satch
|
is this show really bad?i heard this is the worst musical ever ... i know it's based on opinion, but there's alot of common opinion.
i know people here might be biased. but why do you think people dislike this one? and i checked other forums and there seems to be a general consensus.
i wonder why.
why is this so
perhaps a general disdain towards anything ALW from sondheimists?
if sondheim was linked to this , would this be better received?
|
mantarnia
|
Re: is this show really bad? | satch wrote: | i heard this is the worst musical ever ... i know it's based on opinion, but there's alot of common opinion.
i know people here might be biased. but why do you think people dislike this one? and i checked other forums and there seems to be a general consensus.
i wonder why.
why is this so
perhaps a general disdain towards anything ALW from sondheimists?
if sondheim was linked to this , would this be better received? |
Well I personally think its brilliant. Lets face it if it was that bad it would hardly have run as long as it did in London. Plus of course the German production in Bochum
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
It is heaps of fun. Those who denounce it simply miss the point I think.
|
High-baritonne
|
Starlight Express has the purpose of entertaining an audience, making them walk out of the theatre, humming tunes. That's probably the reason why so many people dislike it. Personally I like it. It is not very good, but it is entertaining! Sometimes I want more, and sometimes I can't cope with emotional musicals, then it's time for Starlight Express, Mamma Mia!, etc.
|
Belle
|
There have been some very bad productions of the show, particularly in the US, loads of "WTF???" changes made the the basic material. See one of these productions, on a night where the cast might not be the most energetic and committed, and it's not a good show. If you're already biased against the show, then all you see is roller skating dancers pretending to be trains - and in some productions, the plot is rendered redundant because they don't bother telling the story!
But see a good production, where there's some effort towards theatre as well as the spectacle, with a good cast (and they usually are superb) and it's the most amazing, fantastical musical!
As for worst ever - I can think of a lot that are far worse! But if you want something high profile and very successful to hate, it's gonna be Starlight or Cats. However if you have imagination and an open mind, those two can be the best shows in the world.
|
Disney-Bway27
|
I can think of worse.
But yes, it's bad.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
| Disney-Bway27 wrote: | I can think of worse.
But yes, it's bad. |
So nice of you to bring up an old thread and say somehting unhelpful.
|
rock_musicals
|
Umm.. if you take it too seriously then I guess you will think the story is bad, but I like it because it's fun and it's just indulgent amazingness
|
Disney-Bway27
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | Disney-Bway27 wrote: | I can think of worse.
But yes, it's bad. |
So nice of you to bring up an old thread and say somehting unhelpful. |
So nice of you to say something just as unhelpful, if not more unhelpful. Because unlike you, I actually contributed to the topic. Thank you and goodnight.
|
Pounce
|
Re: is this show really bad? | satch wrote: | | i heard this is the worst musical ever ... i know it's based on opinion, but there's alot of common opinion. |
That would be simple hyperbole. Despite its relatively lackluster performance in the US, it was very popular in Britain and it's still playing in Germany. It's a light, entertaining, "bubble gum" sort of musical. A superficial moral play with lots of action, music, and glitz. A "worst musical" could not have that sort of longevity.
|
Disney-Bway27
|
^ Exactly. I'm not fond of it, by any means, but it's not the worst. It's just very, very, very, very shallow. Definitely not thought provoking, but it doesn't try to be.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
I do not see how it is 'shallow.' There is a vast difference between being simple and fun and being bad. Bad is failing to captivate the audience, not leaving them wanting more. It is designed as a show that is fine for children, but all of the other parts to keep adults amused while going over the heads of those too young to get it. Not to mention some of the funnest, most upbeat music in theatre.
On a side note; a necropost of two half sentences is unhelpful.
|
Disney-Bway27
|
|
Dvarg
|
Re: is this show really bad? | satch wrote: | perhaps a general disdain towards anything ALW from sondheimists?
if sondheim was linked to this , would this be better received? |
I don't think it's the worst ever. I just think it's very awful 
Though being a non-malicious Sondheimist, I can only speak for myself when trying to explain why I think StEx is an awful musical. (Mind you - thinking it's an awful musical does not mean I don't find myself enjoying parts of it.)
