494 posts
|
Post by ellie1981 on Feb 2, 2018 11:04:03 GMT
Seeing the film at the Prince Charles Cinema tonight. Maybe next year for the show.
|
|
3,539 posts
|
Post by Rory on Feb 23, 2018 5:37:23 GMT
Baz reports a new London run may be two or three years away until the right sized theatre can be found.
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on Feb 23, 2018 11:56:44 GMT
Surely they’ll be able to find something sooner than that! Is anything going in the Piccadilly after Strictly Ballroom? I’m sure that would be a good size theatre for it?
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Feb 23, 2018 16:24:00 GMT
|
|
3,539 posts
|
Post by Rory on Feb 23, 2018 17:00:23 GMT
It sounds now like it might never happen, which would be a shame. Fingers crossed that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 21:21:56 GMT
Damn! Thank God we have the OBC recording to make the waiting a little bit easier.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Feb 25, 2018 18:20:34 GMT
I do wonder in this current climate how well Phil’s lascivious bed-hopping with half the females in the town would be received? I don’t remember Phil being such a massive lech in the movie.
I didn’t love the show when I saw it in the UK. I found Andy Karl’s portrayal of Phil really unlikeable (in the wrong way) and thought the female lead was really weak.
To me the score, apart from the absolutely beautiful last song was completely forgettable and Ned Ryerson’s lament for his dead wife juxtaposed with Phil on the revolve,attempting to resuscitate a tramp was a shocker.
I know the British critics fawned over it (possibly decided beforehand given the past pedigree of Warchus & Minchin) but I’m not surprised it didn’t last long on Broadway. In my humble opinion , it would need a massive rethink and overhaul before it could be successfully restaged anywhere.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 26, 2018 3:37:42 GMT
Uhm, Ned’s song ISN’T a lament for his dead wife, it’s about the inevitability of death itself. That’s why it is juxtaposed with Phil trying and failing to save the tramp.
People didn’t ‘fawn over it’ because of anyone’s track record, it’s just that some of us got it on that deep, spine-tingling, revelatory level. Others didn’t get it at all. That’s the way it goes sometimes.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Feb 26, 2018 9:49:33 GMT
Uhm, Ned’s song ISN’T a lament for his dead wife, it’s about the inevitability of death itself. That’s why it is juxtaposed with Phil trying and failing to save the tramp. People didn’t ‘fawn over it’ because of anyone’s track record, it’s just that some of us got it on that deep, spine-tingling, revelatory level. Others didn’t get it at all. That’s the way it goes sometimes. Uhm, I suspect the lament was fuelled by the fact that his wife died, but apologies if the word ‘about’ was misleading. In my opinion (which I believe is the point of this board), I thought that number was painful and not in the way it may have been intended. It wasn’t that I didn’t ‘get it’, I got the intention, I just found it interminable and didn’t think it worked. I didn’t say ‘people’, I said ‘critics’ who I do believe can be predisposed to look favourably upon some people’s work If they are in vogue for successful past work and vice versa. Not everybody has the same take on shows. That’s the way it goes sometimes. |
|
28 posts
|
Post by mrcompanymanager on Feb 26, 2018 10:46:09 GMT
I dont have any deep comments to make, I just don't think it was very good and didn't enjoy it.
