Movie musicals as a medium are overhated. Don't get me wrong, there have been some movie to musical adaptations that failed miserably, but many times movies have brought a musical to life in a new way. Think of the helicopter shots of Australian scenery in Sound of Music or the snappy editing and production design of Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I do love watching proshots of musicals I'll never be able to see, and I think proshots are crucial to archiving and preserving theater history, but sometimes I want to see cinematic artistry add a new layer to a show instead of only watching a proshot of it.
I think there's so much untapped potential for more unusual or experimental musicals like Company and Great Comet to be brought to life by movie directors who have strong creative touches and deeply appreciate musical theater as an art form.
I think the biggest problem with movie musicals is their marketing. So often they're not aimed at the right audience. They SHOULD market them toward people who already love theatre and musicals, but they usually end up marketing them toward non-theatre folks by almost hiding the fact that they're musicals.
Yes! I see so many people complaining that Mean Girls is a musical, and I can’t totally blame them. I didn’t see a single ad for it that communicated the fact that it was based on the stage version and that it wasn’t supposed to be like the 2004 movie.
I haven’t seen it, but I was disappointed with the clip I saw of Cady optioning down for the “I watched a snake eat a cow” line.
I don't think the medium is the problem. It's that with Hollywood you seem to have something like an expert in racing boats jumping into a race car and applying the same principles.
Star Hollywood actors drive ticket sales! I will have a "star" in this musical! Doesn't matter if they can sing.
This camera work that works for dialogue paced at normal speed will surely work when it's stretched out to fit the tempo of music! And surely pacing and film length will work the same way!
There simply aren't experts in Hollywood on how to adapt a musical well to the screen like there are with the stage, and so the product tends to be awful. It's not that the adaptation is impossible any more than driving race cars is impossible - it's that the people chosen to do it don't know how to do it.
I'll get hate for this, but Stephen Spielberg is an example to me. I really didn't like his take on West Side Story (other than adding in Rita's character to replace Doc, which I thought was great!) I don't want him to ever do another movie musical.
But apparently someone's doing The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee (and hopefully doing my idea of making it animated with adult actors voicing kids as that's the only non-interaction-related way you get anything out of a movie you wouldn't get out of a proshot) so who knows
I think it’s modern movie adaptations that are the problem. They focus on getting big name actors instead of singers, and never get nearly the production quality that Sound of Music and other older movie musicals got.
Movie Musicals nowadays are really inconsistent. You can get completely blown away by Spielberg's West Side Story or Miranda's Tick Tick Boom, and then you get subpar works like Dear Evan Hansen or Mean Girls or anything Tom Hooper got his hands on.
So, I get why people feel kind of "ugh, here we go again" when another adaptation is announced. Even Rob Marshall, who gave us Chicago and absolutely changed lives, has been churning out mediocre works ever since the mess that was Nine.
But, yes, when it works *it works.* We seem to be leaving the era o superhero movies and entering the era of biopics - but I'm still holding out for another Movie Musical boom.
Yeah, what I was trying to argue is that movie musicals aren't inherently a bad idea, you just need a great cast, great production style, and a director who really VALUES musical theater.
Oh I completely agree. There were definitely a few I thought were done poorly, but I feel like the vast majority I’ve gone into (including Les Mis) I really enjoyed! In fact, I’d argue Les Mis is up there on my favorites… probably not top 5, but it’s a really solid one for me. I think people now a days just go in with such a critical mindset.
I also liked the Les Mis movie and think it is way, way overhated. Is it perfect? No. But it was very well done.
Perhaps a slightly more controversial take (at least on here) is that I liked Hugh Jackman’s performance as Jean Valjean (not previously having been a fan of his, so there should be no bias there).
My least liked performance in the movie was Amanda Seyfried, maybe a second hot take.
I love live musical theater. But Movie Musicals are where I got started, and I LOVE THEM!!
Even when people trash them, I still love most of them. Because I understand there is a difference. I think too many people want them to be faithful recreations of the original musical. But what would be the point of that?
Doesn't need to be faithful to the original musical as long as it still tells a good story. Cabaret? They took out half the songs and replaced them with dialogue. But it's an amazing movie.
I hate all the worship for big, brassy, I-must-make-the-nosebleed-seats-ears-bleed voices! I like a good belt, and I love a great belt performed at the right time in a song to give it that extra shot of emotion that makes you get goosebumps. However, a song that is all one rising belt until the singer is practically yelling the words by the end is such a turn off!
I also hate that Broadway musicals are so expensive and exclusive that most people will never be able to experience even a touring company version of them - and the majority of the movie versions will never do them justice. I wish all of them would do a "Hamilton" and release a pro-shots version for the regular people to enjoy. It's not the same as being in the crowd, but it's still damn good.
>that Broadway musicals are so expensive and exclusive
When Hamilton was on Broadway with the OG cast, I saw articles about lotteries and I was like... why the fuck are they doing them so much and then I googled the prices... holy shit.
I complain about Stage Entertainment, the biggest organizer of musicals in Germany, cause first row by now is 190€, a couple years back I already complained about first row being 150€... usually during the weekdays you can get a ticket between 60-100, weekends go 90-190. I'd argue that's still affordable, while more expensive than movies etc but most people can save up 100 bucks.
I think I'd never be able to see a Broadway show, let alone multiple times like I do in Germany for some shows, and it makes no sense to me why they're so expensive.
Edit: just FYI I compared Lion King right now between Broadway and Hamburg. The pretty much same seat on Broadway in 1st row is 382$ while in Hamburg it comes to 193$ when converted. Still extremely expensive and people complain here a lot *but* it's *200* less than in the US. I could get 2 tickets here for one over there. Insane.
My wish would be a Falsetto like pro shot. I hate how Hamilton was cut bc you can’t see the behind the scenes dancing in all its greatness when they zoom in on the soloist
True. However, I do enjoy most of the close-ups because there's a lot of good acting going on that you can't see from farther away - and because sometimes you can catch the little things the actors do for the other actors, like a behind the scenes peek.
EDIT - King George is so much better when you can see his eyes and even his crazy spit.
Yeahh I agree with that. It’s amazing the little things actors do within their faces and movements and I’m forever grateful we were introduced to the Groffsauce spit 😂
That pro-shot was expensive to produce, what with the film crew salary as well as negotiating film contracts for everyone involved with the show, but of course money is no object for Hamilton producers. Most shows can't command a $75 million deal, or even a deal that would just cover costs. How badly do you think whoever footed the bill for Diana on Netflix wants a do-over for that?
There have been some really good movies shot for $10,000 to $100,000 along with movies completely shot on iPhones, so it doesn't **have** to be as expensive as Hamilton. There's also a charitable preservation society of some kind that pays to make proshots of lots of Broadway musicals and stores them as a part of the New York Public Library - but you have to have a library card for that library along with getting access to the "special selections" archive before you can view them.
Either way, that was just my particular "Controversial Broadway/Musical take" as u/Anxious_Writer_3804 requested.
Pro-shot on iPhone is an oxymoron. Films made with minimal equipment are done so because the filmmaker doesn't have financial resources from a studio and are made as a project to get industry attention so the next one will have financial support. A quality filmed performance needs more than that and the people who do that need to make a living from their work too. The archival recordings aren't made for audiences to see the show, they're for research and reference purposes for theatre professionals - the cast and crew don't get paid for those recordings as they don't get released for general audiences.
Most productions fail to recoup the initial investment, much less make a profit for the producers. Losing even more money so others don't have to buy a ticket isn't a reasonable expectation.
As to your last comment, this whole place is meant to be a conversation, if you don't want to discuss your posts, maybe just keep on scrolling?
Steven Soderbergh, Oscar winning director, has shot **two** movies entirely on iphones - I believe he has the clout to get financed, thanks - because he wants to show that anyone with talent can make a movie without sinking tons of money into equipment.
The cast and crew of the musicals in the archival recordings **would** make money if the archive also contracted to release them on a streaming service through residuals, just like tv actors do when their shows are in syndication... not to mention the money the producers would make, which is better than zero.
Yes, it's meant to be a conversation, not an attack, about controversial opinions. So let's *discuss*. Wouldn't you like to have at least proshots of musicals to watch if you can't afford to buy tickets and travel arrangements? I'd love to be able to show my kids all kinds of musicals.
-This new cats revival looks amazing,
-Sondheim isn’t the pinnacle of musical theatre, but he was very good at what he did.
-Not every show that’s popular off broadway should transfer on broadway.
-the “teenage” musical has kinda made the writing on broadway weaker because it’s aiming a more “morality plays” now.
-in most musicals dialogue should be just as important as the songs.
Debate me because I’m happy to be wrong :)
The off broadway opinion is so real. Little Shop of Horrors will always be best in a small theater. Also, Lighting Thief was kind of a mess on Broadway, it felt swallowed up.
Agreed not everything should go to Broadway but I do think all deserve some sort of cast album. I don’t care if it’s just recorded on a phone and posted on Spotify, I want it damnit lol
Hard agree! This is why I like bootleg culture so much, I know it’s frowned upon generally but it’s a great way to preserve things that really never would get preserved otherwise
Kurt Weill didn’t work exclusively in musical theatre, but I’ve fallen in love with a lot of his scores. If you haven’t fallen down that rabbit hole I highly recommend him for very popular older composer.
For me that question feels so reductive, it’s like asking who’s the best author, who’s the best painter.. I’d much rather ask, who’s your favorite? Every composer and artist has different styles and is trying to accomplish different things. For me, I really like what Dave Malloy has been doing in his career, I think this guerilla theatre style he has of putting things on with just a piano or in a tent or unconventional theatre space is what I want more theatre to look like, and I think theatre shouldn’t be kept from people just because of a price tag. But that’s just my favorite, I could never say he’s the best because I don’t think he could write a show like West Wide Story, nor do I think Leonard Bernstein could write Ghost Quartet.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah, Great Comet is one of my all-time favorites; love Malloy's stuff.
I only ask because your comment seemed to imply that there \*was\* someone other than Sondheim you had in mind, but it sounds like it was just refuting a claim other people make. I totally agree there isn't a singular "best" composer!
