[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
I have it DVR’d. I’m waiting to see if Sex shows up for the audition.
“Sex” was a contestant “So You Think You Can Dance.” who really thought he could. He couldn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Oh god, Sex. And his Mom. Classic reality show moment.
And, yeah, jsgoddess, I’m planning to watch. In fact, I just rescheduled dinner with a friend to watch this and the Apprentice season premiere. Damn I’m lame.
I was wondering if anyone watched this…based on the fact that this thread was found languishing at the bottom of page 2, I take it the answer is: no. Besides me, of course.
I admit that the concept looks good, on paper. You’re casting parts that are well known, so everyone has an opinion about how good or bad a contestant fits. And it’s like American Idol, but with dancing and acting, too! What could be better?
Unfortunately, it looked just like a cheezy, low-budget knock-off of Idol. The hosts & judges had no memorable traits whatsoever. But the judges get my sympathy; I’m sure they had to hear “Totally Devoted” about 100 times more than the Geneva Convention allows.
[QUOTE=jsc1953]
I was wondering if anyone watched this…based on the fact that this thread was found languishing at the bottom of page 2, I take it the answer is: no. Besides me, of course.
[/QUOTE]
Psst! There’s a new thread devoted to it.
Much like Constantine from American Idol to whom I was subjected at a national tour production of “Rent” about a year before his appearance on the show. After the show, he hit on my friends outside the theater.
The clips they’ve shown on the commercials do show folks who can dance and sing and presumably act well enough. They did show one crappy singer (like the joke ones on AI) but for the most part it looked like a true show rehearsal.
I like Nashville Star for the talent of the contestants; the joke Idols are fun but even the final contestants sometimes suck. The finalists on NS are all very good and I have a hard time deciding on who is best.
From the BBC original (to find a Maria for ‘Sound of Music’):
This TV show gave the theatre show masses of publicity.
The winner had name recognition and an instant fanbase.
The producer had control over who made the final the final 10, control over who left each week and could even see who was popular with the public.
And they made money from the phone-in lines.
AT least as good as conventional casting.
Well, I find the original post a bit strange. Why? Because Broadway Musicals, like reality TV, are lowest common denominator shit(*) – and I don’t just mean Grease.
We’re not talking about “The Iceman Cometh”.
We’re talking about the shit for the people from the midwest with scrunchies in their hair who stand outside “The Today Show” studio with “Happy Birthday, Kimmy!” posters. That’s who Broadway musicals are for.
Broadway musicals SUCK ASS. They all do. Where am I coming from? I’ve now seen Cats, Chicago, Fosse, Lion King – on Broadway. They all suck, without exception. They’re Disney. They’re candy – performed by people with great talent, without a doubt. But, still candy.
They’re not marketed to the the well-heeled, intellectual, Manhattan crowd who go to see Woody Allen movies.
They’re for the people who watch reality TV, and will go to see the two morons they voted for, just like they buy an assload of Daughtry and Underwood.
(*) While, this is rant-y, I don’t mean to imply I’m above it. I look forward to American Idol with anticipation. I’m just saying that it’s a mistake to think the Broadway musical somehow exists above this plane.
[QUOTE=Trunk]
Well, I find the original post a bit strange. Why? Because Broadway Musicals, like reality TV, are lowest common denominator shit(*) – and I don’t just mean Grease.
We’re not talking about “The Iceman Cometh”.
We’re talking about the shit for the people from the midwest with scrunchies in their hair who stand outside “The Today Show” studio with “Happy Birthday, Kimmy!” posters. That’s who Broadway musicals are for.
Broadway musicals SUCK ASS. They all do. Where am I coming from? I’ve now seen Cats, Chicago, Fosse, Lion King – on Broadway. They all suck, without exception. They’re Disney. They’re candy – performed by people with great talent, without a doubt. But, still candy.
They’re not marketed to the the well-heeled, intellectual, Manhattan crowd who go to see Woody Allen movies.
They’re for the people who watch reality TV, and will go to see the two morons they voted for, just like they buy an assload of Daughtry and Underwood.
(*) While, this is rant-y, I don’t mean to imply I’m above it. I look forward to American Idol with anticipation. I’m just saying that it’s a mistake to think the Broadway musical somehow exists above this plane.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. You’ve seen four entire shows. Clearly you know your Broadway musicals.
