|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 29, 2016 0:42:01 GMT
I don't think the prescription of anything should be joked about.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 29, 2016 0:56:27 GMT
I don't think the prescription of anything should be joked about. Hm. And I think you've taken a harmless, flippant remark I made (and no, I'm not suggesting that any and all prescriptions are harmless should be talked about flippantly) and turned it into something it clearly wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 29, 2016 0:57:44 GMT
It was only clear to you, because you said it.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 29, 2016 1:12:00 GMT
It was only clear to you, because you said it. Maybe. Also possible that you saw what you wanted to see and made something of it. Could be a mixture of the two - trouble with conveying tone over the internet. Anyway, two members you've potentially driven away from this thread so far, apologies for any offence caused. Good luck all!  |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 29, 2016 1:21:50 GMT
You were doing so well with your first paragraph.
I completely agree about tone online, but then you ruin it with your second paragraph.
You might as well have said 'I'm sorry you disagree/were upset/were offended, but . . .' because that's how hollow it comes across.
|
|
2,452 posts
|
Post by theatremadness on Aug 29, 2016 1:35:55 GMT
You were doing so well with your first paragraph. I completely agree about tone online, but then you ruin it with your second paragraph. You might as well have said 'I'm sorry you disagree/were upset/were offended, but . . .' because that's how hollow it comes across as. Well the hollowness would also be trouble of tone on the internet. I could say your first sentence is extremely patronising, treating me like a child in school doing an English assignment, but I genuinely don't think you meant it that way. Maybe you did, but surely one should come to a conclusion that they really feel is most appropriate. And I won't out-and-out tell you that that's what it was, because we can all see how things can be read differently from how they were meant, as has been demonstrated tonight. As it happens, my apology was totally sincere and I am genuinely sorry if you were indeed upset or offended, there was no 'but...'. The good luck and a winky face was purely jovial, and I said what I said as I felt that 1), you were unnecessarily harsh towards bop who said that they would 'give it a rest' upon your request, that made them feel as if they were unwelcome. I'm not here to put words into bop's mouth, he/she can speak for themselves if they so wish! And 2) that there was no point us going round in circles as we both obviously feel pretty strongly. If you want me to be honest, I felt you were trying to 'pick a fight' (for want of a better phrase) out of nothing over my use of prescribing (which led me to saying I was feeling driven away from this thread), completely ignoring the rest of the post. Obviously it's quite possible that to you, it could well be not out of nothing, I am becoming fully aware of that. But I'm sure that you are also fully aware that there is no possible way for me to have ever known that in my first reply. I am also worried now that something I've said may again come across as not what I meant. If this is the case, I ask you to use your better judgement and know that this was not the intended case. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 29, 2016 1:47:27 GMT
Perhaps when judging people's responses to other people, you should go back over the thread first. Maybe then you might find the reasons I have said what I said. You may also see the irony of you criticising me for picking and choosing which parts of a post I reply to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 5:38:10 GMT
Enthusiasm or advertising? I think you might be wildly overestimating the amount of traffic this board gets! Many threads appear to me to be dormant for days- if I was being paid, surely my time would be better spent elsewhere. Happy to confirm that my interest in this show is, sadly enough for me, given the accusation, just my own interest. I appreciate that the tenor of the forum is predominantly personal experiences of having seen the show and if I broke some protocol or unspoken rule when posting links to professional reviews, or impacted on the integrity of the forum, then I apologise, but I'm sure others would have been more than happy to share critics' reviews if they slated the production, as they have a right to do. If I came on here bitching about the production every day and posting one star reviews (if they ever exist) then nobody would accuse me of anything. Ok, maybe I'd be accused of being a troll. My only question now is how I can get paid for posting on forums about things I love... $$$$$$... but I fear my views on trashy pop music and film are not as commercially viable as I would like! I won't be seeing the show myself until November so I might pop back then to comment. |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 29, 2016 8:06:07 GMT
Enthusiasm or advertising? I think you might be wildly overestimating the amount of traffic this board gets! Many threads appear to me to be dormant for days- if I was being paid, surely my time would be better spent elsewhere. ....... I appreciate that the tenor of the forum is predominantly personal experiences of having seen the show and if I broke some protocol or unspoken rule when posting links to professional reviews, or impacted on the integrity of the forum, then I apologise, but I'm sure others would have been more than happy to share critics' reviews if they slated the production, as they have a right to do. If I came on here bitching about the production every day and posting one star reviews (if they ever exist) then nobody would accuse me of anything. Ok, maybe I'd be accused of being a troll. No rules broken @bop (you might be surprised at how much traffic we get though ) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2016 8:44:52 GMT
^ Thank you- it wasn't meant in a derogatory way- just an observation! I can see that there is quite a bit of 'guest' traffic.