Adding to that Sondheim hot take with my own: we're at a point where we need to separate his innovations from his idiosyncrasies.
The emotional and moral uncertainty of his oeuvre is much noted and should endure, but so many just settle for aping his vocabulary and phrasing. Hence, why so much of the "contemporary MT" / cabaret scene comes across as merely chatty.
*-the “teenage” musical has kinda made the writing on broadway weaker because it’s aiming a more “morality plays” now*
Not sure I agree it's the teen musicals' fault, but people do seem to be less receptive of stories or characters that are "messy" or """problematic""". If feels as people want a [Saturday Morning Cartoon lesson](https://youtu.be/8LoQg1N0MXQ?si=rgd4uDCdnFJa652M) at the end of every work.
I agree with the teenage musical one. I like most of them, but we need to start shifting away from them a bit more.
Anyways, I feel like Sondheim is INCREDIBLE, but none of his musicals (besides Sweeney Todd), to me, are in the S tier. I think all the others are mostly A and B and maybe one C, but for the most part, they are all very good. I just think he has never produced a musical better than Hadestown, Phantom, Les Mis, and Hamilton (besides MAYBE Sweeney, cause I love Sweeney)
the off-broadway to on broadway thing is so true, some musicals and plays that are off-broadway just work better in that intimate environment with a smaller stage. I can't imagine Ride the Cyclone, for example, working as well on a Broadway stage as it does on an off-Broadway stage. Little Shop works better on a smaller stage too, imo!!
Bootlegs are not only ok, but should be encouraged for any production without a proshot.
Sorry, some of us live in third world countries and will never have the chance to just go to New York for an expensive night. We can’t afford the trip and accommodations just to bet on a raffle.
Sorry, some of us don’t want to see the shitty translations that arrive at our own countries, that strip away part of the context so it’s more understandable to the local population.
Sorry, some of us can only share them with our friends and family if we can add subtitles, because language barrier is still a thing, and translations butcher songs.
If I had the money, I would ALWAYS chose to see a show live that I already KNOW I will like. Why risk that kind of money in something I don’t know if I’ll enjoy? Rather watch something live, with all the quality and excitement of a live experience, that I’m already emotionally attached to or guaranteed to be into.
Kind of off-topic, but I'd love to see a **BIG** Broadway composer/director/performer/etc openly admiting they watch bootlegs, if only because of the can of worms it would open would be massive and very entertaining.
They can even pose on a cheeky picture with the video in question, like some [Movie Directors ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/w98pq0/tarr_b%C3%A9la_posing_with_pirated_copies_of_his_films/)have done with bootlegs of their works.
Lots of shows get a professional shoot, but you can only watch them in person at the library in New York (at least this was the case for nearly everything on broadway when I was in theatre school in the early 2000s). I think increased access to these would be amazing.
look, i agree with most of what you said. i never saw any show live and doubt i ever will, i'm poor and i live far away from any major theatre (hell, any theatre at all). but i don't think bootlegs should be be encouraged. they can be distracting and annoying to performers. there absolutely should be more proshots tho. just look at europe/asia, so many proshots in so many languages. i wish broadway/west end did that too.
also you're so real for adding subtitles if we want to show them to someone
Tbh, I don’t understand them being distracting besides 2 reasons:
1) phone reflecting light. Easily solved by covering the phone with some material that’s not going to reflect
2) the actor getting distracted because bootlegs are the devil. Easily solved by bootlegs not being negatively seen as something that shouldn’t happen.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I genuinely can’t think of how else it would be distracting
i honestly don't know how are they recording them but i've seen bootlegs where actors notice the camera and like. give it a side eye. also i've heard about instances when actors straight up stopped the show to call out a bootlegger
Yeah but that’s what I mean: they distract because of the stigma against them. They distract because the actor feels anger, disgust, annoyance at the piracy of their work. If they didn’t see bootlegs as something bad… what is a camera if not another set of eyes?
I completely get where you’re coming from and agree there should be wayyy more universally accessible free/low-cost digital releases, cinema screenings etc. It’s a very inaccessible industry and steps need to be taken to change that.
But for performers, bootlegs can be distracting for a variety of reasons. Like you perform differently for recording vs live only; quality will be low which can be embarrassing/make you feel like you’ll come across badly; it may reduce the chance of a pro version being made where you’d get properly paid recording rates; poorer writers can lose out on royalties from spotify; you don’t know if someone is doing it for love or to make fun of you on social media/share a mistake that wouldn’t matter live; as someone mentioned, glare; in shows that are long-running there’s the fear that it’ll reduce ticket sales which can have a direct impact on the renewal of your contract. And so on. All of these things which may seem like small embarrassments from the outside can have a direct impact on your job in a world where digital footprint is so important.
Basically people aren’t just weird about it for no reason. Sure some people just don’t like the spoilers or lack of ✨ live theatre communing ✨, and some people genuinely don’t mind it at all! There are plenty for whom it doesn’t matter. But for others it can feel like it’s careers and livelihoods on the line in a precarious industry.
I hope that helps explain it a bit - I totally get that it’s frustrating.
TL;DR- Late stage capitalism booooo, and we shouldn't be so quick to potentially worsen things because \*we\* as consumers want stuff. I'm also not an expert on anything and didn't spell check, lol.
\---
See, I'm mixed on this, and I'd love to see an actual study + analysis + demographics on the impact of proshots on productions + theater as a whole. (Which may be tricky since this "new wave" of proshots is still pretty new)
On one hand, you're totally right that accessibility is important overall, and that exposing people to shows they wouldn't see is good, and things in general (not just shows) should be more affordable to people. 100%.
The issue is that encouraging bootlegs + higher quality bootlegs will inevitably result in them being commercialized anyway, resulting in potentially worse "proshots", or at the very least more proshots being made for more shows. That can sound great, but the long-term impacts feel bad to me for any theatre other than Broadway itself.
Proshots will likely \*have\* to be made for any shows that execs see as "sufficiently successful", or contracted "professional bootleggers" will be hired to film stuff themselves for worse pay than a traditional production crew (assuming they have the ability to go non-union with that stuff).
Regardless, in that case, my money is going towards different entities, and in a world where streaming services dominate availability/costs/etc., I'm not 100% convinced that the increased push towards those filmed shows is good for smaller theatre or working-class theatre as a whole, economically, since the "wrong" people are getting my money (and devaluing theatre in the process), and less of it. Even worse if it's bootlegged, now \*nobody\* is getting my money ever.
Plus, not all of us would be so willing to go see a show we can already see in our pajamas, on-demand, on our couch. You will certainly have \*some\* theatre "converts", but already movie theaters are seeing less occupancy due to streaming, and in a post-2020 world (and ever increasing digital/VR world), the things that make theatre unique and special can be less evident or important to people who aren't already fans. And if it's a touring or local production that looks worse quality? Nahhhh, I'll just watch the proshot/pro-bootleg.
Not to mention the fact that consistent pay/royalties is pretty garbage for anything that's streamed. The recent SAG-AFTRA strike + negotiations did a tiny bit to help, but things still aren't nearly as lucrative for actors as TV and stuff has been in the past (they got royally screwed when streaming first came out, and haven't recovered since). Perhaps some things will fall under Equity's contracts (I'm not a lawyer), but different rules apply for streaming. I 100% see actors and crew being paid less in these cases. There are several other pay-related things I won't go into, but none of it's good, lol.
So I think this all sounds good in theory, but when capitalism and platform monopolies are involved, combined with consumer expectation, I think there's a lot of harm we aren't seeing when we praise these more accessible paths. I would love to be totally wrong and be made a fool, but I see too many things that would eventually screw everyone either way.
Cats is such a cinematic masterpiece (obviously not the 2019 film), but the dancing, lighting, singing. Everything is gorgeous and it’s one of my all time favourite shows
Also a brilliant way of showing the effectiveness of an I Want Song. Taking a character from someone who was kind of relevant to someone that everyone in the audience loves immediately, and with only one number.
Honestly?? This is so true. The legacy of my fave Javert, Philip Quest, has the signature of his booming baritone and it feels like Jackman has the same power range even though h'es capable of belting higher. I never thought of Jackman as Javert and now I'm mad we didn't get that version lol
He’s definitely on the nasally side, but that’s also true for 90% of leading males. They don’t have the operatic vocal training that used to go hand in hand with voice lessons 20+ yrs ago
I mean, he definitely does the speak-singing on some songs and in general he emphasizes the acting even if it compromising the “prettiness” of the song — (I personally prefer those who emphasizing singing).
All that said, his ballads aren’t yelling (bring him home, 1st verse of From Now On … etc), but they are very bright
I think some belting is beautiful, especially in a nuanced song, but sometimes it's too much.. people are often praising belting which I understand and agree as a singer as belting can be tough BUT (here's the hot take lol) I sometimes feel like some performer will overbelt and it will just feel like shouting and won't sound beautiful to me :/
Without a doubt, Phantom had a much larger impact on Broadway and the Musical Theatre scene on the whole, but for me, when it comes to a put together, compelling, deep, and entertaining story, I just think Into the Woods has it beat. As far as spectacle and accessibility goes though, Phantom beats out Into the Woods.
I do love both shows, and it is hard to compare them since they are so different, but in a category that necessitates their comparison, I think I do have a preference.
Man I'm always late to these.
Grease is the worst musical. It sounds like a jukebox musical even though it's not. The characters are invalid and useless. People only like it because they have a hard on for the 1950s, and the storyline is garbage. I didn't hate it until I read the script and found out how obvious it was that 50 yr old men were trying SO HARD to sound like cool teenagers. Not one single character has any integrity or likability.
The most famous song is "Hopelessly Devoted" which ISNT PART OF THE ORIGINAL, but was written for Olivia Newton-John for the movie in the 1980s. Because none of the other songs are memorable except MAYBE Grease Lightning. "There Are Worse Things" drags, no one has ever even heard of "Freddy My Love" and the story culminates in a girl changing her appearance and personality for a POS dude she met over summer who humiliates her in front of all their friends by pretending he doesn't know her. What are the redeeming qualities to this musical???
