578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 22, 2017 14:55:22 GMT
After reading this thread I want to be a urologist!
|
|
19,724 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 22, 2017 14:56:12 GMT
It's making me want a wee
|
|
4,024 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Aug 22, 2017 15:01:32 GMT
I do think some who have said issues though should at least consider an aisle seat out of consideration of the others in the audience. Because its not fair to make people get up midway through a performance twice to let you in and out of your seat. It not only takes them out of the show, but also those in front and around. I quite agree with that principal in general. However it's a bit difficult for this production when the majority of the audiences will have booked tickets months before we found out that it's (probably) being done without an interval & the first 2+ months of the run are almost sold out so there's unlikely to be any opportunity for people to swap to aisle seats. |
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Aug 22, 2017 15:14:10 GMT
After reading this thread I want to be a urologist! Now you're just taking the pi..... |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 22, 2017 15:32:30 GMT
You do have a bee in your bonnet about this one, don't you!  I just don't see what the big fuss is about when people happily go to one act plays or to something like Hamlet which has something like a two hour first half but this is the show people are getting annoyed about. OK my love, but you seem more annoyed than anyone! Sure it'll be cool to see the show as it was originally performed (and I've no problems with no interval as I'm young & healthy thank goodness) but there have been so many subsequent high-profile productions that include the interval that I really don't buy the whole 'artistic integrity' thing. It will be what it will be. I'm seeing it on Sat, so I expect it to be interval-less unless it goes drastically wrong these next few days! |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Aug 22, 2017 15:33:23 GMT
If there's no interval how are we meant to post our #intervaltweets?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 15:38:27 GMT
Was it originally done without an interval anyway? I've never seen a production, but I'm assuming it was based on peoples comments and the decison being made for there to not be an interval?
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Post by ali973 on Aug 22, 2017 15:41:28 GMT
I don't need to piss. As stated above, my ass gets tired. Sitting down for two hours is just exhausting.
|
|
578 posts
|
Post by michalnowicki on Aug 22, 2017 15:46:31 GMT
If there's no interval how are we meant to post our #intervaltweets? We're just meant to do Live video on Facebook throughout the show. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 15:48:06 GMT
I've never said that the artistic integrity of the piece isn't important, I'm just surprised that so many people don't think the length is going to cause quite a bit of audience disruption towards the end of the performance once people who aren't in the know realise how long it is, and astounded at the apparent complete disregard for others and lack of concern displayed by some people in here for those who may have all manner of medical conditions. They're as entitled to go to the theatre as anyone else! I think there are a lot of very selfish attitudes being displayed in this thread and I for one find it quite distasteful. That's all I'm going to say on the point as we're just going round in circles now. If I have a medical condition that means I can't go for five secs without shouting the word 'sausage', am I as entitled to go to the theatre as anyone else, regardless of the disruption it causes others? Not trying to be unsympathetic, but I see this attitude a lot and I find it hard to see theatre-going as a right and something you're entitled to do regardless of circumstance. If you have a condition that means you can't do what going to the theatre requires (basically sit still, be quiet and not leak any bodily substances) then you might just have to accept that you can't go to the theatre. The idea that your desires aren't the most important thing in the world and that it's good to behave with some consideration towards others seems to have gone the way of the dodo. I know I sound old. Maybe I am old. I've got a bladder of steel though. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 15:50:54 GMT
We should just clarify too, for any new members, we dont just sit around talking about our bodily functions every day. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 16:04:39 GMT
We should just clarify too, for any new members, we dont just sit around talking about our bodily functions every day. Indeed not. We talk about other people's bodily functions. |
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 22, 2017 16:07:51 GMT
Was it originally done without an interval anyway? I've never seen a production, but I'm assuming it was based on peoples comments and the decison being made for there to not be an interval? So according to Wiki, it was written as one act, Hal Prince wanted one act but Michael Bennett wanted two acts. Original in 1971 was one act, but 1987 in London and 2001, 2005 & 2011 in America have all been two acts, so it's really not beyond the realms of possibility for some to be surprised by doing this production one act. I'm like you in that I've never seen it before, so it means nothing to me either way I just can't wait! |
|
67 posts
|
Post by orchestrator on Aug 22, 2017 16:26:14 GMT
That Michael Bennett lost the argument over an interval speaks volumes! That Theatre Owner and Producer Cameron Mackintosh (I imagine) won in 1987 doesn’t surprise me—with the possible exception of Ah But Underneath the changes made for London are all for the worse, and I can only imagine that CM was the instigator of them all.
