3,307 posts
|
Post by david on Aug 10, 2019 18:13:43 GMT
Is the disappointing bit they did on ITV still part of the show? If your talking about the quick change bit, then that’s a yes but it’s been reworked since being on tv. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 22:25:52 GMT
Is the disappointing bit they did on ITV still part of the show? If your talking about the quick change bit, then that’s a yes but it’s been reworked since being on tv. Ah, good, thanks, hope it works better. It’s the first time I’ve been disappointed by Mischief and was putting me off booking. Maybe I will see it in London after all... |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Sept 17, 2019 19:08:33 GMT
|
|
4,987 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 17, 2019 21:55:37 GMT
Surprised at the lack of traffic on this thread, considering it has been playing over a month. Sure I haven’t seen any reviews for this yet?
Any gunshots?
|
|
4,987 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 17, 2019 22:00:26 GMT
Edit: erynconfused thought this doesn’t begin until before Christmas?
|
|
489 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by djdan14 on Sept 18, 2019 16:45:16 GMT
Surprised at the lack of traffic on this thread, considering it has been playing over a month. Sure I haven’t seen any reviews for this yet? Any gunshots? No gunshots but various pyrotechnics including a cannon but not particularly loud |
|
|
|
Post by tw on Sept 19, 2019 13:05:40 GMT
Extended to 31st May 2020.
|
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Sept 19, 2019 18:19:37 GMT
That's interesting. I wonder why? While it looks like it's sold well over Christmas there's plenty of availability for the rest of the run so I find it hard to belive it's due to overwhelming demand. It makes me wonder whether something has happened to delay the third show, whatever that is going to be.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Dec 14, 2019 19:13:41 GMT
Outside theatre at the moment for first WE performance.
House not yet open at 7.13pm. According to Front of House, the dress rehearsal went well and they're currently putting "finishing touches to the set". We've had several waves of FoH staff reassuring people that they won't start the show until everyone is inside (obviously..).
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Dec 14, 2019 22:54:25 GMT
And I'm out.
That was the first time I've stepped out of a Mischief show or recording feeling flat.
There are some good moments in this, the Mind Mangler stuff is all solid (partially as a direct result of Henry Lewis) but otherwise it's ropey and too obvious.
Half of Act 1 I spent not knowing whether something was meant to have gone wrong, whether we were meant to see something or not and other considerations - which led to a confused narrative and lack of clarity about what show we should be seeing.
Act 2 improved in parts, it opened well and had a solid final two "acts" but the middle was weak.
I don't think there's anything funny about the concept of seeing someone "drown" on stage with a member of the audience involved in the "trick" which went wrong which "led to it", especially as another audience member is on stage counting up each 30 seconds on a stopwatch. Even though on one level the audience know the actor is fine, there's limits which farce/comedy should be and this does not match the point the company have been working with until now.
Theres a warning in the foyer for something akin to "there are scenes which may be triggering for some people" - not a warning you should see when you walk into a comedy.
Horrendous misfire.
Which is a tragedy considering the heights this ensemble have been at before. Its even less forgivable considering the amount of workshopping/try outs this show has had before its West End opening.
|
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 14, 2019 23:46:19 GMT
Theres a warning in the foyer for something akin to "there are scenes which may be triggering for some people" - not a warning you should see when you walk into a comedy. The scene I had a real problem with was the lady-sawn-in-half trick going wrong, which made me feel sick. Yes, obviously I know it's not real, but I don't want to see fake entrails on stage either. I'm not sure I want to see the show again because of that scene. If I do then I'll have my eyes shut for that. As someone with pretty much a lifelong dislike of magic shows I'm not really a good person to comment on the rest of it. Some of it I reasonably liked - my favourite scene from the try-outs 18 months ago has survived mostly unchanged & is still my favourite scene, Henry Shields' doves act - & other parts I wasn't so keen on. For anyone who's seen the TV bits, the Mind Mangler is still in but there is mercifully no sign of the deeply annoying character Nancy appeared as. For anyone who saw the try-outs as part of the MMN tour: the first trick that was done by Bryony & Jonathan is now done by Henry S & Dave; Bryony's other tricks are gone & she now plays a totally different character; the Mind Mangler has had changes but most of the tricks are similar; as already said, the doves act is pretty similar. As I didn't see it at the Lowry I don't know how much has changed from that. A certain amount of back-story has been added which does have an emotional pay-off at the end, which I think is an improvement, but I didn't find myself caring about the characters & wanting them to suceed in the way I do with the Cornley characters in the previous Goes Wrong shows. I suppose I feel that whereas the previous 4 shows broadly form an ascent of trying to increase characterisation & emotion, this one doesn't follow the same trend. I'm sure it will be very successful with the public but it's not really for me. |
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Dec 15, 2019 0:59:07 GMT
Yes, agreed that the dove act was very well executed. However the missing doves pre-show really was "have you seen Winston?" all over again. And Henry Lewis' door problems was also a Play rip off in many ways.