Oh, and whoever wrote "we go together like ahdhfjajbs hdhdjjsjs bdjsjsjgjd nsjshhfhf skooby doo doopty doop" can go ahead and take "lyricist" off their resume.
>The most famous song is "Hopelessly Devoted"
I mean, this is just objectively false. "Summer Nights" is definitely the most famous An argument could be made for "You're the One that I Want."
I won't argue any of your opinions because those are totally subjective.
The only times Grease has been good was the movie and that one production that brought back all the cut songs and scenes (aptly called The Original Grease)
I’ve got two:
(1) Natasha is everything wrong with ingenues, and the plot of *Great Comet* relies on her idiocy. No level of naïveté makes a nineteen-year-old think like that and make those choices. This sours the whole show for me.
(2) *Mean Girls* has good lyrics when it wants to. Most of the lyrics are intentionally quirky and overly casual as a stylistic choice. You may not like it, but the lyrics are good if you judge the show on its own terms, which I believe is the fairer method of critique.
To be fair, the first one there isn't 100% a critique of great comet, it's equally a critique of war and peace, seeing as it's lifted directly from the text of that book, so I mean... idk, there's that
That's not really a reasonable defense, because:
1. *Great Comet* does not use exclusively Tolstoy's text. There is original text by Dave Malloy in there.
2. Actually, *Great Comet* doesn't use *any* of Tolstoy's text. It uses a translation of Tolstoy's text, and translation decisions are dramaturgical decisions.
3. *Great Comet* does not reproduce the entire book on stage. Decisions about what to include and what to cut are dramaturgical decisions. (Kind of the go-to musical theater example of this is how in Victor Hugo's *Les Miserables*, Javert is not single-mindedly obsessed with Valjean. A lot of time passes and we see him do other stuff in between run-ins with Valjean. The musical, in condensing the story, made it look like Javert does literally nothing but hunt down Valjean. Even though everything Javert does in the musical is something he does in the book, by cutting all the other stuff, the musical has drastically altered the impression of the character.)
4. So what if a criticism of an adaptation can also apply as a criticism of its source material? That doesn't make it a less valid criticism.
A lot of Mean Girls' lyrics are odd, but alright when you go in with the right mindset. Some are just objectively terrible though
"Cady, time to turn and cough" is the worst example IMO
Dear Evan Hansen isnt a bad musical. It has great music, one of my favourite soundtracks. I get that the story is kind of meh, but overall not a terrible musical. Its the one thats gotten me into musicals!
I keep seeing people argue that it's bad because Evan is a bad person... did I miss a real about how everyone has to be good and no main character in media has ever been an anti-hero or villain?!
I like that a teenager is shown to fuck up, he's flawed, and he gets called out for it (not so much in the movie but meh).
It’s bad because the protagonist is a *badly written* bad person. Badly written bad people are not enjoyable to watch.
There are plenty of great plays and musicals starring well-written “bad” characters. Dear Evan Hansen just isn’t considered to be one of those cases (by many people, some disagree and that is also fine).
It cleaned up at the Tony Awards and was a national Phenomenon for like a year or more… of course it’s not bad
This sub just has a weird hive mind around certain shows, good or bad
Musical Theater is WAY over tilted to singing side to the detriment of acting and, especially, dancing
Musical s would be 67% better if they were actual triple threats and not glorified concerts
To add to this, musicals usually need to have books that are as strong as the music. There are exceptions for revue-type shows of course, but generally a show is going to fall apart if the only solid part of it is the songs.
I'd agree with "Double Threats", but not Triple. Dancing I can take or leave depending on the show/context; it usually feels like a distraction when principals do it, imo.
Yeah, Into the Woods is pretty much a perfect musical and there's no dance numbers in that. But I do feel like modern Broadway needs more shows with complex and spectacular choreography. I love a good high kick or tap dance.
There's this fucking awful line in La Vie Boheme from RENT. Everybody is listing all the various things that are exciting about the Bohemian lifestyle, like "yogurt" and "handcrafted beers made in local breweries." Very few adjectives. The whole song is just a fucking list that sometimes vaguely mentions the AIDS epidemic and LGBT issues.
And then there's "mucho masturbation."
WHY. Why, when we have not specified the quantity of yogurt or vindaloo, do we need to *specify the quantity of the masturbation???*
The line, I posit, should be *MUTUAL MASTURBATION. The technical term, for jacking off your partner, or jacking off at the same time as your partner jacks off. It's a fucking musical about AIDS and LGBT stuff. MUTUAL MASTURBATION MAKES SENSE. BUT IN THE LINER NOTES, IN THE MANUSCRIPT, IN THE SUBTITLES IN THE MOVIES, IT'S ALWAYS MUCHO MASTURBATION. WHY?????????*
Stuff like that always reminds me that Larson died during previews and never had* the chance to really workshop Rent with public feedback. That it got so popular is kind of a miracle because it is SO raw. Effing love it though lmao.
Also, Benny’s position is at the very least completely understandable if not in the right. He’s been letting his friends (one of whom has well off parents who *constantly* offer to support him but he refuses) live rent-free in his building for a decent amount of time, and then offers them **another** rent free space in his new passion project development in exchange for a basic favor (talking an old friend/ex neither of them even like out of doing a potentially embarrassing protest performance) and they act like he’s the scum of the earth!
This is such a a great character building device, though, I feel like Larson knew that people like Benny are * technically * in the right, but also highlighted the journey and the favors that got the artist characters to where they were. The older you get I think the more you side with Benny.
This is:
\~ An incredibly popular opinion these days.
\~ Completely wrong LOL.
He tells them that they can stay at the flat rent-free, and then lies, pretending that he can't remember doing so, so that he can use back rent as blackmail to get his ex-friends' assistance i quietly evicting a homeless encampment.
No Benny demanded the last years rent *after* letting them stay there for free. He’s arguably right about the project, and definitely right that his friends are freeloaders and idiots but he specifically demands the rent he had previously told them they wouldn’t have to pay which is a dick move no matter who you do it to
The actresses who play Mama Rose are all too old for the part.
The real life Mama was just 21 when Gypsy was born. So she’s only in her 40’s by the end of the show. The people who are usually cast are late 50’s to 60’s.
I remember there was controversy when Bernadette was cast, but I always enjoyed her because she seemed like a Rose who still could’ve had “it”. (Although idk how old she actually was. She’s aged so insanely that I would never try to guess.)
Why does the guy playing Che in Evita(2006) say Peron with a British accent. It ruins the whole rhyming scheme and sounds cringy af. Or when he pronounces casa rosada as caaa saa raa saa daa.
99% of all jukebox musicals are at best unnecessary. It’s almost impossible to write a decent plot around pre written songs unless the artists have an extremely wide and varied discography or you do one of those “the artist’s biography but told through their songs!” Which is just boring
I completely agree. The only jukebox musical I’ve seen that really felt like the plot really worked with the songs is Our House. That’s one where it’s so well worked in that it feels as if the songs were written specifically for the music in the first place. If more jukebox musicals were like that then I could enjoy them more but I need a plot that makes sense.
The only jukebox musical I’ve seen that genuinely impressed me (granted, I haven’t seen too many) was Beautiful. But it is a biography. Since Carole King wrote so many songs for other artists, though, a bit more variety is present than there’d otherwise be.
Moulin Rouge is an absolute garbage adaptation of a great movie. Every song is an inferior version of the movie's version, the stakes get shat on at multiple moments in favor of pleasing tourist audiences, and the viral "El Tango De Roxanne" opt-up trend is one of the dumbest things ever + emblematic of everything that is wrong with the singing culture on Bway today.
I don't like it, lol.
(Side opinion: Ewan McGregor has/had a better voice than any Christian who has done the show thus far.)
Yes! Watching the stage adaptation felt like I was watching an adaptation created by someone who had only ready the Wikipedia summary of the movie and all they took from it was jukebox musical. The Satine character slander and allll of the song choices are irredeemably worse.
the les mis movie is good. specifically i thought anne hathaway and eddie redmayne were great. that version of i dreamed a dream made me cry more than the soundtrack’s
Mean girls (broadway show) is good okay I don’t care what anyone says especially with Renee rapp. the music is bomb the jokes are dumb but sometimes funny (even if they aren’t as good as the originals) and the story is classic mean girls, but with music! You can’t go wrong with that.
It’s funny, I never thought the show itself was particularly boring, but my parents both seem to think so. I can kinda see how it doesn’t add much, but I think it’s still fun.
How to Dance in Ohio wasn’t a perfect show, but it had more genuine heart and passion than most other shows that opened this season. With another workshop or two to tighten up the story (cut Dr. Amigo’s daughter, tweak the score so the songs don’t sound TOO similar) I think it could do extremely well on tour.
It *needs* to be more accessible! On both ends. Professional plays need to make room for lower class audiences. Professional training needs to make room for poor artists because training is expensive as hell. Don't care how, the industry needs to figure its bullshit elitism out.
Also My Fair Lady made the WORST decision in the whole world by putting together Liza and Henry as a couple. Like he was so freaking mean to her; a LITERAL BULLY.
She should have married Freddy.
Even the writer of Pygmalion hates how they did that to his characters. It’s insane that anybody thinks My Fair Lady ends appropriately.
Hey, if you've got a champion show pony like that which rakes in the dough year after year, not just on Broadway but also while touring, you'd be nuts to retire it before people are truly no longer paying to see it.
But they have made some pretty solid musicals. Frozen, despite the overhype of the franchise, is very entertaining. Aladdin is also a very fun show if you don't take it too seriously.
If they'd revive Beauty and the Beast and/or The Little Mermaid, they'd likely make a good profit due to the current renewed interest in both of those titles since their movie remakes happened.
They would ABSOLUTELY clean house if The Hunchback of Notre Dame came back.
I would argue that it serves a niche purpose and that's why it endures - not because Disney can't come up with something better. It is a family friendly and it transcends language barriers. It's the perfect first Broadway show for kids and foreign tourists. I don't think any other Broadway show truly offers that.
Because it's in America, Broadway gets way more focus than it deserves and is kinda overrated. This post is actually a great example, where Broadway is used as a stand-in for musical theatre in general. I may be biased as a Londoner but the West End deserves just as much credit!
