580 replies to this topic

[mallardo]

Well, I hope to god you guys are wrong because if it's all about spectacle and getting what you pay for then what's the future of the theatre?  I don't mean to get all apocalyptic but that is the tail wagging the dog.

[popcultureboy]

Quote

Well, I hope to god you guys are wrong because if it's all about spectacle and getting what you pay for then what's the future of the theatre? I don't mean to get all apocalyptic but that is the tail wagging the dog.

Oh I hope I'm wrong too, and hugely anticipated big spectacles can still fail (I'm looking at you, Love Never Dies). But with prices constantly going up (Book of Mormon has pushed the top price to £69.50, before fees) and ever more premium seats being added, shows like A Chorus Line don't stand a chance. Not only are they on the back foot with the lack of names and lack of spectacle people want for the small fortune their night is costing them, but it's also squeezing out the very people it's aimed at.

[DeNada]

popcultureboy, on 27 February 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

Oh I hope I'm wrong too, and hugely anticipated big spectacles can still fail (I'm looking at you, Love Never Dies). But with prices constantly going up (Book of Mormon has pushed the top price to £69.50, before fees) and ever more premium seats being added, shows like A Chorus Line don't stand a chance. Not only are they on the back foot with the lack of names and lack of spectacle people want for the small fortune their night is costing them, but it's also squeezing out the very people it's aimed at.

On the flip side, with an average ticket price of US$100 (around £53 in 2006) , when this production was revived on Broadway in 2006 it consistently sold out the first few weeks of its run.  No names, no spectacle, still cost a small fortune to attend, but much more successful.

Of course Chorus LIne as a brand has a much stronger history on Broadway - people cared about the show, unlike here.  But I don't think it's "aimed" purely at young/poor enthusiasts paying for cheapo tickets - the show has, or at least once had, broader appeal than that.

[theatrically]

I went last night with my bf ( late valentine's present ) and I have to say we were both dissapointed - kind of agree with lesterf and Titan - think it was partly the money thing but also it was rather dull - although I did have some eye candy .. what is the name of the fit actor that plays the 18 year old ;-) ?

[Titan]

i wonder if the relentless talent shows we get these days has something to do with lack of public interest. afterall these days we have seen every sob story for people wanting to be famous in some form so the concept of a show about dancers, their dreams and ambitions etc isnt exactly something frsh or new

[Southstreet]

DeNada, on 27 February 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

On the flip side, with an average ticket price of US$100 (around £53 in 2006) , when this production was revived on Broadway in 2006 it consistently sold out the first few weeks of its run.  No names, no spectacle, still cost a small fortune to attend, but much more successful.

Of course Chorus LIne as a brand has a much stronger history on Broadway - people cared about the show, unlike here.  But I don't think it's "aimed" purely at young/poor enthusiasts paying for cheapo tickets - the show has, or at least once had, broader appeal than that.

It's also worth mentioning though that that was in a theatre about half the size of the Palladium.

I personally love the show, yes it's simple with no sets, but I love the music and the stories. I had friends that felt the same way when they saw the recent Broadway revival  though, they were expecting more of a spectacle. As for the price tag, I don't pay full whack for anything, I day queue or wait for offers, but if I had to pay 65 quid for a show, I would have felt less ripped off getting Chorus Line for that money than something like Shrek or WWRY. But then that comes down to what kinda shows you like, everyone has different tastes.

[Catqc]

Southstreet, on 27 February 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

But then that comes down to what kinda shows you like, everyone has different tastes.

Exactly - you're never going to find a show which everyone loves and no-one criticises, some people here clearly prefer the more flamboyant ones, others prefer the simple ones with a sort of deep meaning. Also (I may of course be wrong, in which case sorry and no offense intended) but I doubt Lesterf is in a position to actually do anything about the set he doesnt like, so it isnt really that big a deal if it is just disussed...

[cat123]

I think it's very sad to equate value for money with number of costume and scene changes and how much "that guy from Eastenders" is on stage.

Value in theatre for me is about how much I connect with the piece, how strong the story/characters/concept is and the emotional impact it has on me. And this show ticks all three boxes.

If you're panning the show for its simplicity then you are missing the point. Which is fine, it's not for everyone. But that's the risk you take when going to a show "blind". If you want to do that then ok, but don't complain about spending the money on a show you didn't enjoy when a quick scan of Wikipedia would have given you a clue that that might be the case.

[Mads1607]

lesterf, on 27 February 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

yes Seriously - have you never heard of show adaptations or rewrites ? It is not a huge change just an improvement in my opinion. It was originally written in 1975 so there is no reason 38 years later why you can not make some small changes .... audience expectations in 2013 are rather different to 1976 and productions have developed a hell of a lot since then.. a small change / changes I have mentioned will not take away anything from the feeling of  the production and might just add in a little more interest..

A Chorus Line is very different to every West End show I've seen before in that there is basically no set, and I've got to be honest, when I first sat down to see it I did think it looked very bland (bearing in mind I'd never seen the show before OR the film). However, I thought the set worked fantastically because it drew attention to the characters. With nothing to distract me in the background I found myself paying much more attention to the stories they were telling through dance, song and their words - and for a show that's so full of fantastic stories, I think that's essential. If you want to see a show that's visually stimulating then A Chorus Line probably isn't for you (although I find it fascinating how the cast members sometimes become a moving set, in a way, and also I think the lack of colour throughout the show makes the background in One Singular Sensation much more dazzling) but if you want a show that's rich, deep, funny, interesting, heartwarming, real and full of great music and dancing then you're in the right place!

I've seen it a few times now and it's been completely worth every penny I paid.

[popcultureboy]

Quote

I think it's very sad to equate value for money with number of costume and scene changes and how much "that guy from Eastenders" is on stage.

So do I, but it doesn't mean that's what a great swathe of the audience are doing.

Quote

Value in theatre for me is about how much I connect with the piece, how strong the story/characters/concept is and the emotional impact it has on me.

As it is for me, and for any serious theatregoer. But for people who don't often go, someone who's maybe hooked in by "him off Eastenders" being in it and who doesn't know or read up on the piece beforehand, they're likely to feel a little shortchanged for their £65 outlay. They probably won't be transported by the piece, they'll probably be annoyed that Partridge only has about 10 minutes of onstage time and there's no real set and so on and so on.