Agree that the saw in half thing went too far, although the idea that she actually was going to be cut in half was so clearly signposted that it was virtually pointless.
The emotional arc at the end smacked of "guys, let's put some character stuff in now!" and it wasn't done well enough for me to care at all. The very convenient "she was my mum" thing was daft. The father/son plot made a lot of sense in terms of explaining why Shields' character was the way he was.
The problem with Mischief's emotional stuff is they set it up in the same way as they set up jokes, whereas it needs to be seeded in a totally different way. I get this is clearly where they want to start going creatively - Groan Ups is the best evidence if this - however they definitely are not there yet in this regard.
On a separate note, where's Charlie Russell?
|
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 15, 2019 13:56:52 GMT
Agree that the saw in half thing went too far, although the idea that she actually was going to be cut in half was so clearly signposted that it was virtually pointless. I knew it was going to happen because one of the producers, who knows I'm very squeamish, warned me beforehand. That still didn't stop me feeling sick actually watching it though. On a separate note, where's Charlie Russell? I spotted her in the audience last night. I don't know why she's not in the show though. She did have a small role in the try-outs 18 months ago so I was surprised when the announced the cast that she wasn't in it. Running time warning for anyone seeing it soon, the programme gives the running time as 2h15 but last night we didn't get out until nearly 10.15pm. Admittedly some of that was due to a late start & the interval over-running a bit but Act 1 ran about an hour & Act 2 nearly 1h10 so allowing for a 20 mins interval it's nearer 2h30 to 2h15 at the moment. It'll be interesting to hear if they do manage to get it down to 2h15 later in the run. |
|
1,218 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Dec 15, 2019 14:12:38 GMT
And I'm out. That was the first time I've stepped out of a Mischief show or recording feeling flat. There are some good moments in this, the Mind Mangler stuff is all solid (partially as a direct result of Henry Lewis) but otherwise it's ropey and too obvious. Half of Act 1 I spent not knowing whether something was meant to have gone wrong, whether we were meant to see something or not and other considerations - which led to a confused narrative and lack of clarity about what show we should be seeing. Act 2 improved in parts, it opened well and had a solid final two "acts" but the middle was weak. I don't think there's anything funny about the concept of seeing someone "drown" on stage with a member of the audience involved in the "trick" which went wrong which "led to it", especially as another audience member is on stage counting up each 30 seconds on a stopwatch. Even though on one level the audience know the actor is fine, there's limits which farce/comedy should be and this does not match the point the company have been working with until now. Theres a warning in the foyer for something akin to "there are scenes which may be triggering for some people" - not a warning you should see when you walk into a comedy. Horrendous misfire. Which is a tragedy considering the heights this ensemble have been at before. Its even less forgivable considering the amount of workshopping/try outs this show has had before its West End opening. This does not sound good. The drowning scene?!... The response after they did a bit on BBC a year ago was so terrible you'd think they'd have pulled their socks up. How is this going to run into the extension period they've just announced? Do we think they'll bin it and Nimax will put a different show in, or are Mischief responsible for what goes tin there for the entirety of their residency? (Or even, and I'm loathed to say it, being back Groan Ups?) |
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Dec 15, 2019 15:19:19 GMT
Wow, that doesn't sound too good. And I was happy they had extended, so I could book for this in March. Will wait for more reviews I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2019 17:05:13 GMT
I assume the drowning trick is based on the Penn and Teller card trick where Teller is stuck in a perspex box filled with water and Penn is attempting, with increasing desperation, to find the audience member’s card...? It’s hilarious and Teller is clearly never seriously in danger. Look it up on YouTube if you’re not familiar with it.
The innards spilling out in the saw-the-person-in-half trick sounds familiar too. Quite a bit of P&T’s stuff is gross-out humour.