For what it’s worth, the Broadway musical - the musical in general - is not defined solely by CATS or GREASE any more than film is defined by JACKASS or painting is defined by Thomas Kinkade. The well-heeled Manhattan crowd isn’t going to see LION KING - they’re going to see SWEENEY TODD, or SPRING AWAKENING, or AVENUE Q. Musical theatre, like every art form, is not homogenous; there’s good and bad, grand and intimate, eye candy for the masses and harder stuff for the intellectuals.
GREASE: YOU’RE THE ONE THAT I WANT is obviously in the former group, but it’s either disingenuous or foolish to maintain that it’s representative of the entire genre.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Wow. You’ve seen four entire shows. Clearly you know your Broadway musicals.
For what it’s worth, the Broadway musical - the musical in general - is not defined solely by CATS or GREASE any more than film is defined by JACKASS or painting is defined by Thomas Kinkade. The well-heeled Manhattan crowd isn’t going to see LION KING - they’re going to see SWEENEY TODD, or SPRING AWAKENING, or AVENUE Q. Musical theatre, like every art form, is not homogenous; there’s good and bad, grand and intimate, eye candy for the masses and harder stuff for the intellectuals.
GREASE: YOU’RE THE ONE THAT I WANT is obviously in the former group, but it’s either disingenuous or foolish to maintain that it’s representative of the entire genre.
[/QUOTE]
That’s 4 more than most people.
Regardless, the point remains that the notion that we’re befouling the integrity of the broadway musical by casting it through a reality TV show indicates way too much regard for the musical.
[QUOTE=Trunk]
That’s 4 more than most people.
Regardless, the point remains that the notion that we’re befouling the integrity of the broadway musical by casting it through a reality TV show indicates way too much regard for the musical.
[/QUOTE]
Well… except there really is a problem, for those of us who like musical theatre. Because the musical as an art form obviously has a major PR problem - as your own post makes clear, the shows that get publicized and that represent the genre in the public mind are not necessarily the best of the material that’s out there. There are some really interesting musicians working in this particular area, interesting directors, interesting writers, but their voices get drowned out by the more commercial stuff. The vast majority of people therefore think “musical = tourist-friendly crap” - which matches your perception, right? - and so they figure they have little use for the musical as an art form. So what happens? Well, the tourists go to see the crap, and it thrives, and it takes up the houses and it’s a safe bet for the producers. The better shows, which rely on people who like more sophisticated or skillfully made material, can’t attract an audience because those people are under the mistaken perception that every Broadway show is just like CATS. So the better shows evaporate.
Now here comes this TV show. Here’s a chance to put the musical in front of a lot of eyes, to maybe change someone’s idea of what the whole Broadway thing is all about. And what do they do? They choose possibly the worst show ever, then cast it with a haphazard, overly produced “audition” that can only reinforce people’s worst opinions about the genre. A real look at an audition process that more closely resembles a real audition process, with insight into the nuts-and-bolts of the acting, singing, and dancing and how they are assessed, in the service of producing a worthwhile show? That would have been interesting. This is just stupid.
PS I’ll still be watching it, though.
Point taken.
I’ve tried to be a theater fan. I get bored friggin senseless every time I go. The last two times we’ve been to the theater in Baltimore, we left at intermission. . .and one was a more experimental musical. I can’t recall the name. The stuff I’ve been to in New York was pure torture.
FWIW, I loved Blue Man Group.
[QUOTE=Trunk]
Broadway musicals SUCK ASS. They all do. Where am I coming from? I’ve now seen Cats, Chicago, Fosse, Lion King – on Broadway. They all suck, without exception. They’re Disney. They’re candy – performed by people with great talent, without a doubt. But, still candy.
[/QUOTE]
Right, because those four are such a wide representation of all Broadway shows. Disney & two by Fosse. ALLmusic sucks because Britney Spears is popular & the general population know her name. Same argument right?
Company, Grey Gardens, The Drowsy Chaperone, Spring Awakening, A Chorus Line, Les Miserables are all wonderful shows that have nothing in common with the four you’ve seen except that they are all Broadway shows. (I’ve only listed shows currently running, there have been tons of other great shows in the recent past that have closed.)