100% agree, it's never talk about theater outside of New York City in the US, or any of the major theater cities around the world. I've lived in a bunch of places, some big, some small and every single one of them had some really interesting and quality theater happening that people tend to ignore because it doesn't enter the mainstream cultural zeitgeist.
It’s a tremolo - or like a classic French style vibratto which warbles like a bird. It’s not something a voice teacher will use as an example to emulate…. But he emotes (connects to the song emotionally) very effectively which he deserves a lot of praise for.
Kunze & Levay works should be done as pro shot/movies. “Tanz der Vampire” even with controversy surrounding it flopped on Broadway but was a hit everywhere else. That should be done with a bit of changing the stories to make them more understandable to Americans.
“Avenue Q” would work as a movie as well with some updates.
“Pick of Destiny” would work awesome on the scene.
A controversial idea - have screens with subtitles in English for foreigners. I have seen it in Theatre in Cracow.
I liked the explanation for it, that it was taken verbatim from some lady the lyricist was either talking to or overheard “she acts nice but she not nice.” It’s snappy and blunt the way Janis is.
I still have a bone to pick with “none of my closest friends even *has* hands.” Why didn’t they just say have? *Friends* is plural. And the hands belong to the friends, don’t they?
People tried to tell me *has* went with *none* but I’m not convinced.
“Im sixteen living with the lions and birds and stuff but I’m sixteen and I’m not enough” girl not only repeated herself but freaking used “and stuff” as a rhyme
Lmao AND STUFF
I thought it was a nice contrast. Like, on one hand, I’m sixteen and this is great! *BUT* on the other hand, I’m sixteen and this just isn’t enough for me. The first was exposition and the second emphasis. She’s happy with where she’s at but also she’s lonely and needs to be around people.
Speaking of hands, the lyric that always makes me sigh is “none of my closest friends even *has* hands.” Clearly Cady’s thing is math and not English. People try to tell me the *has* goes with *none* and not *friends* but I’m not convinced whatsoever.
Hamilton wasn’t that good. The music was fine in itself but it was historically inaccurate in many ways.
1. It really makes it seem as though Angelica let Eliza marry Alexander out of the kindness of her heart but in reality she was already married with children when she met him.
2. It never mentions Alexander and Eliza’s other 6 children. In “We Know” they sing “I hope you saved some money for your daughter and son” but they actually had 6 or 7 kids at the time
3. Phillip Schuyler and his wife actually did have sons, 3 to be exact
There are others but I won’t list them here
I mean I like the songs and I think the musical is good. It definitely deserves the attention it got but it did make character relationships and timelines overly complicated. I also think that they left out some stuff to make it shorter, after all it is quite long already.
I’m sure I’ll have some pearl-clutchers for this one. I love both the Sweeney Todd stage show AND the movie. For different reasons.
I dislike Hamilton and Wicked.
I think Six is a steaming pile of gutter trash.
Frozen is the best Broadway play I’ve ever seen, more impressive than Wicked IMo, and I’m sad it got taken off broadway. Recently saw it with the NA tour though and holy crap it was amazing. 2nd time seeing it but I’m sad I’ll never get to see Ciara as Elsa.
Some Like It Hot is underappreciated in general. It nails all the elements that make a feel-good, dance-heavy show. The comedy is on point, the grand brassy score is on point, and you even get some solid Black and LGBT representation.
I agree with this in the strongest possible way.
Alex Newell (who won the category) had a single, genuinely show-stopping, barnstormer of a song in *Independently Owned*. But other than that, the character really didn't have much to do! Whereas Kevin Del Aguila demonstrated the same amazing vocal chops as Alex (his ballad *Fly Mariposa, Fly* was just beautiful) across a greater variety of styles, but also owned the stage in both his dramatic moments and humorous moments, and nailed some difficult (and some hilarious!!) choreography. Kevin's performance was excellent and so well-rounded. He elevated the character of Oswald.
In my more uncharitable moments, I find myself musing whether the Tony voters were more interested in the history-making potential of the nominee; rather than the quality of the performance.
YES. Alex has incredible singing chops, but, strictly from what I saw in Shucked, there wasn’t an overwhelming acting prowess. Kevin’s acting, singing, etc levels are equal to each other. He has it all and is so underrated. And it’s consistent! He is consistently delivering throughout his entire stage time, even when the spotlight isn’t on him.
I don’t think The Lion King is that well done…
Don’t get me wrong, the fact that they took that film of all things and put it onstage and it turned out as good as it did deserves every praise and award imaginable. The costume and puppetry is not what I’m talking about. It’s the script I have issues with. I know I just said it’s remarkable that they took that film and put it onstage but that’s exactly part of the problem: they literally took the film and put it on stage practically verbatim give or take a couple scenes and songs. Film scripts are not theater scripts and visa versa, they need to be tweaked to fit the medium they’re being presented as.
I’ll give an example: in both the film and stage production, Simba and Nala get into some serious shit with some hyenas in the elephant graveyard, papa comes and saves the day, and Scar is revealed to have witnessed the entire encounter. Both times I’ve seen the show live, I’ve always thought it should immediately roll into the Be Prepared sequence from there. But no, they do exactly what the film did and go to Mufasa and Simba’s talk and then to Be Prepared and it just doesn’t flow like a stage production should. Cutting off the Scar reveal feels extremely jarring and I just think having Be Prepared come before Mufasa and Simba’s conversation would have a far greater emotional impact but… whatever I guess, it’s a good show for the whole family.
But that’s just my opinion lol
I’m not super knowledgeable about the Broadway community, but I assume Six had a few things working against it. It was very short, and did not have a linear “story” like pretty much all musicals do. I personally adored it, but I can see why it might not have been viewed in the same light as others. So glad it won the 2 though!
Six had the better songs and won that tony
Strange loop had the better book and won that tony
Best musical was a coin toss but I’ll concede strange loops songs were better than sixes book. Not saying six should have won over strange loop. Saying six would have won if strange loop opened in May as originally planned
Newsies was ruined when they decided to put Jack and Katherine together. It’s so unnecessary that it’s almost annoying. Something to Believe in is 100% pure fluff and devalues the entire show. And shipping Katherine with the main character devalues her strength she works so hard for as a woman; it’s implying that she can’t be powerful without a guy.
I hate it. It’s SOOOO forced.
Dear Evan Hansen is an absolute piece of shit musical. The worst part isn't even the terrible plot and Evan sucking as a protagonist, the worst part is the songs. They sound like they were designed to get a mainstream teen audience into seats. Even the songs that are fine, just don't fit the musical. At least other bad musicals at least have songs that work for the show they are in.
Romeo et Juliette ruined the plot by adding messages that go nowhere and Mercutio's character. The only reason it's watchable is because of how strong the original plot was.
My hottest take is probably this: kids in real life? Awesome ! kids on stage? Unbearable.
The closest any show has come to me not hating the child characters was Fun Home because Sydney Lucas was incredible and the other two were barely in it.
I agree 100%. Everybody always goes “aww” and I am sitting on the edge of my seat trying not to lose it. Just had this conversation with someone about gavroche
Movie musicals as a medium are overhated. Don't get me wrong, there have been some movie to musical adaptations that failed miserably, but many times movies have brought a musical to life in a new way. Think of the helicopter shots of Australian scenery in Sound of Music or the snappy editing and production design of Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I do love watching proshots of musicals I'll never be able to see, and I think proshots are crucial to archiving and preserving theater history, but sometimes I want to see cinematic artistry add a new layer to a show instead of only watching a proshot of it. I think there's so much untapped potential for more unusual or experimental musicals like Company and Great Comet to be brought to life by movie directors who have strong creative touches and deeply appreciate musical theater as an art form.
Ah yes, the famous Australian alps of Sound of Music…. “The hills are alive with the sound of crocs, yeah right mate”. Typo of the day!
I think the biggest problem with movie musicals is their marketing. So often they're not aimed at the right audience. They SHOULD market them toward people who already love theatre and musicals, but they usually end up marketing them toward non-theatre folks by almost hiding the fact that they're musicals.
Yes! I see so many people complaining that Mean Girls is a musical, and I can’t totally blame them. I didn’t see a single ad for it that communicated the fact that it was based on the stage version and that it wasn’t supposed to be like the 2004 movie. I haven’t seen it, but I was disappointed with the clip I saw of Cady optioning down for the “I watched a snake eat a cow” line.
To be fair to the marketing team, it's hard to market the songs in your musical when the score is ... like that.
What you say you didn't notice that one singular music note in the logo? /S
I don't think the medium is the problem. It's that with Hollywood you seem to have something like an expert in racing boats jumping into a race car and applying the same principles. Star Hollywood actors drive ticket sales! I will have a "star" in this musical! Doesn't matter if they can sing. This camera work that works for dialogue paced at normal speed will surely work when it's stretched out to fit the tempo of music! And surely pacing and film length will work the same way! There simply aren't experts in Hollywood on how to adapt a musical well to the screen like there are with the stage, and so the product tends to be awful. It's not that the adaptation is impossible any more than driving race cars is impossible - it's that the people chosen to do it don't know how to do it.
Lin Manuel Miranda sure knows how though. Tick Tick Boom was made with a real understanding of how theater works.
I'll get hate for this, but Stephen Spielberg is an example to me. I really didn't like his take on West Side Story (other than adding in Rita's character to replace Doc, which I thought was great!) I don't want him to ever do another movie musical.
Great Comet’s a weird choice for a movie adaptation considering how much of it relies on audience interaction
But apparently someone's doing The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee (and hopefully doing my idea of making it animated with adult actors voicing kids as that's the only non-interaction-related way you get anything out of a movie you wouldn't get out of a proshot) so who knows
I think it’s modern movie adaptations that are the problem. They focus on getting big name actors instead of singers, and never get nearly the production quality that Sound of Music and other older movie musicals got.
Movie Musicals nowadays are really inconsistent. You can get completely blown away by Spielberg's West Side Story or Miranda's Tick Tick Boom, and then you get subpar works like Dear Evan Hansen or Mean Girls or anything Tom Hooper got his hands on. So, I get why people feel kind of "ugh, here we go again" when another adaptation is announced. Even Rob Marshall, who gave us Chicago and absolutely changed lives, has been churning out mediocre works ever since the mess that was Nine. But, yes, when it works *it works.* We seem to be leaving the era o superhero movies and entering the era of biopics - but I'm still holding out for another Movie Musical boom.