Of course, in a P&T show all that is offset by Teller’s gracefulness as a magician. How it fits in a pure comedy show I couldn’t say til I’ve seen it. Hope to do so soon.
|
|
526 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Dec 15, 2019 18:02:51 GMT
I assume the drowning trick is based on the Penn and Teller card trick where Teller is stuck in a perspex box filled with water and Penn is attempting, with increasing desperation, to find the audience member’s card...? It’s hilarious and Teller is clearly never seriously in danger. Look it up on YouTube if you’re not familiar with it. The innards spilling out in the saw-the-person-in-half trick sounds familiar too. Quite a bit of P&T’s stuff is gross-out humour. Of course, in a P&T show all that is offset by Teller’s gracefulness as a magician. How it fits in a pure comedy show I couldn’t say til I’ve seen it. Hope to do so soon. Oh yes, it was exactly that act. But just not what you'd expect, as an audience member familiar with Mischief content. It was clearly the Penn and Teller influence coming on. However as the characters involved were not especially presented as terribly likeable, and there was little set up, it just felt really awkward throughout. |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 15, 2019 19:18:27 GMT
Quite a bit of P&T’s stuff is gross-out humour. I wish this had been mentioned sooner! I'd not heard of Penn & Teller before their involvement with MGW (as I said, I don't like magic shows) & there wasn't anything unpleasant in the try-outs 18 months ago, hence I wasn't expecting what we got last night.
I've just looked up the water tank trick on Youtube & it's exactly the same. Even some of the dialogue is the same. (And I see from the comments on Youtube that how I figured that trick must be worked is the generally-thought explanation.) I'm surprised that MGW would include something almost completely copied from Penn & Teller. I would have expected them to come up with the own ideas for scenes then Penn & Teller teach them how to do the necessary magic, but evidently not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2019 21:14:37 GMT
Quite a bit of P&T’s stuff is gross-out humour. I wish this had been mentioned sooner! I'd not heard of Penn & Teller before their involvement with MGW (as I said, I don't like magic shows) & there wasn't anything unpleasant in the try-outs 18 months ago, hence I wasn't expecting what we got last night.
I've just looked up the water tank trick on Youtube & it's exactly the same. Even some of the dialogue is the same. (And I see from the comments on Youtube that how I figured that trick must be worked is the generally-thought explanation.) I'm surprised that MGW would include something almost completely copied from Penn & Teller. I would have expected them to come up with the own ideas for scenes then Penn & Teller teach them how to do the necessary magic, but evidently not.
Yes, it will be interesting to hear how they put the show together, together (if you see what I mean!). danielwhit - I absolutely take your point about the characters not working for this (obviously I can’t agree or disagree til I see it). But is it so very far from typical Mischief? They’re frequently feigning hurting each other physically in their shows. And in their magic act (at least what I remember of it early on), Penn is frequently seen to “bully” Teller (just as Chris Bean “bullies” his cast). It feels like a good fit to me...? My only concern was Nancy’s early character was far too American for Brit audiences to laugh at, and it seems they’ve jettisoned that bit. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 15, 2019 21:27:23 GMT
Not being funny but the water trick and sawing people in half trick are probably the 2 most popular staples of any big magic show.
What else other than drowning or actually being sawn in half could 'go wrong' during either of those tricks?
How are people being 'triggered' by such things?
Are there really that many English people who've been horrendously disfigured in magic trick mishaps?
Are we really going to start censoring art now because people have negative reactions to it?
Between the election results, the toxic shame in the Fairview thread and the triggering in here, I am really starting to fear for the mental health of this country...
