|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 11:20:36 GMT
I saw the original cast of One Man Two Guvnors, and then I saw the replacement cast in case the reason I hated it so much first time really was just James Corden, but that just confirmed to me all the more that it really was the play itself I disliked. You don't need to try coming up with an explanation for why some people disliked a play, it is entirely possible that they Simply Just Didn't Like It, And That's Okay.  As for Peter Pan Goes Wrong, I loved it even more than TPTGW when I saw it in the theatre, and I loved the broadcast too. Just to stay on-topc somewhat. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 11:29:47 GMT
Yes and for the record the cast (well ok Edward Bennett) were all that kept me from walking out at the interval |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 13:24:13 GMT
I really didn't enjoy the broadcast of this. Partly stubbornness on my part as it wasn't "my" cast but also the camera work just didn't have the impact. I won't go and see either TPTGW or PPGW these days because the Mischief originators aren't in the cast (but am hoping to book for when they return to TPTGW in Feb)... Isn't it funny how we get attached to the first cast we see?! |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 3, 2017 13:36:53 GMT
It is so strange because all the casts are good but I have seen Harry Kershaw as Chris in both PTGW and PPGW that I just couldn't take to the original actor! (I am ridiculous) I must get round to Comedy about a Bank Robbery but I was offered free tickets, couldn't go now too tight to pay  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 14:26:29 GMT
You can usually get great reductions for Bank Robbery on the day - decent enough seats for about £13 at Tkts some days...and you can maybe do a crafty self-upgrade at the interval. ;-)
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 3, 2017 21:16:42 GMT
I really didn't enjoy the broadcast of this. Partly stubbornness on my part as it wasn't "my" cast but also the camera work just didn't have the impact. I think it should have been all wide shots with the odd close up on the reaction. The sheer energy of this adaptation just got lost in translation and whilst I know this is the orginal cast and it is their baby I just felt like they had been away from it too long. When this was filmed in September the cast were the most recent cast to have performed it onstage & had finished it 7 and a half months earlier so there wasn't a more recent cast to be got. (I would have preferred the full stage version had been filmed during the run last winter but that evidently wasn't what the BBC wanted.) Forgive me if I'm being too curious, but which is "your" cast for PPGW? The current London cast, as you mention Harry as Chris? I have rather the opposite problem with Harry, in that having seen him first as Francis I find it harder to see him as Chris (albeit he's improved since I first saw him go on as u/s on the tour) & I still can't quite get my head round him & Laurence having swapped roles for London! |
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jan 3, 2017 22:42:19 GMT
Staggeringly unoriginal
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 4, 2017 0:09:55 GMT
Watched the first bit of this on iplayer and had to turn it off after about 25 mins. Cringe.
Didn't Victoria Wood do the definitive of this back in the 80's with Acorn Antiques?
Forced and unfunny.
|
|
1,578 posts
|
Post by anita on Jan 4, 2017 10:23:11 GMT
Like BurlyBear I watched this on iplayer yesterday since my husband refused to have it on -[*******!] I have always loved farces & have read all the good reviews so was expecting to enjoy it. I must admit I didn't find the extract of "The Play That Goes Wrong" that was on the Royal Variety show a while back funny but thought that was as it was taken out of context. Having watched it I can only say I thought it was a let down. I didn't laugh at all. The best bits were David Suchet. It seemed juvenile.- My grandkids probably would have enjoyed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 10:46:01 GMT
Pah. Perhaps some people should have asked Santa for a sense of humour this Christmas. I loved it myself. Yes, it's not quite the same as watching it live but all in all I thought it was rather delightful and it reminded me of lots of bits I loved about the show. I love Mischief Theatre, they should take over the whole of London's glitzy West End. They'd certainly have a good go at making 'Hedda Gabler' watchable. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Jan 4, 2017 13:14:56 GMT
I really didn't enjoy the broadcast of this. Partly stubbornness on my part as it wasn't "my" cast but also the camera work just didn't have the impact. I think it should have been all wide shots with the odd close up on the reaction. The sheer energy of this adaptation just got lost in translation and whilst I know this is the orginal cast and it is their baby I just felt like they had been away from it too long. When this was filmed in September the cast were the most recent cast to have performed it onstage & had finished it 7 and a half months earlier so there wasn't a more recent cast to be got. (I would have preferred the full stage version had been filmed during the run last winter but that evidently wasn't what the BBC wanted.) Forgive me if I'm being too curious, but which is "your" cast for PPGW? The current London cast, as you mention Harry as Chris? I have rather the opposite problem with Harry, in that having seen him first as Francis I find it harder to see him as Chris (albeit he's improved since I first saw him go on as u/s on the tour) & I still can't quite get my head round him & Laurence having swapped roles for London! The current Peter Pan Goes Wrong cast is "mine" www.peterpangoeswrong.com/ but saying that I saw completely different people (apart from Kershaw) as those characters in Play That Goes Wrong and still loved it so my problem is very much with the TV production, plus seeing it so recently on stage rather than the cast. |
|
1,819 posts
|
Post by stevej678 on Jan 4, 2017 15:03:59 GMT
Before seeing the show in London just before Christmas I was a bit apprehensive about seeing a Mischief production without the original cast for the first time, however they were all terrific. It was probably stranger subsequently watching the TV show and seeing some of the current cast members such as Harry Kershaw and Bryony Corrigan relegated from their leading roles at the Apollo to being part of Cornley's backstage (frequently on stage) team.