It's also not true that Sondheimists dislike everything ALW. Personally I enjoy everything before Cats (including Song & Dance). I also think that parts of his later work are very good, or example much of AOL.
The reason I despise StEx so much is not that it's shallow. Many great shows are. It's more in what way StEx is shallow. As I see it, good shallow shows are good because they make a lot out of little. StEx makes little out of a lot.
Yeah, that's it, really.
Take for instance Joseph And The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat - a shallow show if ever there were one. It's great. That's because TR and AlW took a relatively bare plotline and filled in the blanks with comparatively sophisticated, yet simple jokes, musically and texually. It makes one admire and enjoy how they got a lot out of little.
StEx is the opposite. There are some bawdy but fun jokes there. But they drown in the overall concept of the show, with it's unending string of pastiche music, tacky sets and costumes and gimmicks. There just is too much. The enjoyment of clever simplicity is lost.
When that is said, though, it's very very fun to belt aong with lots of the songs.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
That really doesn't make sense. It's very cheeky and clever. The costumes of the coaches especially are ver well designed and intricate. I hope you're not basing it off of the later versions.
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | That really doesn't make sense. It's very cheeky and clever. The costumes of the coaches especially are ver well designed and intricate. |
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about.
Think about Cole Porter: constructing a five minute song with tight limits out of bawdy puns on Shakespeare plays is making a lot out of a kernel of an idea. That's witty and entertaining.
"Well-designed costmes"? That doesn't have anything to do with the quality of musical theatre, and has nothing to do with being entertaining.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
I mentioned costumes becasue you did. The lyrics are very clever, cheeky, and the kind of inuenndo that is child friendly.
I still think you contradicted yourself. You said it's bad, but you enjoy it. Considering it is meant to be enjoyed, not thought provoking, how is it then bad if it achives everything it set out to do?
|
Dvarg
|
StEx is bad for the reasons I mentioned.
There is a huge difference between something that is good and something one likes. Enjoying something one recognises as bad isn't selfcontradictory at all.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
Nope, still doesn't make sense. How can you say that this entertainment is bad but entertaining. It is a contradiction. Like saying it wasn't funny, but I laughed.
In addition, would you mind stating why it is bad, rather than it just is? I bet it cannot be done without resorting to personal preference.
|
RainbowJude
|
On the contrary | Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | In addition, would you mind stating why it is bad, rather than it just is? I bet it cannot be done without resorting to personal preference. |
Oh yes, it can. You really don't want me to take up a challenge like that. Starlight Express is by no means a great musical and Hans recognises that. But for the reasons he's stated above, he can still find enjoyment in it. This is not a difficult concept to grasp: one part of it has to do with standards based in the dramaturgy of musical theatre, the other with personal enjoyment.
Later days
David
|
Dvarg
|
What David said, basically, plus:
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | Like saying it wasn't funny, but I laughed. |
No. It's like saying it was funny, but the jokes weren't dramaturgically justified/consistent (for example).
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | In addition, would you mind stating why it is bad, rather than it just is? |
I already described how StEx instead of making a lot out of a little makes a little out of a lot.
|
Angel-of-Music*
|
I really love stex.
i can understand why people wouldnt, because its not the deepest or most thought provoking piece, but personally i think it is one of the most entertaining shows i've ever seen, I couldn't take my eyes off the stage for a second there was so much to look at and so much going on, which could be irritating for some people who think there is too much and find it distracting from the story, but i really found it fascinating.
