from the visual similarities between him and Lin, plus his previous involvement in the Mix Tapes, he's almost perfect vocally for the role, given his rapping ability. There is a bit of a dearth of suitable British musical theatre actors who really could do this role, and he's on a very short list of those I think could. What visual similarities? I don't think they look anything alike. I don't particularly find Lin attractive..Riz on the other hand. rrrrrr... Lin himself called Riz 'his British twin' - link. So, if even Lin sees enough of a resemblance to comment on it, I definitely do. BTW, I think Lin is pretty attractive, in a nerdy, skinny-boy way, and Riz falls into that category too! As for Riz's ISIS comments, the context of his discussion really needs to be taken into account, before condemning his words - link to Guardian article. Don't forget, he starred in Four Lions, a film about British homegrown jihadists - let's perhaps allow for the fact that the guy knows a little more than others about the British Asian and minority cultures that he's from, and understands what's going on deep inside these often segregated communities. The fact that he is intelligent, informed, and enough of a cultural figurehead that he's delivering Channel 4's annual diversity lecture in Parliament, makes me want to know more about him, not just blindly rail against him because he's made controversial statements that are very difficult to hear.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 3, 2017 10:13:21 GMT
Are there any rumours as to who is going to play Hamilton himself? I can't wait to see this. Just one more year... I was just wondering about this today. Lin is back in the UK this week, filming Mary Poppins, so I just wonder if they'll coordinate any big starring role announcements whilst he's in the country to do a bit of pre-publicity - perhaps in conjunction with them releasing another batch of tickets? It just depends how they plan to 'pace' the publicity of this show - there's still nearly 9 months until the show opens in previews, so they probably won't want to waste publicity time until they have reason to push the show - not that ticket sales need help, but media interest keeps it in the 'hot' category. BTW, I keep fixating on Riz Ahmed as Hamilton - I can't shake the feeling that, apart from the visual similarities between him and Lin, plus his previous involvement in the Mix Tapes, he's almost perfect vocally for the role, given his rapping ability. There is a bit of a dearth of suitable British musical theatre actors who really could do this role, and he's on a very short list of those I think could.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 3, 2017 9:37:12 GMT
Blood Brothers does have the ultimate 'yank your heart out and make you cry' finale! The standing ovation is deserved, but a cynic would suppose that the script helps massively, at that point in the show, in creating the perfect atmosphere for the audience to respond to the performances! I do love the show though, and remember leaving the theatre with very smudged mascara!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 2, 2017 21:50:00 GMT
This will get first choice of venues, regional houses would bite your hand off to have this, especially for a Christmas sit down. No doubt and suspect when the tour is announced you will see this go in the usual venues, such as: Manchester, Palace; Birmingham, Hippodrome; Southampton, Mayflower; Edinburgh, Playhouse; Liverpool, Empire; Sunderland, Empire, Dublin, Bord Gras; Bristol Hippodrome and Bradford, Alhambra. Couldn't see this going into Milton Keynes, Canterbury or Woking too close to London. Could do a 2nd road trip, depending how successful this will be. Interesting when Matilda toured the States, it only done short stops, think something like 2 weeks was the longest, probably learned from the Billy Elliot tour that was a disaster and lost loads in cash. Think you're pretty much spot on there, PoL. Although Cam Mack is involved, so it may be Edinburgh Festival Theatre rather than the Playhouse. Yeah this will be sitting down for anything between 6 and 12 weeks. Regarding Greater Manchester, it's doing the Palace rather than The Lowry. Looking forward to it!! Do you have any indication when the Palace in Manchester is likely to host this show? It's always a fairly profitable stop on any tour, and I'd love to see the show there.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 2, 2017 9:40:34 GMT
Mamma Mia's curtain call is never ending! If I remember rightly, it is the entire cast, then they all exit and they have the the ensemble, then the main cast members bow individually, and then the medley after, such a damn long curtain call! That's the one that made me so annoyed! Endless, and pretty much undeserved for it's length, as though they were all Liza/Barbra on their farewell tour! Juke box musicals, for the most part, are the worst offenders for this. Not sure why, but I suspect they are all determined to send their audience out after a great big 'fun' singalong, in order to erase the memory of the slightly mediocre 2 hours that preceded that! I'm very much not an audience participation kind of person, so the enforced 'get up and dance' of an elongated encore and curtain call is hell for me!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Mar 2, 2017 8:28:57 GMT