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Follies
Aug 22, 2017 16:32:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by shady23 on Aug 22, 2017 16:32:31 GMT
We should just clarify too, for any new members, we dont just sit around talking about our bodily functions every day. No, just every other day. |
|
8,128 posts
|
Follies
Aug 22, 2017 16:42:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by alece10 on Aug 22, 2017 16:42:35 GMT
Could you imagine if Urinetown had no interval. The subject matter alone made we want a wee 5 mins into the show.
|
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Aug 22, 2017 17:27:30 GMT
That Michael Bennett lost the argument over an interval speaks volumes! That Theatre Owner and Producer Cameron Mackintosh (I imagine) won in 1987 doesn’t surprise me—with the possible exception of Ah But Underneath the changes made for London are all for the worse, and I can only imagine that CM was the instigator of them all. The 1987 London production, to be fair, has a completely different book - same characters, same basic plot, but completely rewritten from beginning to end - and it's structured to be in two acts. The original book was written to be performed without an interval; subsequent revivals have usually split it into two acts (and have also usually revised/edited it, never for the better), and in doing so they've simply proved that there's nowhere you can put an act break in it that doesn't feel arbitrary. |
|
5,861 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Aug 22, 2017 17:40:23 GMT
Just had an email from the NT saying they may even be adding more songs in and cut scenes so the show could run at over 3 hours and no interval. Please wear protective pants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 17:49:42 GMT
I think we're getting sidetracked here so let me bring it back to the real issue of the day. The issue is not about the integrity of the show. It's not about the running time of the show. It's not about whether someone has a weak bladder or not.
It's about having a G&T before the show and halfway through the show. Simple as that.
Big fail Norris. BIG fail. Epic.
I honestly don't know why I bought a membership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 17:53:05 GMT
Member of the (non medical, though possibly psychological) weak bladder brigade here.
This is brilliant.
I'm literally more excited about hearing how people's bladders got on tonight than I am about the show.
For the record I always get an aisle seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 17:55:03 GMT
The idea that your desires aren't the most important thing in the world and that it's good to behave with some consideration towards others seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Says the person demanding others stay at home, just on the off chance they might have to suffer the minor inconvenience of shifting in their seat to let someone visit the loo. |
|
21 posts
|
Follies
Aug 22, 2017 17:56:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by comporhys on Aug 22, 2017 17:56:02 GMT
Just arrived and there's a notice on the door saying the running time is approximately 2hrs 20mins...
|
|
1,046 posts
|
Follies
Aug 22, 2017 18:15:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by jgblunners on Aug 22, 2017 18:15:01 GMT
I'm on Twitter eagerly anticipating set photos from tonight's audience and saw this - so they've gone down the AiA route and done large programmes again!
|
|
|
|
Follies
Aug 22, 2017 18:48:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 18:48:49 GMT
I think we're getting sidetracked here so let me bring it back to the real issue of the day. The issue is not about the integrity of the show. It's not about the running time of the show. It's not about whether someone has a weak bladder or not. It's about having a G&T before the show and halfway through the show. Simple as that. Big fail Norris. BIG fail. Epic. I honestly don't know why I bought a membership. I endorse this message. A drink before the show is just enough to make you look forward to the next one. It is not even close to being enough in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2017 18:51:13 GMT
Just arrived and there's a notice on the door saying the running time is approximately 2hrs 20mins... OK we may be getting into the "an interval for the Golden Girls" territory. |
|
