|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 18:03:18 GMT
Truly the Crucible is the new Lourdes. What is your problem? You haven't posted a single constructive post in this thread... Or on any thread! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 18:11:01 GMT
This is a discussion forum, not a fanzone, or a place to promote vested interests.
In fact, I did say that I found the publicity misleading, so that is a constructive criticism to suggest that the publicity should be more clear in future. Now that the show has had its run in Sheffield and there's wider public knowledge of it, I expect that future showings will be publicised less coyly and more clearly.
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 26, 2017 19:14:36 GMT
This is a discussion forum, not a fanzone, or a place to promote vested interests. In fact, I did say that I found the publicity misleading, so that is a constructive criticism to suggest that the publicity should be more clear in future. Now that the show has had its run in Sheffield and there's wider public knowledge of it, I expect that future showings will be publicised less coyly and more clearly. Can you point me to where exactly the publicity is misleading please? The publicity I saw said that Jamie has a secret, you said that you thought it was going to be about him being transgender and expressed disappointment that this wasn't the story. Fair enough if the concept didn't live up to your expectations but where exactly were you misled? Where was transgender mentioned apart from in my very first post in this thread which was pure speculation? Also nobody is treating this thread like a fanzone. They're reporting what they have seen. You haven't seen it, so...... If you want to see a fanzone there are other threads that might qualify. I don't see you calling those out. Why? . Finally. Your continual singling out of less able members of the audience not being able to stand for an ovation is starting to sound obsessive and borderline offensive. |
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Feb 26, 2017 19:14:45 GMT
This is a discussion forum, not a fanzone, or a place to promote vested interests. In fact, I did say that I found the publicity misleading, so that is a constructive criticism to suggest that the publicity should be more clear in future. Now that the show has had its run in Sheffield and there's wider public knowledge of it, I expect that future showings will be publicised less coyly and more clearly. Take a look back at the publicity and you'll see it was advertised perfectly clearly. The publicity stated "Jamie has a secret". I fail to see how this is at all misleading |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 22:23:54 GMT
Take a look back at the publicity and you'll see it was advertised perfectly clearly. The publicity stated "Jamie has a secret". I fail to see how this is at all misleading There's no right or wrong here. The publicity said different things to different people. There was an image in the publicity in addition to the text. I've said what the publicity meant to me. I can't make you believe me. |
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 26, 2017 22:46:51 GMT
Take a look back at the publicity and you'll see it was advertised perfectly clearly. The publicity stated "Jamie has a secret". I fail to see how this is at all misleading There's no right or wrong here. The publicity said different things to different people. There was an image in the publicity in addition to the text. I've said what the publicity meant to me. I can't make you believe me. Which image? Show us. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:01:40 GMT
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Feb 26, 2017 23:06:43 GMT
That really suggests nothing about the character being transgender... |
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 26, 2017 23:10:52 GMT
What? This one? What is it about this that says "transgender" to you?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:39:07 GMT
I agree that the image of Jamie, a 16-year-old "he", doesn't specify either transgender or cross-dressing or just playing around or a part-time drag persona, which I understand from other people's posts about the musical is in fact his "secret".
I was unaware that there's apparently now a big teenage drag scene, as someone explained upthread. I tend to think of drag as a past historical aberration, as a coping mechanism at times when sexualities had to be hidden. Whereas transgender has become very prominent in the media, in the arts and entertainment and in society in recent years.
So I never considered a part-time drag persona as a possibility. For me, transgender seemed the only likely possibility. That is why I assumed from this publicity that Jamie's secret was that she was a transgender female. I felt that the publicity didn't specify his secret, and I have explained why I thought that. I accept that the information was sufficient for you to correctly identify his secret. Congratulations! That doesn't alter the fact that it made me expect something that turned out to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:45:53 GMT
Perhaps Dan213 and/or Burly Bear could enlighten me by telling me how I was meant to interpret the publicity?
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Feb 27, 2017 0:03:37 GMT
Perhaps Dan213 and/or Burly Bear could enlighten me by telling me how I was meant to interpret the publicity? Could have Googled it perhaps? I'm sure if you were genuinely interested then you would have. There are articles from Nov/Dec time last year that outline the inspirations for the story. I think the root of the issue here is that you want to kick up a fuss and gain attention on a public forum. Your posts in other threads lean this way too... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 6:13:45 GMT
A show about acceptance starts a squabble about what interpretations people are permitted to have had.
OK.