Let’s see. I’ve seen “Cats,” “Les Miserable,” “Rent,” “Phantom of the Opera,” “Lion King*,” “Mama Mia*,” “Miss Saigon,” and “Into the Woods*.” The only one that I thought was a complete waste of time was “Cats.” The others ranged from mildly entertaining (Phantom) to very entertaining (Rent). I’ve also traveling productions of “Stomp” and its horn equivalent which name escapes me. I’d pay to see “Stomp” again.
I’d really like to see “The Producers” and “Wicked” and may make a trip to NYC to see them.
Musical theater may seem insipid to some people. It isn’t my husband’s cup of tea. So now I see shows with friends who do enjoy it. Personally, I haven’t seen a Woody Allen movie in years, first because I’m not a fan of his work (neurotic is not charming to me) and second because I think he’s creepy. However, I’m not so arrogant to assume that because I don’t like something then my opinion should be the benchmark for what is classy.
*Off Broadway or a traveling Broadway production. “Rent” was in Boston. The rest were on Broadway.
Heh, I saw Phantom of the Opera live in Houston. I think the biggest thing working against the show, honestly, was that there was no way in hell they could have followed up the chandelier opening with anything nearly as awesome.
Basically, the auctionmaster is giving his spiel about the chandalier being wired for electricity, and how they were going to hoist it up to see how it used to look. As soon as he gives the signal to raise the chandelier, a bunch of pyrotechnics go off on the stage, blowing out your dark vision, and by the time you can see agian, the chandelier is halfway to the cieling, glowing ominously while the theme song plays. Very very goosebumpingly cool.
[QUOTE=want2know]
And now, Mr. and Mrs. Crapforbrains from Lower Fumbuck County are going to decide who plays the lead roles in a Broadway musical, fer chrissakes?
[/QUOTE]
Why not? They are the one’s who will come to NY and pay to see it.
Besides, the winners, they’ll be going out there a youngster, but they have got to come back as stars!
[QUOTE=Eyebrows 0f Doom]
Right, because those four are such a wide representation of all Broadway shows.
[/QUOTE]
Right.
And the four that I’ve seen are the entire scope of my experience. Ok. . .keep trotting out more and more obscure musicals to show my limited experience. No, I haven’t seen Urinetown, or Avenue Q. You got me.
I haven’t seen on Broadway, but am quite familiar with (who isn’t). . .
The Producers
Miss Saigon
Rent
Spamalot
Les Mis
Phantom of the Opera
Not to mention the others. . .Guys & Dolls, Annie, Damn Yankees, Grease, JC Superstar, etc.
I’ve either seen movies, travelling shows, or PBS presentations of all of them in part of in full. These are made-for-the-masses junk. They are P*irates of the Carribbean *and Britney Spears. They are not Eugene O’Neill and Tennesse Williams, just because they’re done on a stage.
Just because you’ve seen Les Mis, doesn’t mean you’re familiar with Victor Hugo.
But go ahead and fool yourselves into thinking Mr. Cellophane is art. Yep, you have culture all right. . .you go to Broadway musicals. Reality TV is for the rubes and bumpkins who are beneath the theater. No crossover at all.
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
…Now here comes this TV show. Here’s a chance to put the musical in front of a lot of eyes, to maybe change someone’s idea of what the whole Broadway thing is all about. And what do they do? They choose possibly the worst show ever, then cast it with a haphazard, overly produced “audition” that can only reinforce people’s worst opinions about the genre. A real look at an audition process that more closely resembles a real audition process, with insight into the nuts-and-bolts of the acting, singing, and dancing and how they are assessed, in the service of producing a worthwhile show? That would have been interesting. This is just stupid…[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]
You’d prefer if they chose to cast for Vampire Lesbians Of Sodom? 
[QUOTE=BMalion]
You’d prefer if they chose to cast for Vampire Lesbians Of Sodom?
[/QUOTE]
Well, duh, who wouldn’t?
I went to see a musical once (A Chorus Line), but they were holding auditions instead.
And the theatre wouldn’t refund my money!
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a (n off) Broadway musical. Does Hair count? What about Jesus Christ Superstar? Or is that an opera?