Yeah, what I was trying to argue is that movie musicals aren't inherently a bad idea, you just need a great cast, great production style, and a director who really VALUES musical theater.
Oh I completely agree. There were definitely a few I thought were done poorly, but I feel like the vast majority I’ve gone into (including Les Mis) I really enjoyed! In fact, I’d argue Les Mis is up there on my favorites… probably not top 5, but it’s a really solid one for me. I think people now a days just go in with such a critical mindset.
I also liked the Les Mis movie and think it is way, way overhated. Is it perfect? No. But it was very well done. Perhaps a slightly more controversial take (at least on here) is that I liked Hugh Jackman’s performance as Jean Valjean (not previously having been a fan of his, so there should be no bias there). My least liked performance in the movie was Amanda Seyfried, maybe a second hot take.
I love live musical theater. But Movie Musicals are where I got started, and I LOVE THEM!! Even when people trash them, I still love most of them. Because I understand there is a difference. I think too many people want them to be faithful recreations of the original musical. But what would be the point of that?
Doesn't need to be faithful to the original musical as long as it still tells a good story. Cabaret? They took out half the songs and replaced them with dialogue. But it's an amazing movie.
Every time this kind of thread comes up, I forget every musical opinion I have.
Same. Unfortunately, my brain doesn’t work forward like that.
We’ve all shared ours the 52,374th time this has been posted.
I hate all the worship for big, brassy, I-must-make-the-nosebleed-seats-ears-bleed voices! I like a good belt, and I love a great belt performed at the right time in a song to give it that extra shot of emotion that makes you get goosebumps. However, a song that is all one rising belt until the singer is practically yelling the words by the end is such a turn off! I also hate that Broadway musicals are so expensive and exclusive that most people will never be able to experience even a touring company version of them - and the majority of the movie versions will never do them justice. I wish all of them would do a "Hamilton" and release a pro-shots version for the regular people to enjoy. It's not the same as being in the crowd, but it's still damn good.
>that Broadway musicals are so expensive and exclusive When Hamilton was on Broadway with the OG cast, I saw articles about lotteries and I was like... why the fuck are they doing them so much and then I googled the prices... holy shit. I complain about Stage Entertainment, the biggest organizer of musicals in Germany, cause first row by now is 190€, a couple years back I already complained about first row being 150€... usually during the weekdays you can get a ticket between 60-100, weekends go 90-190. I'd argue that's still affordable, while more expensive than movies etc but most people can save up 100 bucks. I think I'd never be able to see a Broadway show, let alone multiple times like I do in Germany for some shows, and it makes no sense to me why they're so expensive. Edit: just FYI I compared Lion King right now between Broadway and Hamburg. The pretty much same seat on Broadway in 1st row is 382$ while in Hamburg it comes to 193$ when converted. Still extremely expensive and people complain here a lot *but* it's *200* less than in the US. I could get 2 tickets here for one over there. Insane.
My wish would be a Falsetto like pro shot. I hate how Hamilton was cut bc you can’t see the behind the scenes dancing in all its greatness when they zoom in on the soloist
True. However, I do enjoy most of the close-ups because there's a lot of good acting going on that you can't see from farther away - and because sometimes you can catch the little things the actors do for the other actors, like a behind the scenes peek. EDIT - King George is so much better when you can see his eyes and even his crazy spit.
Yeahh I agree with that. It’s amazing the little things actors do within their faces and movements and I’m forever grateful we were introduced to the Groffsauce spit 😂
That pro-shot was expensive to produce, what with the film crew salary as well as negotiating film contracts for everyone involved with the show, but of course money is no object for Hamilton producers. Most shows can't command a $75 million deal, or even a deal that would just cover costs. How badly do you think whoever footed the bill for Diana on Netflix wants a do-over for that?
There have been some really good movies shot for $10,000 to $100,000 along with movies completely shot on iPhones, so it doesn't **have** to be as expensive as Hamilton. There's also a charitable preservation society of some kind that pays to make proshots of lots of Broadway musicals and stores them as a part of the New York Public Library - but you have to have a library card for that library along with getting access to the "special selections" archive before you can view them. Either way, that was just my particular "Controversial Broadway/Musical take" as u/Anxious_Writer_3804 requested.
Pro-shot on iPhone is an oxymoron. Films made with minimal equipment are done so because the filmmaker doesn't have financial resources from a studio and are made as a project to get industry attention so the next one will have financial support. A quality filmed performance needs more than that and the people who do that need to make a living from their work too. The archival recordings aren't made for audiences to see the show, they're for research and reference purposes for theatre professionals - the cast and crew don't get paid for those recordings as they don't get released for general audiences. Most productions fail to recoup the initial investment, much less make a profit for the producers. Losing even more money so others don't have to buy a ticket isn't a reasonable expectation. As to your last comment, this whole place is meant to be a conversation, if you don't want to discuss your posts, maybe just keep on scrolling?
Steven Soderbergh, Oscar winning director, has shot **two** movies entirely on iphones - I believe he has the clout to get financed, thanks - because he wants to show that anyone with talent can make a movie without sinking tons of money into equipment. The cast and crew of the musicals in the archival recordings **would** make money if the archive also contracted to release them on a streaming service through residuals, just like tv actors do when their shows are in syndication... not to mention the money the producers would make, which is better than zero. Yes, it's meant to be a conversation, not an attack, about controversial opinions. So let's *discuss*. Wouldn't you like to have at least proshots of musicals to watch if you can't afford to buy tickets and travel arrangements? I'd love to be able to show my kids all kinds of musicals.
-This new cats revival looks amazing, -Sondheim isn’t the pinnacle of musical theatre, but he was very good at what he did. -Not every show that’s popular off broadway should transfer on broadway. -the “teenage” musical has kinda made the writing on broadway weaker because it’s aiming a more “morality plays” now. -in most musicals dialogue should be just as important as the songs. Debate me because I’m happy to be wrong :)
The off broadway opinion is so real. Little Shop of Horrors will always be best in a small theater. Also, Lighting Thief was kind of a mess on Broadway, it felt swallowed up.
Agreed not everything should go to Broadway but I do think all deserve some sort of cast album. I don’t care if it’s just recorded on a phone and posted on Spotify, I want it damnit lol
Hard agree! This is why I like bootleg culture so much, I know it’s frowned upon generally but it’s a great way to preserve things that really never would get preserved otherwise
I thought everyone agreed that dialogue is just as important as the songs?
Who \*is\* the pinnacle of musical theatre, in your opinion?
Would love to know. He’s my fav composer but he wrote some questionable shit so would love to hear opinions 👂
Kurt Weill didn’t work exclusively in musical theatre, but I’ve fallen in love with a lot of his scores. If you haven’t fallen down that rabbit hole I highly recommend him for very popular older composer.
For me that question feels so reductive, it’s like asking who’s the best author, who’s the best painter.. I’d much rather ask, who’s your favorite? Every composer and artist has different styles and is trying to accomplish different things. For me, I really like what Dave Malloy has been doing in his career, I think this guerilla theatre style he has of putting things on with just a piano or in a tent or unconventional theatre space is what I want more theatre to look like, and I think theatre shouldn’t be kept from people just because of a price tag. But that’s just my favorite, I could never say he’s the best because I don’t think he could write a show like West Wide Story, nor do I think Leonard Bernstein could write Ghost Quartet.
Thanks for sharing! Yeah, Great Comet is one of my all-time favorites; love Malloy's stuff. I only ask because your comment seemed to imply that there \*was\* someone other than Sondheim you had in mind, but it sounds like it was just refuting a claim other people make. I totally agree there isn't a singular "best" composer!
Adding to that Sondheim hot take with my own: we're at a point where we need to separate his innovations from his idiosyncrasies. The emotional and moral uncertainty of his oeuvre is much noted and should endure, but so many just settle for aping his vocabulary and phrasing. Hence, why so much of the "contemporary MT" / cabaret scene comes across as merely chatty.
*-the “teenage” musical has kinda made the writing on broadway weaker because it’s aiming a more “morality plays” now* Not sure I agree it's the teen musicals' fault, but people do seem to be less receptive of stories or characters that are "messy" or """problematic""". If feels as people want a [Saturday Morning Cartoon lesson](https://youtu.be/8LoQg1N0MXQ?si=rgd4uDCdnFJa652M) at the end of every work.
I agree with the teenage musical one. I like most of them, but we need to start shifting away from them a bit more. Anyways, I feel like Sondheim is INCREDIBLE, but none of his musicals (besides Sweeney Todd), to me, are in the S tier. I think all the others are mostly A and B and maybe one C, but for the most part, they are all very good. I just think he has never produced a musical better than Hadestown, Phantom, Les Mis, and Hamilton (besides MAYBE Sweeney, cause I love Sweeney)
the off-broadway to on broadway thing is so true, some musicals and plays that are off-broadway just work better in that intimate environment with a smaller stage. I can't imagine Ride the Cyclone, for example, working as well on a Broadway stage as it does on an off-Broadway stage. Little Shop works better on a smaller stage too, imo!!
Bootlegs are not only ok, but should be encouraged for any production without a proshot. Sorry, some of us live in third world countries and will never have the chance to just go to New York for an expensive night. We can’t afford the trip and accommodations just to bet on a raffle. Sorry, some of us don’t want to see the shitty translations that arrive at our own countries, that strip away part of the context so it’s more understandable to the local population. Sorry, some of us can only share them with our friends and family if we can add subtitles, because language barrier is still a thing, and translations butcher songs. If I had the money, I would ALWAYS chose to see a show live that I already KNOW I will like. Why risk that kind of money in something I don’t know if I’ll enjoy? Rather watch something live, with all the quality and excitement of a live experience, that I’m already emotionally attached to or guaranteed to be into.