|
|
197 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by dan on Aug 29, 2016 8:44:55 GMT
I'm truly surprised at the glowing reviews etc based on what I saw. Which confuses me a lot as I'm so easily pleased, generally speaking, with the theatre, and rarely does a show turn me off. Even shows that are universally panned I typically enjoy something about. But this production, or more specifically, the night I saw it, turned me off the show so much and even made me delete Sister Act from my playlist. I've also realised that I became really quite poorly the day after, so perhaps my experience was tainted with illness and I should maybe give it another go some other time. However, the parts I found offensive are still very likely to do the same again. I desperately want a good experience of the show as it was up in my top musicals and has since plummeted off the radar of my list.
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 30, 2016 21:44:47 GMT
Just back.
Oh dear.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
Dearie me. Oh dear. Dear dear dear.... Oh dear.
Oh.
Dear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 21:51:34 GMT
Just back. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dearie me. Oh dear. Dear dear dear.... Oh dear. Oh. Dear. You liked it then... |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 30, 2016 21:53:44 GMT
.....dear oh dear oh dear
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 23:29:40 GMT
.....dear oh dear oh dear [bp] Please share your thoughts! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 7:24:19 GMT
Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Dearie me. Oh dear. Dear dear dear.... Oh dear. Oh. Dear. Best. Review. Ever. |
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 31, 2016 10:05:01 GMT
Thanks Matthew! I feel I should elaborate though.
She can't sing it.
Sorry. But she can't.
She's fine on the lower register slower songs in Act 2 but she was struggling big time with a lot of Act 1. I listened to Patina Miller singing Fabulous Baby when I got home and they are as chalk and cheese. Alexandra has very little power on the higher notes, appeared to be straining and was often drowned out by the band.
Her acting was sassy but without substance. She made Deloris into a caracature. The two AB fanboys behind me loved it though, and whooped annoyingly every time she moved a little finger or did a neck roll.
The sound mix was dreadful in the first half hour and only slightly improved. Several punchlines failed to land because the audience couldn't hear them.
Rest of cast were ok, although Eddie lacked impact. Curtis was good (nice bum in the tight flares too!). Nuns were great.
Overall there was a great deal of effort and enthusiasm on stage but something was lacking. I don't think AB should take sole responsibility for that but CRH certainly should. He won't though because there was a 90% standing ovation in the stalls and most of the audience seemed to think it was fab.u.lus darling.
I was was so looking forward to it too.
Oh dear.
|
|
19,659 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Aug 31, 2016 10:05:57 GMT
P.s I like Alexandra, I thought she was much better in The Bodyguard.
|
|
642 posts
|
Post by Stasia on Aug 31, 2016 13:53:51 GMT
Saw this a week ago in Leeds with Joanna Francis as Deloris, she was really lovely and had some Whoopi-reminding look which I liked. I saw Stage Entertainment France version in Mogador theatre Paris in 2013, it obviously had more expensive set and costumes but even the touring version worked great.
And obviously Jon Robyns is my personal greatest star of the whole thing. Loved his Eddie!
|
|
48 posts
|
Post by centaured on Sept 1, 2016 22:31:11 GMT
Have to agree with Burly, AB was underpowered and just not able to carry the character for the show. I even cringed at parts of the show I disliked it that much and I only didn't leave half way through as I hoped it would improve.
It felt like CRH had put the mannerisms of a drag race drag queen onto a black woman in the 1970s and that jarred badly with me and felt cheap, desperate and tacky. I applaud AB for not just phoning in sick and telling him to stick it.
Bad sound, couldn't hear words clearly (but I've had that a few times at the palace theatre... Hmmmm) and AB was outshone by pretty much all of the other nuns.
This is absolutely an avoid for me, not worth the money at all.
|
|
71 posts
|
Post by universetipping on Sept 2, 2016 1:11:36 GMT
Just said I'd add to the confusion in this thread.
Saw the show this week and I wonder if I saw the same show as the poster above...
Harsh criticisms indeed.
Look, it's complete candy floss fun but I found it utterly charming, funny, and enjoyable. The finale is just superb! Such a joy!