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 27, 2017 6:50:50 GMT
Not really. I think HG s just trying to swerve the focus of the discussion away from his earlier comments. Understandably! Let's move on eh  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 10:12:10 GMT
Perhaps Dan213 and/or Burly Bear could enlighten me by telling me how I was meant to interpret the publicity? Could have Googled it perhaps? I'm sure if you were genuinely interested then you would have. There are articles from Nov/Dec time last year that outline the inspirations for the story. I think the root of the issue here is that you want to kick up a fuss and gain attention on a public forum. Your posts in other threads lean this way too... So, your answer is that the official publicity was intended to interest people sufficiently to Google for unofficial articles which were published after the official publicity? I doubt that. May I ask Burly Bear and/or Dan to kindly tell us how they interpreted the publicity (text and image) at the time they first saw them, i.e. before Googling for unofficial articles at a later date? |
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 27, 2017 10:20:08 GMT
No, because I'm not complaining about being misled. So it's completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 10:37:57 GMT
No, because I'm not complaining about being misled. So it's completely irrelevant. You scoffed at how I interpreted it, implying either that you didn't believe me or that there was another interpretation obvious to you and which you thought should have been obvious to me. Now you don't deign to explain your scoff. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 27, 2017 11:06:32 GMT
HG - Nobody scoffed at your interpretation. The 'conflict' arose from your vocal disappointment of the show not being about what you thought it was. Instead of shrugging your shoulders and getting on with life you bemoaned this on a public message board and are now unhappy with the attention and responses that this has received.
BB - You are a moderator on said message board and as such should not be quite so 'stick pointy'. Riling people up will of course encourage people to bite. I hope you have learnt from this and can improve your moderation skills accordingly.
Dan - Has stated some facts and has in fact seen the show.
This, to me, is a quick summary of what's going on here. Nobody has died, nobody has been profaned and nothing of any consequence has occurred. Time to step away Gentlemen. (nearly put a gag here about assuming you were all gentlemen based on the publicity but thought better of it).
It is tiring and frustrating to read threads like this that go on and on. The answer is not 'well don't read them then'. The answer is 'well don't create them then'. God knows there is enough intolerance in the world about things that actually matter!
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 27, 2017 13:54:06 GMT
Thank so for the advice, noted! |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Feb 27, 2017 14:29:35 GMT
Absolutely no thanks neccessary Burly. I'm quite sure you'd already taken yourself away for some self admonishment! Y'know the kids look up to you.
|
|
541 posts
|
Post by drowseychap on Mar 2, 2017 0:59:15 GMT
I for once didn't read any reviews before I saw a show as some of my fave shows have had terrible reviews in the past .....I loved seeing this show on Saturday and crave for more ... after reading over 12 reviews online I would be very surprised if we didn't see this again surely ? A tour maybe ? Don't think I've ever read so many positive or glowing reviews for a new musical
|
|
1,218 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Mar 2, 2017 2:37:12 GMT
I for once didn't read any reviews before I saw a show as some of my fave shows have had terrible reviews in the past .....I loved seeing this show on Saturday and crave for more ... after reading over 12 reviews online I would be very surprised if we didn't see this again surely ? A tour maybe ? Don't think I've ever read so many positive or glowing reviews for a new musical We loved it too when we saw the final Friday show. But we all thought the same thing: it's quality production values and staging make it seem destined for London, but the story takes too much from other hits shows: Priscilla is there, Billy Elliot is there, Wicked is there, La Cage is there, Kinky Boots is there, and so many others. It's like a mash up of a cliched musical, even though, in performance, and with the great atmosphere in that theatre it felt anything but a cliche of musical theatre. For these reasons it should be a bone fide hit transfer. But these are the reasons also why it won't transfer or be a hit. A shame, as we really loved it. |
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Mar 2, 2017 7:24:30 GMT
That is very well put, nash16. There was little that was surprising or new in the message, yet the audience were loving it because it was done well and it seemed that it was a story they wanted to hear. Just in the small section around us were a very elderly man who has loved musicals for years, two ladies in their sixties, a family with children under twelve and a group of young men. I heard them all at different times reacting really positively. I was saying on the way home that it's a great show for schools/youth groups to see and perform but I wondered if some of the jokes and language would be too much. Tricky one. I can certainly see this touring successfully but would it survive in town?
|
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 2, 2017 8:04:53 GMT
Some friends of mine saw a school production of Billy Elliott last week and it was complete with ALL of the language which surprised me.
|
|
591 posts
|
Post by lou105 on Mar 2, 2017 8:25:43 GMT
Some friends of mine saw a school production of Billy Elliott last week and it was complete with ALL of the language which surprised me. Wow! It's a tricky one because I'm always assured that kids hear far worse in school every day than you find on most stages, but that's not the same as the school encouraging /endorsing the language! I thought everything in Jamie was justified by context but it still adds a barrier for most teachers, I would think. |
|