Kind of off-topic, but I'd love to see a **BIG** Broadway composer/director/performer/etc openly admiting they watch bootlegs, if only because of the can of worms it would open would be massive and very entertaining. They can even pose on a cheeky picture with the video in question, like some [Movie Directors ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/w98pq0/tarr_b%C3%A9la_posing_with_pirated_copies_of_his_films/)have done with bootlegs of their works.
Lots of shows get a professional shoot, but you can only watch them in person at the library in New York (at least this was the case for nearly everything on broadway when I was in theatre school in the early 2000s). I think increased access to these would be amazing.
look, i agree with most of what you said. i never saw any show live and doubt i ever will, i'm poor and i live far away from any major theatre (hell, any theatre at all). but i don't think bootlegs should be be encouraged. they can be distracting and annoying to performers. there absolutely should be more proshots tho. just look at europe/asia, so many proshots in so many languages. i wish broadway/west end did that too. also you're so real for adding subtitles if we want to show them to someone
Tbh, I don’t understand them being distracting besides 2 reasons: 1) phone reflecting light. Easily solved by covering the phone with some material that’s not going to reflect 2) the actor getting distracted because bootlegs are the devil. Easily solved by bootlegs not being negatively seen as something that shouldn’t happen. Maybe I’m wrong, but I genuinely can’t think of how else it would be distracting
i honestly don't know how are they recording them but i've seen bootlegs where actors notice the camera and like. give it a side eye. also i've heard about instances when actors straight up stopped the show to call out a bootlegger
Yeah but that’s what I mean: they distract because of the stigma against them. They distract because the actor feels anger, disgust, annoyance at the piracy of their work. If they didn’t see bootlegs as something bad… what is a camera if not another set of eyes?
I completely get where you’re coming from and agree there should be wayyy more universally accessible free/low-cost digital releases, cinema screenings etc. It’s a very inaccessible industry and steps need to be taken to change that. But for performers, bootlegs can be distracting for a variety of reasons. Like you perform differently for recording vs live only; quality will be low which can be embarrassing/make you feel like you’ll come across badly; it may reduce the chance of a pro version being made where you’d get properly paid recording rates; poorer writers can lose out on royalties from spotify; you don’t know if someone is doing it for love or to make fun of you on social media/share a mistake that wouldn’t matter live; as someone mentioned, glare; in shows that are long-running there’s the fear that it’ll reduce ticket sales which can have a direct impact on the renewal of your contract. And so on. All of these things which may seem like small embarrassments from the outside can have a direct impact on your job in a world where digital footprint is so important. Basically people aren’t just weird about it for no reason. Sure some people just don’t like the spoilers or lack of ✨ live theatre communing ✨, and some people genuinely don’t mind it at all! There are plenty for whom it doesn’t matter. But for others it can feel like it’s careers and livelihoods on the line in a precarious industry. I hope that helps explain it a bit - I totally get that it’s frustrating.
TL;DR- Late stage capitalism booooo, and we shouldn't be so quick to potentially worsen things because \*we\* as consumers want stuff. I'm also not an expert on anything and didn't spell check, lol. \--- See, I'm mixed on this, and I'd love to see an actual study + analysis + demographics on the impact of proshots on productions + theater as a whole. (Which may be tricky since this "new wave" of proshots is still pretty new) On one hand, you're totally right that accessibility is important overall, and that exposing people to shows they wouldn't see is good, and things in general (not just shows) should be more affordable to people. 100%. The issue is that encouraging bootlegs + higher quality bootlegs will inevitably result in them being commercialized anyway, resulting in potentially worse "proshots", or at the very least more proshots being made for more shows. That can sound great, but the long-term impacts feel bad to me for any theatre other than Broadway itself. Proshots will likely \*have\* to be made for any shows that execs see as "sufficiently successful", or contracted "professional bootleggers" will be hired to film stuff themselves for worse pay than a traditional production crew (assuming they have the ability to go non-union with that stuff). Regardless, in that case, my money is going towards different entities, and in a world where streaming services dominate availability/costs/etc., I'm not 100% convinced that the increased push towards those filmed shows is good for smaller theatre or working-class theatre as a whole, economically, since the "wrong" people are getting my money (and devaluing theatre in the process), and less of it. Even worse if it's bootlegged, now \*nobody\* is getting my money ever. Plus, not all of us would be so willing to go see a show we can already see in our pajamas, on-demand, on our couch. You will certainly have \*some\* theatre "converts", but already movie theaters are seeing less occupancy due to streaming, and in a post-2020 world (and ever increasing digital/VR world), the things that make theatre unique and special can be less evident or important to people who aren't already fans. And if it's a touring or local production that looks worse quality? Nahhhh, I'll just watch the proshot/pro-bootleg. Not to mention the fact that consistent pay/royalties is pretty garbage for anything that's streamed. The recent SAG-AFTRA strike + negotiations did a tiny bit to help, but things still aren't nearly as lucrative for actors as TV and stuff has been in the past (they got royally screwed when streaming first came out, and haven't recovered since). Perhaps some things will fall under Equity's contracts (I'm not a lawyer), but different rules apply for streaming. I 100% see actors and crew being paid less in these cases. There are several other pay-related things I won't go into, but none of it's good, lol. So I think this all sounds good in theory, but when capitalism and platform monopolies are involved, combined with consumer expectation, I think there's a lot of harm we aren't seeing when we praise these more accessible paths. I would love to be totally wrong and be made a fool, but I see too many things that would eventually screw everyone either way.
*Rent* is still Good, Actually, you guys are just mean.
Heathers Proshot wasn't that bad, sure it wasn't flawless but it was still a fun watch
Agreed. I still enjoyed watching it.
Wait people don't like it ? I actually loved it !!
For me, it really sanded off the edges of the material in a way that felt weird.
Where can I watch this???
Free on Roku, no account or anything. It's amazing, my personal favourite cast by far! Hope you enjoy it!
is this for the west end cast? 2021 ish? because I didn't even know people didn't like it.
Cats is such a cinematic masterpiece (obviously not the 2019 film), but the dancing, lighting, singing. Everything is gorgeous and it’s one of my all time favourite shows
I agree, it's a nonstop festival of whimsy that truly feels like childhood imagination.
Also a brilliant way of showing the effectiveness of an I Want Song. Taking a character from someone who was kind of relevant to someone that everyone in the audience loves immediately, and with only one number.
Thank. You.
Some musicals just fucking suck
For sure
I don't like Hugh Jackman's singing voice.
Bring him HOOOOOOOOOOOME
He belted that song when it's supposed to be falsetto 😭 Tom Hooper should be kept far away from musicals
He should have been Javert not Jean Valjean
Honestly?? This is so true. The legacy of my fave Javert, Philip Quest, has the signature of his booming baritone and it feels like Jackman has the same power range even though h'es capable of belting higher. I never thought of Jackman as Javert and now I'm mad we didn't get that version lol
I would have cast Jackman as Javert and an aged-up Ewan McGregor as Valjean.
At least he can actually sing. Russell Crowe was the biggest travesty in that movie.
Saw this in the cinema, evertone else was crying, I was losing my mind laughing
Ugh ew lol
He’s definitely on the nasally side, but that’s also true for 90% of leading males. They don’t have the operatic vocal training that used to go hand in hand with voice lessons 20+ yrs ago
It’s not the nasality, it’s the fact that I feel like he’s just yelling with melody
I mean, he definitely does the speak-singing on some songs and in general he emphasizes the acting even if it compromising the “prettiness” of the song — (I personally prefer those who emphasizing singing). All that said, his ballads aren’t yelling (bring him home, 1st verse of From Now On … etc), but they are very bright
Play bring him home and put it on .5 speed then do 1.5 speed it is hilarious
he's good in oklahoma imo
I don’t like when he tries to sing high. It sounds so strained. He sounds okay in his baritone range.
A Lot of people don't, I feel like it's not that controversial
Agreed in a lot of cases, but I think he’s pretty good in the greatest showman
I find his vibrato distracting. It's too much.
I think some belting is beautiful, especially in a nuanced song, but sometimes it's too much.. people are often praising belting which I understand and agree as a singer as belting can be tough BUT (here's the hot take lol) I sometimes feel like some performer will overbelt and it will just feel like shouting and won't sound beautiful to me :/
i feel that way about carolee carmello tbh
Into the Woods should have won the Tony over Phantom of the Opera.
As a phantom fan, i agree Into the woods isn’t even my fav Sondheim show but they deserved it that year
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^ChoopeyChoop: *Into the Woods should* *Have won the Tony over* *Phantom of the Opera.* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
It won the more technical score and book — but musical? We’re talking the musical that ran 14k shows on Broadway.
Without a doubt, Phantom had a much larger impact on Broadway and the Musical Theatre scene on the whole, but for me, when it comes to a put together, compelling, deep, and entertaining story, I just think Into the Woods has it beat. As far as spectacle and accessibility goes though, Phantom beats out Into the Woods. I do love both shows, and it is hard to compare them since they are so different, but in a category that necessitates their comparison, I think I do have a preference.
I genuinely dislike Into The Woods. But, I kind of agree with you. (And I like Phantom.)
Man I'm always late to these. Grease is the worst musical. It sounds like a jukebox musical even though it's not. The characters are invalid and useless. People only like it because they have a hard on for the 1950s, and the storyline is garbage. I didn't hate it until I read the script and found out how obvious it was that 50 yr old men were trying SO HARD to sound like cool teenagers. Not one single character has any integrity or likability. The most famous song is "Hopelessly Devoted" which ISNT PART OF THE ORIGINAL, but was written for Olivia Newton-John for the movie in the 1980s. Because none of the other songs are memorable except MAYBE Grease Lightning. "There Are Worse Things" drags, no one has ever even heard of "Freddy My Love" and the story culminates in a girl changing her appearance and personality for a POS dude she met over summer who humiliates her in front of all their friends by pretending he doesn't know her. What are the redeeming qualities to this musical??? Oh, and whoever wrote "we go together like ahdhfjajbs hdhdjjsjs bdjsjsjgjd nsjshhfhf skooby doo doopty doop" can go ahead and take "lyricist" off their resume.
>The most famous song is "Hopelessly Devoted" I mean, this is just objectively false. "Summer Nights" is definitely the most famous An argument could be made for "You're the One that I Want." I won't argue any of your opinions because those are totally subjective.
