|
|
Post by scarpia on Jun 28, 2021 10:59:00 GMT
Sure, there are plenty of things released with plot issues. But why does theatre get away with charging you £100 to see a preview then get the “it’s only a preview, how could we possibly have know after years of development, workshops and rehearsals that the plot has issues?!” excuse? It bloody shouldn't, and it never used to. Previews used to be around half price precisely because you were the test audience that allowed the creative team to find out what worked and what didn't. Part of the price you paid was in money and part was in knowing you were getting less than the full experience.
Personally I feel that if previews are charged at full price then the audience has every right to treat the show as a finished product and judge it accordingly.
100% this. It's why I had basically no sympathy for ALW at the time of LND, when they effectively advertised the first preview as opening night (the countdown on the website was to that, rather than to press night), had already recorded the cast album, charged what was at that time the most expensive West End tickets even for previews, and then the show received (IMHO deservedly) harsh criticism from preview attenders and theatre bloggers like the West End Whingers. Then ALW went to the press saying it was unfair, these were supposed to previews...in any case, it's not as if they could have fixed the show (and they didn't), since the crucial problems were the plot, book, and lyrics, none of which could be overhauled before opening night. Since ALW started pumping out a series of flops rather than hits post- Sunset (which I thought was his last strong show, though I never saw School of Rock as it didn't interest me), I am surprised he still wants to open things cold in the West End rather than, say, workshopping at the Other Palace (particularly when he doesn't have a top director at the helm). This isn't the 1980s when he can rely on having the midas touch any more. |
|
212 posts
|
Post by sprampster on Jun 28, 2021 11:00:55 GMT
Have they taken all tickets off sale? Just looked at the website and nothing on there after Thursday They have been adding performances before July 19th on a day to day basis, presumably as they sort out all of the reseating. Thanks again mark just grabbed some cracking seats for the matinee this Saturday xx |
|
287 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by singingbird on Jun 28, 2021 11:05:03 GMT
See, I got the midnight thing and wasn't confused by it at all and so I don't think it is a plot hole. It seems other people including yourself didn't get it which means it needs work. If I can figure out spoiler tags on my phone I'll go into more detail. I was very unsure where they are going with the necklace so that also needs some clarity or even cutting. {Spoiler - click to view}
The "fairy godmother" isn't a fairy or magic she does her work by plastic surgery, makeovers etc so Cinderella's transformation isn't magic and also isn't removed by magic. The midnight deadline is that Sebastion is being forced to chose a bride by midnight to marry the next day. So when at midnight the sister leaps on him and so is picked as the bride by his mother, Cinderella has failed and will never have a chance with him ever again. She rips her own dress and wig off and kicks off her painful shoes in frustration. It isn't a direct retelling of the fairytale. If this is the only significance of midnight, it isn't clearly explained and doesn't make for much of an Act 1 cliff-hanger. But I know that's what previews are for - identifying things that don't come across clearly. An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere. Plot inconsistencies aside, my bigger problem with this show is that tonally it's all over the place. I always thought that, if you were going to create a believable fantasy world, you had to define its boundaries and stick to them. I can't really buy the argument that 'it's a fairy-tale world, so we don't have to have any rules on when/where/what we are.' However, I think if I were to see the show again, knowing now to expect a silly romp, I'd be more forgiving and enjoy it more, even though I still maintain that the silliness makes the sincere emoting of parts of it stick out like a sore thumb. It was noted earlier in the thread that ALW has 'done Cinderella' before with Starlight. I'd add to that Evita, which was originally described as a 'Cinderella story' and, more pertinently, the fact that ALW's first show, written at school, was Cinderella Up the Beanstalk and Most Everywhere Else. I wonder if this score draws on his music for that? It wouldn't surprise me. Because what this show comes across to me as, more than anything, is a student-y burst of daftness that I'd more expect to see done by a university drama society at Edinburgh than as a major West End musical. How much you like it will probably depend on your tolerance for (and prior expectation of) that kind of show! |
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Jun 28, 2021 11:24:58 GMT
An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere. I'm obviously guessing just like like everybody else, but I wondered whether the "three-headed sea witch" didn't actually exist and was actually Queen + Stepmother + Godmother (or some combination plus another person) acting together. So vanquishing them would be by rejecting what they're working towards — that Sebastian has to marry. |
|
287 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by singingbird on Jun 28, 2021 11:32:23 GMT
An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere. I'm obviously guessing just like like everybody else, but I wondered whether the "three-headed sea witch" didn't actually exist and was actually Queen + Stepmother + Godmother (or some combination plus another person) acting together. So vanquishing them would be by rejecting what they're working towards — that Sebastian has to marry. That would've been great - would have added some real jeopardy and drama! But I still don't know where the 'sea' bit fits. There's no mention of the sea anywhere in the show, as far as I remember! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2021 12:09:53 GMT
An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere.