That's usually me. It's because I normally have a glass of wine in the other hand. Or gin. Hmm - these are people that don't look sophisticated/intelligent enough to think to put a drink on the ground or stuff the glass between their legs when the opportunity to applaud comes up, the sort of person who thinks its just a little bit decadent to have had a latte from the nearest Costa before going into the theatre. I rather suspect there is some intelligence involved in NOT wanting to put your (plastic) glass of red wine between your legs - especially if you're wearing a light colour, a skirt or dress - or the alternative of on the floor, in the very restricted space in front of a theatre seat. You ever tried to pick up a glass of red wine, from the floor of a darkened theatre, when you don't actually have the space to bend down properly, and you can't see it, without jostling your neighbours and/or spilling it?!!! After a few near misses and other adventures - and, yes, not being able to clap after performances - I've decided that a 'no drinks except a bottle of water' policy during performances is best for me. I tend not to have a drink in the interval either. I'm a lightweight, so under 20 minutes to down a glass of wine, or any other alcoholic drink, is a recipe for disaster! I now get to the theatre early, to relax in the theatre bar beforehand with a drink, and I spend my intervals in the inevitable toilet queues instead!! At Funny Girl on Saturday evening, the party in front of us (front stalls) spent the entire performance drinking full bottles of wine, and passing them up and down the row, plus having a 20 minute rant about getting their interval drinks delivered incorrectly. I'm also fairly sure that one of them was vaping throughout the entire performance - she was inhaling on something that looked like the blocky part of an e-cig, but there was no vapour so I'm not actually sure what it was!!!! BTW, the FG standing ovation, at the end of the show, was deserved and there was none of the 'stretching it out' malarky I've seen at other shows. There was a single bow from the performers, Sheridan came on, big standing ovation, whole cast took a final bow, and everyone was off stage. I've been to shows where they took endless minutes of bows and repeated on and offs, plus reprises and encores! Honestly, I don't mind mid-show ovations, the very few I've experienced have been well deserved by the performer(s). It's the dragging out at the end that's mildly annoying - you end up with half your arm in your coat, thinking the shows over, and they're cracking into the 2nd repeat of the finale song, and you have to keep clapping!! Just a mini peeve of mine!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 27, 2017 18:56:43 GMT
Putting aside the mess-up: Moonlight is my favourite film of all time. I actually saw it and La La Land on the same day back in October at London Film Festival. LLL was by far my most anticipated film of the year and the only reason I got a ticket to Moonlight was because it had great reviews and I wanted to waste time before LLL started. I came out of La La Land having enjoyed myself greatly but feeling slightly disappointed.
I came out of Moonlight physically shaking because I was so moved by what I had just seen.The first gay film to win Best Picture. The first film with an all black cast to win Best Picture. A film with a $1.5 million budget won Best Picture. All of this against a film that tied the record for the most Oscar nominations ever and was an ode to Hollywood that had won BAFTA, Golden Globe, Critics Choice etc. etc. etc. This would have been a monumental upset even if they had announced it normally. It's an incredible, incredible win for a small, unconventional masterpiece of a film and that shouldn't be overlooked by the mistake. BIB - that's pretty much my thoughts about the two films. La La Land was good, but I was a tiny bit disappointed with the end results, and some of the choices made, both by the actors and the director. It could have been incredible, but fell a little way short. I suspect the number of awards La La Land got reflected Hollywood's love of self-referential subject matter and anything sentimental, and were basically more about the idea of the musical about LA and their industry, rather than about the execution. Moonlight, on the other hand, exceeded every expectation I had about the subject matter. I think Naomi Harris was robbed of that Oscar, she was outstanding. BTW,that Slate video is both illuminating and hilarious, in a so-very-awkward way! It does show the huge time that clearly elapsed before they actually got the balls to cut into the speeches - the fact that the third producer was in the middle of his speech is kind of ridiculous. They could have acted so much faster - but this was (until last night) obviously a loophole area, that no one had planned for. No one thought the entire wrong name would both appear on a card that was held by a presenter AND get as far as being read out. In an awful way, this was the only award category to get wrong, where it could feasibly go all the way through to people being on stage and accepting the award. Reading Emma Stone's name on a card that ought to contain the names of directors, other acting categories, music or any of the technical ones, would have instantly raised a red flag to the presenters, and would have stopped the award presentation before someone was on stage giving a tearful acceptance speech, before being forced to hand over a statue to someone else! It totally was one of those perfect storm moments, where any other combination of events would have resulted in it never getting that far. But hey, it makes for great copy in the morning papers, and livened up what was (let's be honest here) a fairly dull Oscar ceremony! It'll certainly up the viewing figures for the highlights shows!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 27, 2017 13:50:10 GMT