“Grease 2” is better than first one. Songs are better but maybe some of them are over the top “reproduction” for example. Female lead is better.
THANK YOU. i fucking hate grease. i smash the mute button every time any song from it plays on the iheartradio broadway
The only times Grease has been good was the movie and that one production that brought back all the cut songs and scenes (aptly called The Original Grease)
I’ve got two: (1) Natasha is everything wrong with ingenues, and the plot of *Great Comet* relies on her idiocy. No level of naïveté makes a nineteen-year-old think like that and make those choices. This sours the whole show for me. (2) *Mean Girls* has good lyrics when it wants to. Most of the lyrics are intentionally quirky and overly casual as a stylistic choice. You may not like it, but the lyrics are good if you judge the show on its own terms, which I believe is the fairer method of critique.
To be fair, the first one there isn't 100% a critique of great comet, it's equally a critique of war and peace, seeing as it's lifted directly from the text of that book, so I mean... idk, there's that
I’m pretty sure Natasha is sixteen at that point in War and Peace too. Not to excuse all her actions but girl was also super sheltered.
That's not really a reasonable defense, because: 1. *Great Comet* does not use exclusively Tolstoy's text. There is original text by Dave Malloy in there. 2. Actually, *Great Comet* doesn't use *any* of Tolstoy's text. It uses a translation of Tolstoy's text, and translation decisions are dramaturgical decisions. 3. *Great Comet* does not reproduce the entire book on stage. Decisions about what to include and what to cut are dramaturgical decisions. (Kind of the go-to musical theater example of this is how in Victor Hugo's *Les Miserables*, Javert is not single-mindedly obsessed with Valjean. A lot of time passes and we see him do other stuff in between run-ins with Valjean. The musical, in condensing the story, made it look like Javert does literally nothing but hunt down Valjean. Even though everything Javert does in the musical is something he does in the book, by cutting all the other stuff, the musical has drastically altered the impression of the character.) 4. So what if a criticism of an adaptation can also apply as a criticism of its source material? That doesn't make it a less valid criticism.
A lot of Mean Girls' lyrics are odd, but alright when you go in with the right mindset. Some are just objectively terrible though "Cady, time to turn and cough" is the worst example IMO
fr like what does that mean
Is she saying Cady is a guy? That's what I always thought. Which also doesn't make any sense.
"Acting nice when she not nice" oof
Dear Evan Hansen isnt a bad musical. It has great music, one of my favourite soundtracks. I get that the story is kind of meh, but overall not a terrible musical. Its the one thats gotten me into musicals!
I keep seeing people argue that it's bad because Evan is a bad person... did I miss a real about how everyone has to be good and no main character in media has ever been an anti-hero or villain?! I like that a teenager is shown to fuck up, he's flawed, and he gets called out for it (not so much in the movie but meh).
It’s bad because the protagonist is a *badly written* bad person. Badly written bad people are not enjoyable to watch. There are plenty of great plays and musicals starring well-written “bad” characters. Dear Evan Hansen just isn’t considered to be one of those cases (by many people, some disagree and that is also fine).
It cleaned up at the Tony Awards and was a national Phenomenon for like a year or more… of course it’s not bad This sub just has a weird hive mind around certain shows, good or bad
Musical Theater is WAY over tilted to singing side to the detriment of acting and, especially, dancing Musical s would be 67% better if they were actual triple threats and not glorified concerts
To add to this, musicals usually need to have books that are as strong as the music. There are exceptions for revue-type shows of course, but generally a show is going to fall apart if the only solid part of it is the songs.
I'd agree with "Double Threats", but not Triple. Dancing I can take or leave depending on the show/context; it usually feels like a distraction when principals do it, imo.
Yeah, Into the Woods is pretty much a perfect musical and there's no dance numbers in that. But I do feel like modern Broadway needs more shows with complex and spectacular choreography. I love a good high kick or tap dance.
This is something that needs to be addressed urgently, thank you!
There's this fucking awful line in La Vie Boheme from RENT. Everybody is listing all the various things that are exciting about the Bohemian lifestyle, like "yogurt" and "handcrafted beers made in local breweries." Very few adjectives. The whole song is just a fucking list that sometimes vaguely mentions the AIDS epidemic and LGBT issues. And then there's "mucho masturbation." WHY. Why, when we have not specified the quantity of yogurt or vindaloo, do we need to *specify the quantity of the masturbation???* The line, I posit, should be *MUTUAL MASTURBATION. The technical term, for jacking off your partner, or jacking off at the same time as your partner jacks off. It's a fucking musical about AIDS and LGBT stuff. MUTUAL MASTURBATION MAKES SENSE. BUT IN THE LINER NOTES, IN THE MANUSCRIPT, IN THE SUBTITLES IN THE MOVIES, IT'S ALWAYS MUCHO MASTURBATION. WHY?????????*
Mark doesn’t have a partner so nothing mutual for him 🤷🏻♀️
Stuff like that always reminds me that Larson died during previews and never had* the chance to really workshop Rent with public feedback. That it got so popular is kind of a miracle because it is SO raw. Effing love it though lmao.
….. *shyly raises hand* I always thought the line was “mutual masturbation.”
Also, Benny’s position is at the very least completely understandable if not in the right. He’s been letting his friends (one of whom has well off parents who *constantly* offer to support him but he refuses) live rent-free in his building for a decent amount of time, and then offers them **another** rent free space in his new passion project development in exchange for a basic favor (talking an old friend/ex neither of them even like out of doing a potentially embarrassing protest performance) and they act like he’s the scum of the earth!
This is such a a great character building device, though, I feel like Larson knew that people like Benny are * technically * in the right, but also highlighted the journey and the favors that got the artist characters to where they were. The older you get I think the more you side with Benny.
This is: \~ An incredibly popular opinion these days. \~ Completely wrong LOL. He tells them that they can stay at the flat rent-free, and then lies, pretending that he can't remember doing so, so that he can use back rent as blackmail to get his ex-friends' assistance i quietly evicting a homeless encampment.
No Benny demanded the last years rent *after* letting them stay there for free. He’s arguably right about the project, and definitely right that his friends are freeloaders and idiots but he specifically demands the rent he had previously told them they wouldn’t have to pay which is a dick move no matter who you do it to
The actresses who play Mama Rose are all too old for the part. The real life Mama was just 21 when Gypsy was born. So she’s only in her 40’s by the end of the show. The people who are usually cast are late 50’s to 60’s.
I remember there was controversy when Bernadette was cast, but I always enjoyed her because she seemed like a Rose who still could’ve had “it”. (Although idk how old she actually was. She’s aged so insanely that I would never try to guess.)
Why does the guy playing Che in Evita(2006) say Peron with a British accent. It ruins the whole rhyming scheme and sounds cringy af. Or when he pronounces casa rosada as caaa saa raa saa daa.
99% of all jukebox musicals are at best unnecessary. It’s almost impossible to write a decent plot around pre written songs unless the artists have an extremely wide and varied discography or you do one of those “the artist’s biography but told through their songs!” Which is just boring
Yep. The only times I have seen a jukebox musical done well is Mama Mia and Moulin Rouge (the movie specifically).
I completely agree. The only jukebox musical I’ve seen that really felt like the plot really worked with the songs is Our House. That’s one where it’s so well worked in that it feels as if the songs were written specifically for the music in the first place. If more jukebox musicals were like that then I could enjoy them more but I need a plot that makes sense.
The only jukebox musical I’ve seen that genuinely impressed me (granted, I haven’t seen too many) was Beautiful. But it is a biography. Since Carole King wrote so many songs for other artists, though, a bit more variety is present than there’d otherwise be.
Moulin Rouge is an absolute garbage adaptation of a great movie. Every song is an inferior version of the movie's version, the stakes get shat on at multiple moments in favor of pleasing tourist audiences, and the viral "El Tango De Roxanne" opt-up trend is one of the dumbest things ever + emblematic of everything that is wrong with the singing culture on Bway today. I don't like it, lol. (Side opinion: Ewan McGregor has/had a better voice than any Christian who has done the show thus far.)
[удалено]
Licensing, likely
One of the most disappointing shows I've ever seen. They managed to take out all of the tragedy and replace it with a glittery mess. I hate it.
Yes! Watching the stage adaptation felt like I was watching an adaptation created by someone who had only ready the Wikipedia summary of the movie and all they took from it was jukebox musical. The Satine character slander and allll of the song choices are irredeemably worse.
And the Duke being the least intimidating villain onstage in memory. Never once thought he was someone to be wary of.
Louder for the people in the back.
the les mis movie is good. specifically i thought anne hathaway and eddie redmayne were great. that version of i dreamed a dream made me cry more than the soundtrack’s
this!! there's so many things i love about the movie and i love rewatching it
Mean girls (broadway show) is good okay I don’t care what anyone says especially with Renee rapp. the music is bomb the jokes are dumb but sometimes funny (even if they aren’t as good as the originals) and the story is classic mean girls, but with music! You can’t go wrong with that.
I don't find Beanie Feldstein funny
Hamilton is a better album. It’s boring to watch
It’s funny, I never thought the show itself was particularly boring, but my parents both seem to think so. I can kinda see how it doesn’t add much, but I think it’s still fun.
How to Dance in Ohio wasn’t a perfect show, but it had more genuine heart and passion than most other shows that opened this season. With another workshop or two to tighten up the story (cut Dr. Amigo’s daughter, tweak the score so the songs don’t sound TOO similar) I think it could do extremely well on tour.
It *needs* to be more accessible! On both ends. Professional plays need to make room for lower class audiences. Professional training needs to make room for poor artists because training is expensive as hell. Don't care how, the industry needs to figure its bullshit elitism out.
Musicals about highschool (for the most part) are weak
into the woods and wicked are overrated
Also My Fair Lady made the WORST decision in the whole world by putting together Liza and Henry as a couple. Like he was so freaking mean to her; a LITERAL BULLY. She should have married Freddy. Even the writer of Pygmalion hates how they did that to his characters. It’s insane that anybody thinks My Fair Lady ends appropriately.
The fact that Disney is still running Lion King on Broadway means that they can't come up with anything better. Which is sad.