I think Alexandra did a really good job, sure she's camp in parts but she also did well in the more serious moments in the second half- I particularly liked her 'Sister Act.'
Her portrayal maybe did stray to caricature once or twice, but overall she won me over in the role, and she's clearly worked on her acting since the Bodyguard.
I liked her interaction with the ensemble, but equally, at other times, she had a lot of magnetism and 'owned' the stage.
AB's vocals and tone are very different to Patina Miller and Cynthia. She's not a sound alike, undoubtedly, and was breathy st times- if you expect to hear Patina, you will be disappointed.
But I do think she more than does the role justice.
Really liked Sarah Goggin as Sr Mary Robert- loved Jon Robyns and Karen Mann too.
I liked the set- it's simple and atmospheric but effective. And beautiful!
The lighting is evocative and used to clever effect. I did feel that the second half dragged a little but the finale dispelled any doubts!
Much fun was had!
****
|
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Sept 9, 2016 0:02:30 GMT
I saw this in Sunderland tonight.
If I hadn't seen the show before I would probably had said it was great but I have several times and all were better versions of the show I saw tonight.
Was not fussed with the actors playing instruments as it seemed they had done casting in the order if can you play an instrument and then, if yes, can you dance and sing a bit. Compared to London cast and previous tour I thought the cast was weak.
Curtis had a lovely voice but wasn't particularly scary.
The Nuns were good but not great. Certainly not in the class of Julie Atherton et Al.
Alexandra was fine. Strained vocals at times and some acting suspect at but these kind of tours always seem to need a "name" these days to sell. If it wasn't for her I think it would have been a lot quieter. In fact, the theatre was very full.
Replacing the how I got the calling song with a song about being a nun which had the same tune.... no no no! What were they thinking?
Lots of the dialogue I couldn't make out what was being said. Not sure if it was bad diction, poor sound quality or a mixture of the two.
The high tempo numbers with everyone involved were fabulous, baby.
Fabulous baby was not fabulous, baby. She couldn't do it justice (to be fair, not many could....) lots of other songs like sister act were sung beautifully though.
All in all, a nice enough evening out but I am a little disappointed.
|
|
3 posts
|
Post by gfell70 on Sept 12, 2016 15:22:08 GMT
I'm seeing this in November and have mentioned this to 'bop' on twitter. Having seen the London version and the UK tour which followed (which I actually thought was better), I'm certainly concerned that this is a much more scaled down version. Not sure about actors/musicians on stage and just the one set but I will reserve judgement til when I see it.
Although reading some of the comments I'm not being filled with much enthusiasm.
Trouble with shows that are being 're produced' there is always something to compare it to, and always hope that improvements are made with each incarnation, as I will with the new La Cage tour next year.
|
|
1,013 posts
|
Post by talkstageytome on Sept 12, 2016 15:47:36 GMT
I'm actually seeing this tonight. Will come back and write about it afterwards. Never seen a production before but love the cast album.
|
|
21 posts
|
Post by comporhys on Sept 12, 2016 16:10:28 GMT
After seeing the production at the Sunderland Empire last week, I can only echo the negative comments made about earlier in the tour.
I am aware that my negative feelings towards this production may have been influenced by my love of the previous UK tour - it was the first musical I "loved" and wanted to return to with as many friends as I could drag along. In part because of this, it just seemed like a weak imitation of the Stage Entertainment UK version. The set, acting and production values all seemed so much weaker than the previous version (in a similar way to Leicester's recent Hairspray tour).
It was obvious from much of the audience reaction that many people were there to see Alexandra Burke and given it sold so well, she obviously did the trick for the producers. However, her performance was so weak. The moments where Deloris 'belts' a number were fine, but the softer musical moments and acting parts were the stuff of am-dram: just cringeworthy.
The rest of the cast were all fine - and I am in awe of their ability to sing, dance, act AND remember to play a musical instrument, yet the whole production failed to match the class of SEUK's version; having nuns on stage for Lady in the Long Black Dresss turned what was previously a hilarious moment into simply awkwardness. The stuff about looking up their habits etc was just too literal for the audience's liking...in fact the lack of laughter throughout suggested that either the audience didn't get it or the cast played it wrong; probably a mixture of both.
Anyway, I think I'd mark this down as a "3* - missed opportunity" - if you've never seen it before, you should definately go, but don't bother if you have been to the "original" production or tour.
|
|