|
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 15, 2019 21:38:16 GMT
My only concern was Nancy’s early character was far too American for Brit audiences to laugh at, and it seems they’ve jettisoned that bit. Yes, they have. Nancy plays a completely different character, who isn't American. There is a trick involving a quick change but it bears no resemblance to what was done on TV. Not being funny but the water trick and sawing people in half trick are probably the 2 most popular staples of any big magic show. What else other than drowning or actually being sawn in half could 'go wrong' during either of those tricks? How are people being 'triggered' by such things? Are there really that many English people who've been horrendously disfigured in magic trick mishaps? Are we really going to start censoring art now because people have negative reactions to it? Between the election results, the toxic shame in the Fairview thread and the triggering in here, I am really starting to fear for the mental health of this country... As I have already said on this thread, I knew beforehand that the sawn in half trick was going to go wrong but, being very squeamish, actually seeing it done still made me feel sick. I can't see that anyone on this thread is calling for anything to be censored. I said I didn't want to see that scene again, not that I didn't want it to be done. I'm a big fan of previous Mischief shows but I'm not sure I'd call anything they do "art"! |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 15, 2019 21:47:24 GMT
My only concern was Nancy’s early character was far too American for Brit audiences to laugh at, and it seems they’ve jettisoned that bit. Yes, they have. Nancy plays a completely different character, who isn't American. There is a trick involving a quick change but it bears no resemblance to what was done on TV. Not being funny but the water trick and sawing people in half trick are probably the 2 most popular staples of any big magic show. What else other than drowning or actually being sawn in half could 'go wrong' during either of those tricks? How are people being 'triggered' by such things? Are there really that many English people who've been horrendously disfigured in magic trick mishaps? Are we really going to start censoring art now because people have negative reactions to it? Between the election results, the toxic shame in the Fairview thread and the triggering in here, I am really starting to fear for the mental health of this country... As I have already said on this thread, I knew beforehand that the sawn in half trick was going to go wrong but, being very squeamish, actually seeing it done still made me feel sick. I can't see that anyone on this thread is calling for anything to be censored. I said I didn't want to see that scene again, not that I didn't want it to be done. I'm a big fan of previous Mischief shows but I'm not sure I'd call anything they do "art"! 'The response after they did a bit on BBC a year ago was so terrible you'd think they'd have pulled their socks up.' This sounds a lot like wanting something changed because of negative public response to me. He then goes on to suggest it's going to close after 3 iffy reviews on a theatre forum. I'd also say that as subjective as it is, comedy is one of the most difficult art forms to pull off well, especially the kind they do. |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 15, 2019 22:14:54 GMT
'The response after they did a bit on BBC a year ago was so terrible you'd think they'd have pulled their socks up.' This sounds a lot like wanting something changed because of negative public response to me. He then goes on to suggest it's going to close after 3 iffy reviews on a theatre forum. I'd also say that as subjective as it is, comedy is one of the most difficult art forms to pull off well, especially the kind they do. The fact that nothing from that scene done on TV survives into the finished show does indicate that Mischief agreed with the public response that it didn't work. They frequently re-write parts of new shows based on how the audience responds to them at the start of a run, or indeed later in the run (The Comedy About A Bank Robbery got re-writes on & off for over a year). They choose to do it because they want to try to improve the shows based on audience feedback. I don't consider that to be remotely akin to censorship. |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Dec 15, 2019 22:25:09 GMT
'The response after they did a bit on BBC a year ago was so terrible you'd think they'd have pulled their socks up.' This sounds a lot like wanting something changed because of negative public response to me. He then goes on to suggest it's going to close after 3 iffy reviews on a theatre forum. I'd also say that as subjective as it is, comedy is one of the most difficult art forms to pull off well, especially the kind they do. The fact that nothing from that scene done on TV survives into the finished show does indicate that Mischief agreed with the public response that it didn't work. They frequently re-write parts of new shows based on how the audience responds to them at the start of a run, or indeed later in the run (The Comedy About A Bank Robbery got re-writes on & off for over a year). They choose to do it because they want to try to improve the shows based on audience feedback. I don't consider that to be remotely akin to censorship. Fair enough, I don't know that much about them beyond the one about the Play which I loved and I saw Bank Robbery but wasn't that impressed with it. I find it very odd that there are so many people involved in a theatre production and then they still need to change so much stuff after the public sees it. It may not be censorship, but it feels awfully close to it. Do people not speak up during production and say 'sorry but that's crap, change it' or something? It seems to work totally differently to every other art form where an artist creates something and people either love it or hate it and that's the end of it. |
|
4,021 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 15, 2019 22:43:40 GMT
Fair enough, I don't know that much about them beyond the one about the Play which I loved and I saw Bank Robbery but wasn't that impressed with it. I find it very odd that there are so many people involved in a theatre production and then they still need to change so much stuff after the public sees it. It may not be censorship, but it feels awfully close to it. Do people not speak up during production and say 'sorry but that's crap, change it' or something? It seems to work totally differently to every other art form where an artist creates something and people either love it or hate it and that's the end of it. I've seen TCAABR 74 times thus far so I do know rather a lot about it!
I'm sure that they do, but I've also read interviews with playwrights, including the Mischief trio, where they have said that until a piece is performed in front of audiences they can't always tell what will work & what won't. Also the creative team might not necessarily agree (to use TCAABR as an example, the original ending was modified after a couple of months but I was told at the time that opinion was divided as to whether to do so or not).
I wouldn't say theatre is different to every other art form. Films can be re-edited after test screenings. Artists in the past re-worked paintings. There are a number of operas that have different versions as composers re-wrote them for subsequent productions (e.g. Don Carlos, Boris Godunov). Books can have things changed for subsequent editions (e.g. Great Expectations' ending). And that's without getting into how the reactions of the public to a fixed piece of art can change radically over time, which is a whole other subject.
|
|