dizzieblonde Not sure why I'm quoted in that specifically? I've not said anything controversial there as far as I can tell, or majorly different to others in the thread...nor does my comment disagree with yours? just a bit confused. I'm not disagreeing with your post! What makes you think I am?! Are we not allowed to quote posts to expand more on something they say? Just checking!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 27, 2017 13:42:40 GMT
Really unfair if Beatty starts getting a lot of backlash for it- I've only seen clips but quite clearly he was reading and re-reading and looking a bit confused, then as Foxa says Dunaway took it and read it (no disrespect to her, in the heat of the moment it was a fair assumption to quick read the title and announce, I know I wouldn't do any better under pressure) I mean ultimately a cock up but nobody died, and everyone stayed classy. (and *cough cough* the better film did actually win). Is this the first time in Oscars history such a thing has happened does anyone know? To be fair to both presenters, Beatty knew from the moment he pulled the card out of the envelope that something wasn't right. You can see him going back into the envelope to see if there was another card. He stalls, and keeps looking at the card, but I don't think it occurred to him to look at the writing on the outside of the envelope, which would have instantly told him that he had the entirely wrong envelope. His big error was showing the card to Faye Dunaway, who called out the film name before understanding why Beatty was stalling. Faye was waiting for his announcement, and when he showed her the card, she barely glanced at it, saw La La Land (but probably didn't even register that Emma Stone's name was also on the card), and announced it, perhaps thinking that Warren couldn't make out the wording or something. It's pretty clear what happened - the one of two PWC accountants (who stand on each side of the stage) gave Beatty the back-up envelope from the previous award. It's just dumb luck that the winner of the award before best picture was the actress from La La Land. Had it been any of the other acting categories, it would have been instantly obvious to the presenters that they had the wrong card. It's likely the PWC error that led to this chaos, but I do blame the show producers, who must have known almost instantly (probably by a stage hand screaming that the PWC accountant just collapsed in a heap crying 'wrong card, wrong card'), and they didn't pull the mics, or go to commercial before the bulk of the cast and crew of La La Land reached the stage. I think they spent 30 seconds too long trying to work out what they should do, instead of getting Jimmy or a producer on the stage to halt the award presentation. I remember seeing a behind the scenes Oscars programme, and the presenters get handed the envelope literally a second before they walk on stage. The focus about these awards is to protect the integrity of the voting process, and the secrecy of the awards results, which has clearly led to presenters being handed it in the semi-darkness of backstage, and not actually having a chance to double check they've got the right thing. Obviously, having now screwed up the biggest award, at the biggest ceremony, people will know to check, but it's too late for Moonlight to enjoy their moment properly. Such a shame - it was a brilliant film and well deserved. As much as I enjoyed La La Land, there were big issues with some of the performances and the film as a whole.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 23, 2017 10:53:10 GMT
Thanks to heymrziegfeld and a couple of tickets their friend was selling, I'm going to see Funny Girl on Saturday night at the Palace Theatre Manchester. The tickets were a very welcome, last minute, birthday gift for my mum, so we're both looking forward to it.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 9, 2017 12:15:45 GMT
I'm not defending the process (as I also think it is bizarre!), but Danni did say that forming a new group from the "losers" each week is similar to life in a musical, where an understudy can take a role at any point, and the "band" will have to work as a group with whoever is on stage that night. Which makes some sense, even though I don't think it justifies this process. I call BS on this - why not change all the groups every week, if this is something they're wanting to challenge the contestants with? There will be at least one group who get to the final without ever having dealt with this, because of this elimination method.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 9, 2017 11:39:04 GMT