|
|
4,155 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 27, 2018 1:17:34 GMT
Uhm, Ned’s song ISN’T a lament for his dead wife, it’s about the inevitability of death itself. That’s why it is juxtaposed with Phil trying and failing to save the tramp. People didn’t ‘fawn over it’ because of anyone’s track record, it’s just that some of us got it on that deep, spine-tingling, revelatory level. Others didn’t get it at all. That’s the way it goes sometimes. Uhm, I suspect the lament was fuelled by the fact that his wife died, but apologies if the word ‘about’ was misleading. In my opinion (which I believe is the point of this board), I thought that number was painful and not in the way it may have been intended. It wasn’t that I didn’t ‘get it’, I got the intention, I just found it interminable and didn’t think it worked. I didn’t say ‘people’, I said ‘critics’ who I do believe can be predisposed to look favourably upon some people’s work If they are in vogue for successful past work and vice versa. Not everybody has the same take on shows. That’s the way it goes sometimes. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not to try and invalidate other people’s. I can accept that you got nothing out of Groundhog Day if you can accept that many people - including critics, who despite popular belief *are* people too - genuinely found it to be wonderful and utterly love it. It’s literally in my top 5 new musicals this decade. There is no need to be do disparaging about people (including critics!) who got things from it that you didn’t. |
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Feb 27, 2018 12:02:14 GMT
Uhm, I suspect the lament was fuelled by the fact that his wife died, but apologies if the word ‘about’ was misleading. In my opinion (which I believe is the point of this board), I thought that number was painful and not in the way it may have been intended. It wasn’t that I didn’t ‘get it’, I got the intention, I just found it interminable and didn’t think it worked. I didn’t say ‘people’, I said ‘critics’ who I do believe can be predisposed to look favourably upon some people’s work If they are in vogue for successful past work and vice versa. Not everybody has the same take on shows. That’s the way it goes sometimes. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not to try and invalidate other people’s. I can accept that you got nothing out of Groundhog Day if you can accept that many people - including critics, who despite popular belief *are* people too - genuinely found it to be wonderful and utterly love it. It’s literally in my top 5 new musicals this decade. There is no need to be do disparaging about people (including critics!) who got things from it that you didn’t. |
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Feb 27, 2018 12:14:58 GMT
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not to try and invalidate other people’s. I can accept that you got nothing out of Groundhog Day if you can accept that many people - including critics, who despite popular belief *are* people too - genuinely found it to be wonderful and utterly love it. It’s literally in my top 5 new musicals this decade. There is no need to be do disparaging about people (including critics!) who got things from it that you didn’t. |
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on Feb 27, 2018 12:25:35 GMT
I genuinely have no idea why you think I was being disparaging or attempting to invalidate differing opinions to this show. I very clearly used the words 'in my opinion'. I'm delighted for people who loved GD honestly, I just wasn't one of them.
As far as critics go, I stand by what I said. I'm not generalising or attempting to invalidate/be disparaging about their work. There are many great critics out there, but from my work in the business I do know that *some* of them tend to decide what they think of a show before they've seen it (a good example is the way The Book of Mormon and Hamilton were reviewed in a certain tabloid newspaper, in my opinion,that wasn't just an opinion but also an agenda!).
Anyway life is too short for a spat on a Theatre Board,. Have a nice day.
|
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on May 8, 2018 16:37:39 GMT
Pointless just had a musical theatre round, and Alexander Armstrong mentioned that he was asked to be in Groundhog Day. He didn't specify which role..
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on May 8, 2018 16:44:00 GMT
Pointless just had a musical theatre round, and Alexander Armstrong mentioned that he was asked to be in Groundhog Day. He didn't specify which role.. Probably the drummer with the giant Groundhog head. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 17:06:09 GMT
Pointless just had a musical theatre round, and Alexander Armstrong mentioned that he was asked to be in Groundhog Day. He didn't specify which role.. Ha, I did wonder about which role specifically also. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2018 17:13:05 GMT
Seeing as he's a big name here, could he have played Phil Connors??
He has a great voice, but I'm not sure musical ttheatre would suit him.
I actually thought the .....Boys answer was Scotsborough Boys. I ignored the date totally.
|
|
264 posts
|
Post by squidward on May 9, 2018 14:21:24 GMT
Seeing as he's a big name here, could he have played Phil Connors?? He has a great voice, but I'm not sure musical ttheatre would suit him. I actually thought the .....Boys answer was Scotsborough Boys. I ignored the date totally. He could probably manage a character like King George in Hamilton or s similar small cameo, but as for a lead or major supporting role, I very much doubt it. |
|
421 posts
|
Post by carmella1 on May 9, 2018 15:33:52 GMT
No to both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 16:57:54 GMT
He was probably asked for Phil, or if not maybe Ned Ryerson?
Either way it must have been when it was in workshop as they are both pretty phyiscal roles for someone not used to musical theatre (as Ned is part of the ensemble too).
But if Armstrong is what would bring this show back to London already then so be it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2018 17:05:57 GMT
He was probably asked for Phil, or if not maybe Ned Ryerson? Either way it must have been when it was in workshop as they are both pretty phyiscal roles for someone not used to musical theatre (as Ned is part of the ensemble too). But if Armstrong is what would bring this show back to London already then so be it! It was when the show was in its very early days, likely workshops and he turned it down. Unlikely he’d be asked again for any potential return. |
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on May 9, 2018 17:49:12 GMT
Every time I see this thread get bumped up I get a surge of excitement thinking the return has been announced. Please stop toying with my emotions!
|
|
629 posts
|
Post by jamb0r on May 22, 2018 16:41:19 GMT
|
|
2,679 posts
|
Post by viserys on May 22, 2018 16:45:27 GMT
"The show is currently available for licensing in North America, with some international restrictions."
I guess this means they're aiming for the North American market for now and international restrictions apply for countries where a bigger professional production might be planned? So doesn't rule out a return to London.
|
|
