Musicals.Net
http://musicals.net/forums/

Cutting the pregnancy
http://musicals.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=79180
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Tom [ Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Cutting the pregnancy

The 1964 TV version kept Larken's pregnancy, but had her secretly and illegally wed. The emergency about finding a real princess was to find one before she began to show and expose her marriage. They were able to keep a lot of the jokes in this version due to how they side stepped the pregnancy issue. The 64 version also combined the roles of Harry and the Minstrel, so Larken was married to the Minstrel.

Author:  hud [ Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cutting the pregnancy

NO!!!!!!!! WHY????? You cut the pregnancy and you ruined the whole story. That is the way it was written and it gives Larken and Harry a strong subplot. If you don't like the way it was written, pick another show. Why can't people just respect the authors and do what is written?

Author:  Apples2for10 [ Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cutting the pregnancy

hud wrote:
If you don't like the way it was written, pick another show. Why can't people just respect the authors and do what is written?

Because while this subplot is extremely problematic, its inclusion is not a good enough reason to not do the show. When a company does this show, they do it for the Fred songs. If the pregnancy does not influence the decision to do the show and you run the risk of offending people, you absolutely should be able to cut it. As I've said before, when I did the show the pregnancy offended people so much that I heard one audience member say "This show is so dirty they oughta sell lube at intermission!" And as much as I loved doing this show, quite frankly the authors don't deserve respect. There are parts of the score and libretto that are extremely clunky, so this is by no means a theatrical work of art we're dealing with.

Author:  hud [ Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Cutting the pregnancy

It is still charming even though it isn't a masterpiece. And as I said before, pick another show instead wasting time changing what is written.

Author:  hud [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

ActingDude17 wrote:
hyperactress23 wrote:
In the junior version of the show (Getting to Know Once Upon a Mattress), the pregnancy is cut entirely (as in, the show is edited to cut it and licensed that way). It's really stupid. That's the first way I saw the show, and I was just like "Wow. What was the point of that character? She didn't do anything but sing a duet."

Basically, it doesn't work.


I never knew R&H Theatricals did their own abridged series to mimic MTI's Broadway Junior Collection. You learn something new every day, I suppose!

As far as the main topic of the thread goes, I highly doubt R&H Theatricals would allow a company to edit the show. You're paying to perform the script as written and nothing different. Plus, I see it as an immense artistic violation.

Thank you. I hate directors who disrepect the authors of these shows and do it their way instead of doing it the way it was meant to be. You would get it trouble if you cut,edit,etc. the show.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/