Let me start by saying I am not a regular One Show viewer, but saw Danni Minogue on it tonight and she explained the way the voting would work. Let's see if I understood it... The bands with the most votes each week automatically go through. Of the two bands with the lowest votes the judges will chose their favourite 5 individuals and form a new band from them, with the other 5 going home. As I suspected, there's going to be some rather weak contestants carried through, owing to the presence of stronger/more popular ones in certain groups. It also puts the reformed groups at huge disadvantages to the other ones, having little time to develop as a group of 5 singers, and work out what their strengths are as a team. The saved groups, even if they are being carried by just one or two popular contestants, get the automatic advantage, even when there are much weaker performers there. I predict lots of complaints of unfairness, owing to this method.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 8, 2017 16:12:22 GMT
I don't think he's opening the show. They said he would be on as Hamilton later in the run and just for a few dates so... I do keep wondering about that - I've always had a sneaking suspicion that he made sure the London production wasn't being promoted with false promises of him starring, due to his contract with Mary Poppins, and the potential for other projects taking him away from the show and stopping him committing to the lead role. I think there's basically two options - he does have the availability, and will open the show (to be announced once his Disney commitment is complete - and they will issue the next rush of tickets in the wake of this news). Or he cannot commit to it, and casts someone else. I don't see too much stunt casting potential for this role, so suspect you'd get someone for a decent period of time. I'd love Javier Munoz to come over - he's been with the Broadway cast for over 2 years now. Would Lin step into the role after 6+ months with another lead? I can't see that happening, unless he is absolutely enamoured with living in London and wants to continue that for a while longer, and decided to take over the role when the original actor leaves the part. I think it's a logistics thing - Lin will certainly be in London in the lead-up to opening night, but it all depends on his future projects, as to whether he has the time, and decides to play the role initially for a limited engagement, or (and I think this is still an important thing) allows another actor to originate the role in London, and for them to be eligible for the Olivier etc. My heart says (wants!) that he'll open the show, but my head says they will cast someone else to lead the cast for an extended period of time. It's probably the right time for him to step back from the production a little, and allow others to carry on the show.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 7, 2017 22:35:32 GMT
Spent the evening trying to find my summer clothes - not easy when I only moved house this weekend, and can't find quite a few things! Threw everything I could find in the washer, and will pack tomorrow. I've written a short list of stuff I need to buy, and am really looking forward to my winter break in the Canaries from Friday. 20 degrees C, and Ron Chernow's 800-page Hamilton biography, here I come!!!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 7, 2017 9:44:39 GMT
I'm kind of straddling the avoidance/knowledge line here too. I've seen the extracts of Hamilton that were performed and released at the White House (the original one and the big event done for Obama), and performances of Alexander Hamilton and My Shot are pretty unavoidable, given they were performed on the Tony's and on other shows. They're the reason I bought my tickets - it confirmed all the hype was valid, and I was sold. I bought Ron Chernow's book a couple of week's ago, and am spending next week in the Canary Islands, lying on a sun lounger and reading the 800 pages in a giant binge! Going on holiday and reading that book seems pretty appropriate, right?! So, I'll be up to speed with that period of American history, as my current knowledge is a touch woolly! However, I really do want to avoid the full soundtrack as much as possible, as I want my first full experience of the Hamilton music and lyrics to be at the theatre. I'm not a spoiler-phobe, so knowing the plot doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I don't want to know each song intimately before I sit down to watch the show. Honestly, my worst nightmare in any musical theatre experience is being stuck next to the 'Superfan' who insists on singing along (loudly) to all songs - especially when it's clear they're basically just 'showing off', that they know the show so well!! Yep, please don't be one of those!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 6, 2017 21:42:25 GMT
Back at work after moving house this weekend. Felt like a complete zombie for the whole day today, combined with an unending series of aches and pains from unpacking boxes - and carrying things up and down 2 flights of stairs to my new flat. Had professional movers, who were pretty amazing, but I forgot that my Christmas decorations got packed and were left in my office of my old house, instead of moving them back to the garage. So the guys dutifully moved those boxes, and the tree, into my new office space. I spotted them hauling the tree up the stairs, and directed that one back down to the garage, but I had to move the other boxes back myself, after they'd left.