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 4, 2017 15:18:58 GMT
I'm afraid I abandoned ship after 10 minutes. Maybe it worked better on stage but the massive OTT performances really put me off and got on my nerves. Didn't work for me at all. And I'd really been looking forward to it as I've yet to see any of their productions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 16:05:21 GMT
Pah. Perhaps some people should have asked Santa for a sense of humour this Christmas. I loved it myself. Yes, it's not quite the same as watching it live but all in all I thought it was rather delightful and it reminded me of lots of bits I loved about the show. I love Mischief Theatre, they should take over the whole of London's glitzy West End. They'd certainly have a good go at making 'Hedda Gabler' watchable. Careful... Some of us think it's you lot that should have asked for the sense of humour! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 16:20:02 GMT
I don't think thinking of TPTGW and PPGW as farce is particularly helpful. Sure, they fit the dictionary definition, but I feel like farce has a lot of rules that the Goes Wrongs just don't follow. Most farces aren't quite so metatheatrical, for one thing, and even ones that are - like Noises Off - are much more structured than simply "everything goes wrong". They're less sophisticated, and I don't mean that as a negative, but if you're expecting something like farces you've seen before, you're maybe not viewing it with the right mindset. Though that said, I do remember what I said the other day about sometimes people just don't like things and their dislike doesn't always have to be examined and/or explained, honest! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 16:27:20 GMT
Yup this kind of humour isn't for everyone! Also I think you have to be in the right mood for it. If I'd seen them on another day or in different company I'd have possibly hated it/them, it's all relative. So live and let laugh, or not laugh as the case may be...
|
|
167 posts
|
Post by cherokee on Jan 4, 2017 17:45:51 GMT
And I know I'm being pedantic here, but polytechnics haven't actually existed for years, have they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 18:37:04 GMT
Just managed 4mins 21 seconds of this before turning it off. Performances like that just don't work on tv
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 19:13:44 GMT
As our resident "Academic" I concur. What was Polys are now *technically* 'Post 1992 Universities' (try saying that after a few at the Student's Union) as opposed to the older 'Redbrick' and more specifc (read posh) 'Russell Group'. Most of these now have 'Metropolitan' or the like in their title so 'London Metropolitian University' or some other suffix like 'Nottingham Trent' And in some circles some people have even stopped refering to others as 'The proper one' haha (I say this all with love, I went to a Posh one but worked at an old Poly for many happy years...and some not so happy years) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 20:49:19 GMT
Caught up on this and LOVED it!! Hilarious and Mischief Theatre are all amazing performers! Nancy was simply brilliant as was Henry and Charlie!!
Is the TV show any similar to the stage show? I'm really excited to see Play goes Wrong now but i dont know if I should've booked this instead?! However, I guess it'd be too predictable.