{Spoiler - click to view}
During the song I think it explained that the queen was some kind of 'escort' and the step mother was a pole dancer or something similar. Basically they both have dubious backgrounds and obviously both slept their way to the top, as it were.
I felt it was all explained in that song and that's why it wasn't mentioned again.
|
|
287 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by singingbird on Jun 28, 2021 12:40:29 GMT
An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere.
{Spoiler - click to view}
During the song I think it explained that the queen was some kind of 'escort' and the step mother was a pole dancer or something similar. Basically they both have dubious backgrounds and obviously both slept their way to the top, as it were.
I felt it was all explained in that song and that's why it wasn't mentioned again.
That's fair enough and you're probably right, although I definitely didn't get all that on one listen. But, if that's the case, it feels like another area for interesting plot development that is completely ignored. And, in a really good production, would we not have seen some of this back story brought to life in front of us, rather than just described second-hand? |
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Jun 28, 2021 13:44:59 GMT
An equally big issue for me was what the song between the Queen and Step-Mother is all about. If it implies that the Step-Mother has some potentially sensitive and damaging knowledge about the Queen's past which she is using to manipulate the Queen and ensure the prince marries one of the Step-Mother's daughters (which is the only logical explanation I can think of) then this is left completely hanging and doesn't go anywhere.
{Spoiler - click to view}
During the song I think it explained that the queen was some kind of 'escort' and the step mother was a pole dancer or something similar. Basically they both have dubious backgrounds and obviously both slept their way to the top, as it were.
I felt it was all explained in that song and that's why it wasn't mentioned again.
That’s how I took it. stepmother threatened to reveal scandal, Queen countered that she could reveal things too, stepmother got pushy, Queen suggested off with her head. |
|
528 posts
|
Post by vabbian on Jun 28, 2021 16:24:05 GMT
Very happy my £19.50 ticket got upgraded to mid stalls!
The only decent thing to happen to me because of corona
|
|
4,799 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Mark on Jun 28, 2021 17:41:09 GMT
|
|
620 posts
|
Post by chernjam on Jun 28, 2021 17:41:37 GMT
"Only You" remains in Starlight... The post race 4 amazing full goosebump tastic “Only You/Du Alein” is no longer in the Bochum show. Anyway there are different productions of Starlight/Love Never Dies etc. I know this is a Cinderella thread. My point being that changes can be made and he can close a production after a year or so like he did with the original Sunset Boulevard to make changes - but constant changes can ruin a production. That said due to time, technical aspects and only limited hours in the day for the cast and creatives - this current Cinderella in previews can’t be changed THAT much - they can’t rewrite the whole show, add characters or give it a brand new set! They can cut or add songs or new scenes/change the order but that’s about it. Has anyone ever seen a terrible one star show in previews become a masterpiece? Sadly not. Its interesting, that Sunset was really the only one that going back to "revise" it made it actually work. Having seen a bootleg of Sunset in London from previews, I was amazed to see how much changed in terms of the physical production (which, honestly, in some ways I preferred the London one with silhouettes of the House, etc that helped establish those scenes a bit more) and script/score wise, apart from "Every Movies A Circus" it was a lot of streamlining, re-orchestrations, etc. But not a complete overhaul. The basic structure of score and story were all there and worked, but it needed some fine tuning. From what we're hearing here, what needs to be resolved is this midnight/cliff-hanger thing to make a more dramatic landing on the audience and a few other plot clarifications. It will be interesting to see if 3 weeks is enough time. If not, ALW can always blame COVID |
|
348 posts
|
Post by properjob on Jun 28, 2021 18:18:29 GMT
I imagine they want a full house for a good atmosphere on press night and so want to wait until after social distancing is over. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2021 18:19:33 GMT
Someone gave this 5* ??
Has ALW suddenly become a member?