The cast i saw was amazing and it really made you appreciate how much work is put in there because even things which seem simple from a viewing perspective like the girls skating joined together in lotta locomotion or relatively tame tricks like pearl skating on one leg in one of her songs, is incredibly difficult to do. I did a starlight section in a show a while back and it took so much practising to even be able to sing at all when doing a relatively simple routine, never mind be singing full belt and note perfect in a profession production. In that sense it is a very challenging show, and not one to be looked down upon by people who think it isnt of a high enough standard in terms of intellectual content to be classed as great.
plus, the costumes and make up are immense
Finally, It's a laugh, and should be treated as such.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
| Dvarg wrote: | What David said, basically, plus:
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | Like saying it wasn't funny, but I laughed. |
No. It's like saying it was funny, but the jokes weren't dramaturgically justified/consistent (for example).
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | In addition, would you mind stating why it is bad, rather than it just is? |
I already described how StEx instead of making a lot out of a little makes a little out of a lot. |
No you haven't. You just said is, not how. Be specific. Don't just use that annoying word.
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | No you haven't. You just said is, not how. Be specific. Don't just use that annoying word. |
| Dvarg wrote: | As I see it, good shallow shows are good because they make a lot out of little. StEx makes little out of a lot.
Yeah, that's it, really.
Take for instance Joseph And The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat - a shallow show if ever there were one. It's great. That's because TR and AlW took a relatively bare plotline and filled in the blanks with comparatively sophisticated, yet simple jokes, musically and texually. It makes one admire and enjoy how they got a lot out of little.
StEx is the opposite. There are some bawdy but fun jokes there. But they drown in the overall concept of the show, with it's unending string of pastiche music, tacky sets and costumes and gimmicks. There just is too much. The enjoyment of clever simplicity is lost. |
How can one be more specific?
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | No you haven't. You just said is, not how. Be specific. Don't just use that annoying word. |
| Dvarg wrote: | As I see it, good shallow shows are good because they make a lot out of little. StEx makes little out of a lot.
Yeah, that's it, really.
Think about Cole Porter: constructing a five minute song with tight limits out of bawdy puns on Shakespeare plays is making a lot out of a kernel of an idea. That's witty and entertaining.
Take for instance Joseph And The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat - a shallow show if ever there were one. It's great. That's because TR and AlW took a relatively bare plotline and filled in the blanks with comparatively sophisticated, yet simple jokes, musically and textually. It makes one admire and enjoy how they got a lot out of little.
StEx is the opposite. There are some bawdy but fun jokes there. But they drown in the overall concept of the show, with it's unending string of pastiche music, tacky sets and costumes and gimmicks. There just is too much. The enjoyment of clever simplicity is lost. |
How can one be more specific?
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
Like give exact examples from the show. You gave no justification for your statements. Without examples (good ones) your argument carries no weight.
I may be being petty, but it's one of my favorite shows.
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | Without examples (good ones) your argument carries no weight. |
Take fgor instance the song AC/DC, which is a song I enjoy. What's appealing about it, is for example it's weird, unbalanced time signature. It creates an unstable feeling which is in line with the song's puns on the electriccar being bisexual. It also has corny convulted lines that I enjoy (for example if you get me bored, I hit my key board - makes me giggle every time).
Now, what makes the song justify it's position in the show? It's a rather long song, so it must either be very funny or it's content must be very important to the show as a whole.
My objections are
1) the bisexual innuendo isn't in itself fun
2) there are jokes, but they are too few and too uninventive for such a long song
3) the bisexuality of the character doesn't add anything to the show
4) the character himself does not really have much significance in the show anyway
This is one example that counts for a lot in StEx. It is to a high degree dedicated to character songs that aren't funny, don't reveal much about characters we don't need to know much about anyway - yet goes on very long.
In other words, the songs with all the visual aspects, choreography ets makes actually very little out of very much.
One can compare this to the Arbiter's song in Chess. In and of itself I can enjoy it as a tacky and catchy song, but it has little real purpose in the show. It is a weakness that StEx seems to be constructed around.
Mind you, AC/DC is a song i actually like in StEx.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
It sets up more than his being bisexual. AC/DC sets up the entire personality of Electra. He is the ultimate diva, so he needs a big flashy number, he even enters with fireworks. It is important to show the control that he he can over the coatches, which is essential to having a conflict in the show as he asks Pearl to race with him, not Rusty. Electra's song also demonstrates his obvious wealth and success, indicating why Caboose would bother to appease him, and what he has to gain by helping him. Electra is the other major race compeditor, to face Greaseball. Without that, Greaseball effectively goes unchallenged, as you know thae the minor national engines can't win.