Mischief are a great cast and great writers and brilliant how they've made a name out of themselves from just their own shows!
|
|
4,020 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Jan 4, 2017 20:53:25 GMT
I put it down to being too much of a hybrid. If as Dawnstar says, they substituted filmed jokes for their usual stage stuff, then that was the mistake. They should have decided either to simply point cameras at the regular stage and film a live recording of the show (as we all hoped and wished they had) or else decided to totally film something and "keep it real." By that, I mean film a TV play about a Poly Drama Club putting on "Peter Pan," and have set up scenes of them arriving in college for rehearsals, then doing the show and we see it on the stage. Totally disappointed, and I do hope they get to just film the shows properly. A box set of all 3, filmed live in the West End, I'd pay a LOT for. There weren't masses of substitutions, mostly it was just cuts, but I did find it jarring that the scenes with Chris on a lake & at a swimming pool were added. As it's supposed to be a play of Peter Pan sudden VT intrusions seem odd. I likewise am not mad about the ship careering through other TV studios at the end, though this may be partly due to my detestation of the Teletubbies! (I was also surprised that the BBC hadn't improved the CGI a bit. It looked to still be the same as what we were shown at Pinewood, which at the time I'd assumed was a rough cut.) Yes, I think I might have preferred it if they had totally re-written it like that than the rather rushed, slightly hybrid production we actually got. I'm wondering if the brief behind-the-scenes bit at the beginning was a later addition since they tweeted something about doing extra filming a month or two after the main filming. If they had intended it to be like that from the beginning then I can't imagine they would have bothered filming Chris & Robert's opening speech, with only small changes from the stage version, which they did, twice. I thought the behind-the-scenes bit was good & would have liked to have seen more of it (if it could have been done without cutting even more from the main show). Oh so would I but I can't see it happening. I feel guilty for criticising a version of one of my favourite shows but I guess it's because it's one of my favourite shows that I care. I've loved it onstage ever since I first saw it, 3 years & 2 days ago, and I was so excited when it was announced it was being filmed because I thought it would preserve it as I love it on stage. Sadly it hasn't. |
|
543 posts
|
Post by freckles on Jan 6, 2017 7:52:41 GMT
I enjoyed it, but I think mostly for the happy memories it brought back, of seeing the original stage production.
A lot of people seem to have taken the humour at face value rather than appreciating the meta-theatrics (or whatever we should call it!) I'm not sure all the changes added much, the only bit of added VT that worked for me was when Peter and the children "flew" out of the window.
These shows depend so heavily on the audience reaction and even one person in your living room folding their arms and not finding it at all funny will affect everyone's viewing.
I was at the filming too and, although the audience reacted positively most of the time, it was all so stop-start, with scenes repeated and done out of sequence, that the full extent of the hilarity that takes place in the theatre just wasn't reached. The interactive bit I saw filmed ("he's behind you" - "stop it, it's not a pantomime!") was very forced and fell rather flat.
I think it could have been better and I'm disappointed that everyone didn't love it. But it was still a tv highlight for me and I can't wait to go back to Play when the original cast return in February. They are a super talented bunch. Oh, and David Suchet fitted in rather well, I thought.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Jan 6, 2017 17:11:57 GMT
I was at the filming too and, although the audience reacted positively most of the time, it was all so stop-start, with scenes repeated and done out of sequence, that the full extent of the hilarity that takes place in the theatre just wasn't reached. The interactive bit I saw filmed ("he's behind you" - "stop it, it's not a pantomime!") was very forced and fell rather flat. I've been to many sitcom recordings in the past and this always happens. A lot of things which work extremely well on TV fall very flat in the room, and you are very conscious about "having" to laugh. I still stick by what I previously said - farces do not translate well onto TV, and the "put elements in which are appropriate to the medium" stuff was the best thing they could do. It was either that or record the theatre show in its entirety - but cutting the theatre show to a hour and not doing anything TV related would have seemed very strange I imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 10:04:21 GMT
Peter Pan Goes Wrong Goes Wrong
It has only just occurred to me that Mischief Theatre were adding an extra layer of "going wrong" by making a tv version that many of us would find completely unfunny - at least the four or five minutes we saw before we switched off. They succeeded!
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jan 8, 2017 10:44:56 GMT
Oh I didn't realise this would only be funny if I understood that it was 'metatheatrical'. So I've googled and now I know what metatheatre is... and lo and behold! it's still not funny.
I'll stick with face value.
|
|