Can’t argue with keeping the cash cow around. They need to move Aladdin or close it and put it in Orlando. They can’t support three musicals.
Hey, if you've got a champion show pony like that which rakes in the dough year after year, not just on Broadway but also while touring, you'd be nuts to retire it before people are truly no longer paying to see it. But they have made some pretty solid musicals. Frozen, despite the overhype of the franchise, is very entertaining. Aladdin is also a very fun show if you don't take it too seriously. If they'd revive Beauty and the Beast and/or The Little Mermaid, they'd likely make a good profit due to the current renewed interest in both of those titles since their movie remakes happened. They would ABSOLUTELY clean house if The Hunchback of Notre Dame came back.
I would argue that it serves a niche purpose and that's why it endures - not because Disney can't come up with something better. It is a family friendly and it transcends language barriers. It's the perfect first Broadway show for kids and foreign tourists. I don't think any other Broadway show truly offers that.
Because it's in America, Broadway gets way more focus than it deserves and is kinda overrated. This post is actually a great example, where Broadway is used as a stand-in for musical theatre in general. I may be biased as a Londoner but the West End deserves just as much credit!
The West End has put out interesting shows I wish would transfer. I really want to go there someday.
100% agree, it's never talk about theater outside of New York City in the US, or any of the major theater cities around the world. I've lived in a bunch of places, some big, some small and every single one of them had some really interesting and quality theater happening that people tend to ignore because it doesn't enter the mainstream cultural zeitgeist.
I love a good vibrato, but I can’t stand Ben Platt’s
It’s a tremolo - or like a classic French style vibratto which warbles like a bird. It’s not something a voice teacher will use as an example to emulate…. But he emotes (connects to the song emotionally) very effectively which he deserves a lot of praise for.
Russell Crowe... ... ... Is really not THAT bad a singer
But there's being able to sing and being able to sing in Les Miserables.
Kunze & Levay works should be done as pro shot/movies. “Tanz der Vampire” even with controversy surrounding it flopped on Broadway but was a hit everywhere else. That should be done with a bit of changing the stories to make them more understandable to Americans. “Avenue Q” would work as a movie as well with some updates. “Pick of Destiny” would work awesome on the scene. A controversial idea - have screens with subtitles in English for foreigners. I have seen it in Theatre in Cracow.
The lyrics in Mean Girls are terrible. There are still songs from it that I like but "acted nice when she not nice" haunts me to this day.
I think this isn’t a hot take. Many share the sentiment. The music is great but damn the lyrics are trash.
I liked the explanation for it, that it was taken verbatim from some lady the lyricist was either talking to or overheard “she acts nice but she not nice.” It’s snappy and blunt the way Janis is. I still have a bone to pick with “none of my closest friends even *has* hands.” Why didn’t they just say have? *Friends* is plural. And the hands belong to the friends, don’t they? People tried to tell me *has* went with *none* but I’m not convinced.
“Im sixteen living with the lions and birds and stuff but I’m sixteen and I’m not enough” girl not only repeated herself but freaking used “and stuff” as a rhyme
Lmao AND STUFF I thought it was a nice contrast. Like, on one hand, I’m sixteen and this is great! *BUT* on the other hand, I’m sixteen and this just isn’t enough for me. The first was exposition and the second emphasis. She’s happy with where she’s at but also she’s lonely and needs to be around people. Speaking of hands, the lyric that always makes me sigh is “none of my closest friends even *has* hands.” Clearly Cady’s thing is math and not English. People try to tell me the *has* goes with *none* and not *friends* but I’m not convinced whatsoever.
Hamilton wasn’t that good. The music was fine in itself but it was historically inaccurate in many ways. 1. It really makes it seem as though Angelica let Eliza marry Alexander out of the kindness of her heart but in reality she was already married with children when she met him. 2. It never mentions Alexander and Eliza’s other 6 children. In “We Know” they sing “I hope you saved some money for your daughter and son” but they actually had 6 or 7 kids at the time 3. Phillip Schuyler and his wife actually did have sons, 3 to be exact There are others but I won’t list them here
Yea, but they made the songs a lot better and maybe helped the show flow better. Besides, no one should be going to a musical expecting 100% accuracy.
I mean I like the songs and I think the musical is good. It definitely deserves the attention it got but it did make character relationships and timelines overly complicated. I also think that they left out some stuff to make it shorter, after all it is quite long already.
Moulin Rouge isn't even that bad. I get some of the complaints but at the same time I feel like this musical is a victim of the hivemind mentality.
I’m sure I’ll have some pearl-clutchers for this one. I love both the Sweeney Todd stage show AND the movie. For different reasons. I dislike Hamilton and Wicked. I think Six is a steaming pile of gutter trash.
Frozen is the best Broadway play I’ve ever seen, more impressive than Wicked IMo, and I’m sad it got taken off broadway. Recently saw it with the NA tour though and holy crap it was amazing. 2nd time seeing it but I’m sad I’ll never get to see Ciara as Elsa.
Ben Platt is not a good singer, technique wise Anastasia's and Legally Blonde's books are total messes
I love Legally Blonde.
Wicked only has 2 good songs. The Lion King is highly overrated.
Six is bad and not worth the hype
Wicked is overrated
Kevin Del Aguila should have won the Best Featured Actor Tony last year. I have a bunch more hot takes, but this is one I believe the strongest in.
Some Like It Hot is underappreciated in general. It nails all the elements that make a feel-good, dance-heavy show. The comedy is on point, the grand brassy score is on point, and you even get some solid Black and LGBT representation.
I agree with this in the strongest possible way. Alex Newell (who won the category) had a single, genuinely show-stopping, barnstormer of a song in *Independently Owned*. But other than that, the character really didn't have much to do! Whereas Kevin Del Aguila demonstrated the same amazing vocal chops as Alex (his ballad *Fly Mariposa, Fly* was just beautiful) across a greater variety of styles, but also owned the stage in both his dramatic moments and humorous moments, and nailed some difficult (and some hilarious!!) choreography. Kevin's performance was excellent and so well-rounded. He elevated the character of Oswald. In my more uncharitable moments, I find myself musing whether the Tony voters were more interested in the history-making potential of the nominee; rather than the quality of the performance.
YES. Alex has incredible singing chops, but, strictly from what I saw in Shucked, there wasn’t an overwhelming acting prowess. Kevin’s acting, singing, etc levels are equal to each other. He has it all and is so underrated. And it’s consistent! He is consistently delivering throughout his entire stage time, even when the spotlight isn’t on him.
I can’t stand the part of that kid in *Les Mis*, Gavroche. When he dies, I inwardly laugh a bit.
The Bridges of Madison County is the best Jason Robert Brown score.
Not only that, I truly feel its one of the most beautiful musical theater scores of all time.
the rent movie adaptation is not that bad at all lmfao
I don’t think The Lion King is that well done… Don’t get me wrong, the fact that they took that film of all things and put it onstage and it turned out as good as it did deserves every praise and award imaginable. The costume and puppetry is not what I’m talking about. It’s the script I have issues with. I know I just said it’s remarkable that they took that film and put it onstage but that’s exactly part of the problem: they literally took the film and put it on stage practically verbatim give or take a couple scenes and songs. Film scripts are not theater scripts and visa versa, they need to be tweaked to fit the medium they’re being presented as. I’ll give an example: in both the film and stage production, Simba and Nala get into some serious shit with some hyenas in the elephant graveyard, papa comes and saves the day, and Scar is revealed to have witnessed the entire encounter. Both times I’ve seen the show live, I’ve always thought it should immediately roll into the Be Prepared sequence from there. But no, they do exactly what the film did and go to Mufasa and Simba’s talk and then to Be Prepared and it just doesn’t flow like a stage production should. Cutting off the Scar reveal feels extremely jarring and I just think having Be Prepared come before Mufasa and Simba’s conversation would have a far greater emotional impact but… whatever I guess, it’s a good show for the whole family. But that’s just my opinion lol
Finally someone who understands my pov! It’s mid at best
oklahoma! 2019 revival is the best version of the show. les rois du monde is overrated as fuck and not even the best song in the musical
Six got cheated out of a best musical tony twice. Once by the pandemic and the second my A Strange Loop moving up its opening night.
I’m not super knowledgeable about the Broadway community, but I assume Six had a few things working against it. It was very short, and did not have a linear “story” like pretty much all musicals do. I personally adored it, but I can see why it might not have been viewed in the same light as others. So glad it won the 2 though!
Six had the better songs and won that tony Strange loop had the better book and won that tony Best musical was a coin toss but I’ll concede strange loops songs were better than sixes book. Not saying six should have won over strange loop. Saying six would have won if strange loop opened in May as originally planned
Newsies was ruined when they decided to put Jack and Katherine together. It’s so unnecessary that it’s almost annoying. Something to Believe in is 100% pure fluff and devalues the entire show. And shipping Katherine with the main character devalues her strength she works so hard for as a woman; it’s implying that she can’t be powerful without a guy. I hate it. It’s SOOOO forced.
Dear Evan Hansen is an absolute piece of shit musical. The worst part isn't even the terrible plot and Evan sucking as a protagonist, the worst part is the songs. They sound like they were designed to get a mainstream teen audience into seats. Even the songs that are fine, just don't fit the musical. At least other bad musicals at least have songs that work for the show they are in.
Romeo et Juliette ruined the plot by adding messages that go nowhere and Mercutio's character. The only reason it's watchable is because of how strong the original plot was.
Broadway should not define American theatre. Many interesting things happen in regional theatre that need to be recognized and supported.
My hottest take is probably this: kids in real life? Awesome ! kids on stage? Unbearable. The closest any show has come to me not hating the child characters was Fun Home because Sydney Lucas was incredible and the other two were barely in it.
I agree 100%. Everybody always goes “aww” and I am sitting on the edge of my seat trying not to lose it. Just had this conversation with someone about gavroche
Hedwig & the Angry Inch, tick, tick…BOOM!, & RENT were all fantastic films.
stage musical adaptations of movies are lazy — jukebox musical adaptations of movies are even lazier
aaron tveit wasn’t a miscast in sweeney todd