Personally, I think one of the most clever bits about it are the roles of his components. Like the entourage of any diva.
Money truck-accountant
Repair Truck-hair/makeup
Armormants truck-bodyguard
Freezer truck-caterer
dinamite truck-publicist
|
Dvarg
|
Well, I think the song does a poor job of establishing this, which is rather much ado about nothing anyway. Instead of actual motives for action here, there are mechanical reasons why the characters do what they do. Which could have been quite ok if the show actually were fun.
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: |
Money truck-accountant
Repair Truck-hair/makeup
Armormants truck-bodyguard
Freezer truck-caterer
dinamite truck-publicist |
I think these are rather obvious and cheap puns. Now, I like obvious and cheap puns. But they aren't good.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
| Dvarg wrote: | | Well, I think the song does a poor job of establishing this, which is rather much ado about nothing anyway. Instead of actual motives for action here, there are mechanical reasons why the characters do what they do. |
Uh, what?
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | He is the ultimate diva, so he needs a big flashy number, he even enters with fireworks. |
This is your idea of an entire personality?
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | It is important to show the control that he he can over the coatches, which is essential to having a conflict in the show as he asks Pearl to race with him, not Rusty. Electra's song also demonstrates his obvious wealth and success, indicating why Caboose would bother to appease him, and what he has to gain by helping him. |
You lose focus. None of this is established in the song, except that he’s irresistible. Which is informed in a blunt “this is my characteristica”-manner of a terribly clumsy presentation-of-character song.
Though being beside the point, is anyway a very wooden set up of causality. Pearl races with him because he controls the coaches, and Caboose helps him because of the gain. It is very unconvincing as real motives. Which still wouldn't have mattered if the show happened to be fun.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
| Dvarg wrote: | | Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | He is the ultimate diva, so he needs a big flashy number, he even enters with fireworks. |
This is your idea of an entire personality? |
No, but since that is part of who he is, he cannot have a small, quiet arrival. It would be totally out of character for him to be subtle. He is announceing his entry to the race.
| Dvarg wrote: | | Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | It is important to show the control that he he can over the coatches, which is essential to having a conflict in the show as he asks Pearl to race with him, not Rusty. Electra's song also demonstrates his obvious wealth and success, indicating why Caboose would bother to appease him, and what he has to gain by helping him. |
You lose focus. None of this is established in the song, except that he’s irresistible. Which is informed in a blunt “this is my characteristica”-manner of a terribly clumsy presentation-of-character song.
Though being beside the point, is anyway a very wooden set up of causality. Pearl races with him because he controls the coaches, and Caboose helps him because of the gain. It is very unconvincing as real motives. Which still wouldn't have mattered if the show happened to be fun. |
It is shown through his use of "magnetism" to litterally puppet Pearl.
As for the motives of Caboose and Pearl, C.B. is slightly nuts. As in mentally unstable, so anything he does cannot nesesarrily be put down to rational motives. As he say when asked who's side he is on "I'm on mine!" If it benefits him, he does it, regardless. His only true care appears to be Dinah, so helping Electra defeat Greaseball also may help in that aim, but it backfires as the loss humbles Greaseball and he goes crawling back to Dinah, but she accepts him back.
As for Pearl...
Purse: Pearl, you've been honoured
Pearl, you've been chosen
Electra selected you for this race
Rusty: He has a coach!
Purse: His coach has a head ache
He's chosen Pearl to race in her place.
Please come, I'll be fired if you don't.
Pearl: Can he whistle?
Purse: No, AC trains don't.
Pearl: Rusty needs me.
Which way should I go?
With Electra, say I'll let him know.
Rusty: What's all this? You have a partner!
Pearl: Well...
Rusty: Yes you do!
We're all set!