Also, I thought my sofa would fit through the hallway - it doesn't (just too tall to turn into the room), so that's also in the garage! I have an enormous lounge, with just an armchair, side table and TV corner unit! Feels very sparse! I'm sofa shopping this weekend, clearly!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Feb 6, 2017 13:37:48 GMT
Yes, most boy bands (e.g. One Direction) were just individual boys put together and then they worried about them getting on and working as a team (or not). This seems bizarre in that the "bands" have already been selected in a "random" way - not! Yes, the show will lose some great lads in the losing bands unless they introduce standbys or covers. As I said up the thread - the chances of seeing all 5 of the original band selected during an 8 show week will be slim with illness and holidays etc. So they will have to pick covers I would have thought from the other guys, so at least the coach parties see "someone off the telly". However, this of course makes a mockery of the " you have to work as a group/team" etc. In practise they will be 5 actors performing roles in a show - they will not be touring the world as a "band". It is a totally different thing. Does anyone know exactly how the eliminations will go from here on in? The BBC website offers no information, so leaves little clue as to how the contestants are eliminated. BTW, the band names have been decided - some of them are predictably awful - Neon Panda, really?!!!! link
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Jan 31, 2017 0:00:20 GMT
They do but the concert in question was an album launch. All everyone arrived with was a code which they had to show at the entrance along with their passport and card to gain admission. If im remembering correctly doors were 90 minutes prior to stage time with no support I don't think the issue is the paperless ticket - that works, clearly, for other events. The difference between the O2 and the Victoria Palace theatre is the timing and points of entry. People will arrive over a much more spread out timespan for gigs (90 minutes is far earlier than I've ever seen a theatre crowd arrive), and they are frequently happy to queue for decent periods before the doors open, whereas I've never seen massive queues for theatre shows, prior to the doors of the theatre being opened. The entry point thing is the big one though - how many access gates does the O2 have? Compare that to what is likely to be a single, large entry point into the theatre, and you can immediately see where the issues may well be. As I mentioned, the entrance foyer will need to be exceptionally well designed to cater for this ticket and ID check, to avoid a crush of people trying to get inside, within a very short window. I'd suggest starting to warn people early on, that they need to leave plenty of extra time - far more than they're used to. Until we see how the theatre will operate with a full house, none of us will know how it'll turn out. Fingers crossed, eh?!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Jan 30, 2017 23:34:49 GMT
Can't wait to see the show - still intrigued as to how an "unticketed" audience of over 1500 can be seated by showtime! Having seen a Metallica crowd of 20000 processed into the o2 arena with no physical tickets in little over an hour i think it wiil work fairly smoothly Gigs tend to have far more fluid entry and start times for their audience. The whole 'gates open' and 'supporting acts' thing renders the start time of a rock/pop concert a much more variable thing, plus there's the higher likelihood that those gigs are non-seated, at least in part. In my experience, most theatre audiences arrive no more than 30 minutes before curtain up - unless they're planning on a pre-show drink in the bar - and it's getting 1500 people inside, AND seated before the scheduled curtain time. I will be very curious to see just how quickly they can process that number of people, most of whom will have little to no experience of ticketless entry (along with the venue's in-built security measures of the extra ID and payment card to check). Just how rapidly will they isolate the 'problem' ticket holders - the ones who've forgotten one vital piece of information etc - so they can push through everyone else? Staff levels, IMO, will be critical to the success of this effort - as will the design of the foyer area. I'll be watching these boards closely for those opening week's experiences. There'll be teething problems, but I hope the venue is quick to identify bottlenecks, and finds solutions, without subjecting attendees to night after night of problems. In a way, I suppose the previews are for the audience/ticket test, as much as they're for the on-stage performance!
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Jan 30, 2017 16:34:07 GMT
OH MY GOD! I just went back in and scored the last ticket in the stalls for the date in December that I wanted, at a price I could actually afford!!! Ticketmaster must have refreshed their seat availability, after the lunchtime crazy, because I couldn't get anything a couple of hours ago. Sure, it's on the last row in the rear stalls, but I have my Christmas present to myself!!! Don't care, just happy! It could be as simple as peoples transactions failing so the seats returning to sale. For which I'm infinitely grateful! I refreshed and queued for 1.5hrs at lunchtime, for a few different dates, and each time was either a failure or no seats available. it does look like the odd one will pop up for the early dates, if there are returns etc, but it's still a total game of luck! Glad to have it all done anyway.
|
|
239 posts
|
Post by dizzieblonde on Jan 30, 2017 15:33:02 GMT
OH MY GOD! I just went back in and scored the last ticket in the stalls for the date in December that I wanted, at a price I could actually afford!!! Ticketmaster must have refreshed their seat availability, after the lunchtime crazy, because I couldn't get anything a couple of hours ago. Sure, it's on the last row in the rear stalls, but I have my Christmas present to myself!!! Don't care, just happy!
|
|