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jun 28, 2021 18:31:01 GMT
Someone gave this 5* ?? Has ALW suddenly become a member? The cynic in me says someone has done that in reaction to someone posting 1*. Whatever, the consensus from respected members here seems to balance as an upper 3* show so far, with possibility of improvement. |
|
3,466 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 28, 2021 19:23:28 GMT
Someone gave this 5* ?? Has ALW suddenly become a member? The cynic in me says someone has done that in reaction to someone posting 1*. Whatever, the consensus from respected members here seems to balance as an upper 3* show so far, with possibility of improvement. Agree - it would be nice if folk didn't skew the numbers so we get a realistic view. I don't think that anybody who has actually seen it thinks it is currently either 5* or 1*... I said in my initial feedback that I thought it was 4*. Having reflected, I'd say 3.5* now after letting the dust settle on my thoughts. However I'm going back Saturday for another view, as there are things I want to look for that I wasn't aware of in the first viewing. |
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on Jun 28, 2021 19:40:25 GMT
Ouch those preview prices are eye watering! Are day seats still a thing in Covid times or is everything pre book now? |
|
1,258 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 28, 2021 19:42:06 GMT
Why is it not possible for some people to think it’s 1 star and other people to rate it as 5 stars, without people thinking it’s being skewed or there is some ulterior motive for some reason?
|
|
3,466 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 28, 2021 19:57:35 GMT
Why is it not possible for some people to think it’s 1 star and other people to rate it as 5 stars, without people thinking it’s being skewed or there is some ulterior motive for some reason? Cos nobody has offered a review or feedback so far to justify either score. Or perhaps they feel those scores are valid, in which case (as it is a chat forum) it would be great if they could articulate why it is so good or so bad. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jun 28, 2021 19:57:36 GMT
Why is it not possible for some people to think it’s 1 star and other people to rate it as 5 stars, without people thinking it’s being skewed or there is some ulterior motive for some reason? I'd suggest because most people who voted prior to those ratings had posted their views, what they liked and didn't like, and left interesting reviews/comments. That's all. They've been brilliant to read, by the way, as always when a huge new show opens. |
|
1,258 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 28, 2021 20:06:17 GMT
Why is it not possible for some people to think it’s 1 star and other people to rate it as 5 stars, without people thinking it’s being skewed or there is some ulterior motive for some reason? Cos nobody has offered a review or feedback so far to justify either score. Or perhaps they feel those scores are valid, in which case (as it is a chat forum) it would be great if they could articulate why it is so good or so bad. Hope that helps. Well it helps to understand your take on it. But it IS possible for people to offer scores without having to write reviews about it or offer justifications. Many people lurk on the forum or may not feel confident to write copious notes. I’m sure it’s not against any law? |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 28, 2021 20:09:41 GMT
It just feels a bit ‘Trip Advisor’ without a review is all…
|
|
3,466 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 28, 2021 20:09:43 GMT
Cos nobody has offered a review or feedback so far to justify either score. Or perhaps they feel those scores are valid, in which case (as it is a chat forum) it would be great if they could articulate why it is so good or so bad. Hope that helps. Well it helps to understand your take on it. But it IS possible for people to offer scores without having to write reviews about it or offer justifications. Many people lurk on the forum or may not feel confident to write copious notes. I’m sure it’s not against any law? I agree, I'm pretty sure it's not against any law too. But on a chat forum if you're gonna have the time to give a score, you ought to be prepared to back it up. Many would love to know what makes the show so compelling or so dire. Otherwise, any old lurker or troll could skew the scores just for fun under a veil of anonymity, which I'm sure would never happen because everybody seems so rational and open to discussion on here. |
|
1,258 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 28, 2021 20:11:17 GMT
It just feels a bit ‘Trip Advisor’ without a review is all… But you can offer a score and a review OR a score without a review, no? |
|
3,466 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 28, 2021 20:13:48 GMT
It just feels a bit ‘Trip Advisor’ without a review is all… But you can offer a score and a review OR a score without a review, no? Just as the Strictly judges could just raise a paddle and save us all half an hour on a Saturday evening. |
|
1,258 posts
|
Post by theatrelover123 on Jun 28, 2021 20:15:02 GMT
Well it helps to understand your take on it. But it IS possible for people to offer scores without having to write reviews about it or offer justifications. Many people lurk on the forum or may not feel confident to write copious notes. I’m sure it’s not against any law? I agree, I'm pretty sure it's not against any law too. But on a chat forum if you're gonna have the time to give a score, you ought to be prepared to back it up. Many would love to know what makes the show so compelling or so dire. Otherwise, any old lurker or troll could skew the scores just for fun under a veil of anonymity, which I'm sure would never happen because everybody seems so rational and open to discussion on here. Ought to be prepared to back it up? People shouldn’t feel compelled to do anything of the sort if they don’t feel like they are happy to just give a score (which is what is asked for when it says ‘After seeing the show please give it a star rating’). I guess I object to people being labelled trolls or skewing results when it doesn’t tally with other people’s thoughts. |
|