Pearl: I always said that if someone new...
Rusty: You fell for the posing, you fell for the star!
Pearl: You don't understand, that not how things are.
I must have time.
Rusty: But Pearl..
Pearl: No, let me work it out my way
I must be free to leave you Rusty,
That's the only way I'm free to stay.
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | As for the motives of Caboose and Pearl, C.B. is slightly nuts. As in mentally unstable, so anything he does cannot nesesarrily be put down to rational motives. As he say when asked who's side he is on "I'm on mine!" If it benefits him, he does it, regardless. His only true care appears to be Dinah, so helping Electra defeat Greaseball also may help in that aim, but it backfires as the loss humbles Greaseball and he goes crawling back to Dinah, but she accepts him back. |
I totally have no idea what you are trying to prove. The "characters" of StEx comes through as utterly unconvincing as real people with real motives, which they aren't intended to be anyway. So it doesn't matter, really.
The show is obviously meant to entertain, which it fails to do, because it makes too little out of too much.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
I still don't get that statement.
And how can you say that it fails to entertain when you said that you enjoy it? 
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | I still don't get that statement. |
Well, I provided you of both the example of Cole Porter and Joseph And The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. It's about staring with an idea within a very limited phrame, then making a lot out of it by very economic means. StEx is very ineconomical in it's storytelling.
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | And how can you say that it fails to entertain when you said that you enjoy it? |
It's not as if one is either totally entertained or not entertained at all. There are also different was to be entertained. StEx entertains me in certain parts, but not as a whole and not in the way I consider good. When it occationally entertains me, it is in a way I consider cheesy and tacky.
If you really think StEx demonstrates economic storytelling, I must give in, because I think your concept of "economic" just is so different from what it means to most people.
EDIT:
The word I meant to use was probably "economical". I failed to distinghuis between "econimic" and "economical" because there is no distinktion in Norwegian.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
I think it's horrible to refer to 'economic' story telling.
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | I think it's horrible to refer to 'economic' story telling. |
What do you mean?
(Unless I failed to distinghuis between "economic" and economical", as they are the same word in Norwegian.)
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
I mean that is seems so cold to judge a story by it's frugality. It is the little splashes of pointless that make any story entertaining, not just a dull recount of events.
|
Dvarg
|
| Mungojerrie_rt wrote: | | It is the little splashes of pointless that make any story entertaining, not just a dull recount of events. |
Economic storytelling is not the same as a recount of events. It is about which means one puts to use to tell a story. The result can include lots of "small splashes of pointless". What counts when judging a story is how the story is told.
I've given Joseph... as an example several times. The show is nothing but little splashes of poinlessness. But the pointlessness is quite cunningly constructed, with very economical means. That is why the show is so entertaining.
The point is that to a lot of people (for example those who dislike StEx)the sense of surprise and entertainment is greater if contrasted with an economically use of means and within a tight frame.
|
dancejazz7
|
I can't stand it when people do not like this musical! I think it is so original and innovative! ALL of the music is so catchy.
What's not to like???
|
Belle
|
| dancejazz7 wrote: | I can't stand it when people do not like this musical! I think it is so original and innovative! ALL of the music is so catchy.
What's not to like??? |
seriously???
Starlight's my favourite show but I can totally appreciate how some people can't stand it. Yes, it's innovative, original, great music, characters, spectacular. But, depending on production, the plot is likely to be paper-thin, resulting in poorly drawn characters, random motivation, too much spectacle and not enough story. Also people who know little about the show often have negative misconceptions, fuelled by arrogant reviewers.
And some people just do not like big flashy shows, they'd rather watch something small and intimate. Or a historical epic like Les Miserables. Or something traditional like Oklahoma, without the rock and noise levels and bisexual principal characters.
|
dancejazz7
|
Yeah...I guess you are right....
I guess I CAN see how it might not be everyone's "cup of tea"...
It is just sooooo darn entertaining 
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
A lot of people don't like it for the exact same reasons that a lot of people do like it. Same goes for a lot of shows.
|
