The Rocky Horror Picture Show Event Offical Thread- Page 13

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 1:35am

It was so so bad. As for Victoria Justices voice? Truly hurrdenous. So breathy. Her poor vocal folds never get a chance to actually come together 

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 2:50am

Yeah--awful.  But I didn't have a huge prob with the cast one way or the other (except for the miscasting question)--it was just the overall tone that was so constantly completely off.  Jumping on the bed during Touch Me?  Is it meant to be more for kids or not--cuz from scene to scene I sure couldn't tell.  The whole half assed concept--so they go to the actual theatre we see at the start?  Or not?  It's kinda half staged that way and then not (I won't even get into the flashes of the interactive audience which just didn't work, and would confuse the Hell out of anyone not familiar with that shtick.)

So I mostly blame Ortega. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 7:21am

broadwayguy2 said: "I get annoyed when we as Americans  onplain when an actor plays a role woth an accent and it lessens when he is singing. That is actually accurate and proper.  Using your instrument well lessens an accent while singing. Listen to an Adele album and then listen to an interview. 

 

"

I'm not an expert in human anatomy, but I don't think Brits drop their accents because singing forces them to do so. Music hall number were often done in Cockney; Anthony Newley sang in Cockney accent on Broadway and in films; Julie Andrews has always sung with a somewhat more genteel accent. One of the most famous musicals of all times (see Julie Andrews) depends on the ability of its principals to sing with different British accents.

I think you're confusing culture with biology. The tradition of singing with American accents (and thus "no accent" to American ears) began in the early 1960s when the British Invasion boys (Beatles, Stones, et al.) were listening to and imitating American rhythm and blues records. Frankly, most Americans suburbanites do the same thing when they sing rock: they sing some approximation of older, African-American singers.

Contrast them with country singers, who manage to drawl quite successfully whether singing bluegrass or show tunes.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:05am

I couldn't believe it.  I just couldn't believe it.  Only Annaleigh Ashford managed to create something like a character, and poor Tim Curry, God bless him, seemed to be blinking out morse code saying "kill me please."  

I'd have forgiven Laverne Cox a lot more if she ever bothered to act as if she had the slightest idea what any of those noises she was making with her mouth actually meant, she was rushing through every line delivery, she might as well have been reading the menu at some cheap diner.  And the direction didn't help -- everybody was playing so energetically that nothing else was allowed to register, there was no time to breathe at all, and visually way too much of it looked like some high school production shot by some guy with a cellphone in the third row.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:11am

This sounds horrifying. Is it available online to view?

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:12am

So, I watched really 3 scenes from it. But, god, how awful! Time Warp was not the time warp at all. Just random choreography and the vocals, ugh! It was like Kidz Bop. And I saw Touch Me, and man that was so awkward. And Victoria's voice being auto-tuned made it worst. How the hell could Fox go from the amazing production of Grease to this?

Updated On: 10/21/16 at 09:12 AM

[Petralicious]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:30am

Roscoe said: 
I'd have forgiven Laverne Cox a lot more if she ever bothered to act as if she had the slightest idea what any of those noises she was making with her mouth actually meant, she was rushing through every line delivery, she might as well have been reading the menu at some cheap diner.  And the direction didn't help -- everybody was playing so energetically that nothing else was allowed to register, there was no time to breathe at all, and visually way too much of it looked like some high school production shot by some guy with a cellphone in the third row.

 

" I wonder if she even auditioned, or the producers just gave her the role just for the publicity.  Shame on them because I cannot imagine she wowed them in audition.  I have seen better acting in Grade School productions of the Wizard of Oz.

I guess the only one happy about this show is Allison Williams.  Her Peter Pan is now not the worst performance Ever!!   Fox now has the Best and the Worst Live Musicals on TV.  Cant see anything being discussed being as good as Grease or as bad as this.  

 

Updated On: 10/21/16 at 09:30 AM

[pupscotch]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:38am

This is the mistake of FOX for hiring the director of such classics as High School Musical and Descendants. They get a campy TV musical. But kudos to Annaleigh Ashford for doing so much with the little she had. It just made me more excited for Sunday in the Park with George.

[macnyc]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:43am

This can't really be compared to Grease or Peter Pan because Rocky Horror wasn't live.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 9:45am

Fox has it online now and just a few minutes in, you can tell the very first misfire is that this SHOULD have been live. I mean, if ever there was a show that called out for a "live" broadcast its Rocky Horror.  I can't get past the lipsyncing to pre-recorded tracks. 

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 10:10am

With this cast, and this director, it would have sucked live at least as badly as it did pre-recorded.

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 10:17am

Yes, but it would have been sloppy and probably a lot more fun. So in other words, it would have felt more like The Rocky Horror Show.

[ggersten]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 10:31am

There is a live version of the stage version of Rocky Horror Show that was filmed in London with several narrators and live audience interaction.  

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 10:42am

I wish someone could take Annaleigh's vocals and place them on the 2001 Broadway cast recording. What a flawless cast that would be.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 10:43am

I dunno how I made it through that mess.  Argh.  Annaleigh Ashford was really the only acceptable thing on my TV.  I assume if this had been live it would have been more interesting... but what a mess. I don't understand why it was shot like a TV Show when it was filmed. Such bizarre choices, I just LOVED the Broadway revival 10 years back.  That show hit all the right notes and this didn't.  Of all the shows that should be live, this should have been.. Or make a more cinematic film.  I could not believe how awful everyone was.  

[Patash]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 11:14am

I'm not sure if I'll be able to explain this quite right, but I'm a little amused at the wild support of the original.  You all do realize it was universally panned and a total flop, right?  It only became a classic BECAUSE it was so laughably bad -- and then yes it did develop a cult following, mainly by people who loved to make fun of it.

I personally thought this new version hit much of the same tone -- but of course in hugely overdone and overbudgeted production values.  I'm really amazed when people question things like "where did the blood come from when Eddie didn't have any blood on him".  Seriously -- this is Rocky Horror and you're questioning believability?

I must admit though, that I was a little thrown by the main character being a transexual rather than a transvestite.  Maybe that's just me, but I thought as a result the character became less "fun" and outrageous.

I LOVED both Brad and Janet and found they hit the original interpretations of those roles spot on, and were boosted by great voices. 

 

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 11:20am

Patash, it would take me way too long to type out a thesis sized explanation of why the original is so beloved and the impact it had on people's lives. If you are honestly curious as to why it's so beloved, a simple google search will provide you with hours of relevant reading material and video explaining why. 

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 11:59am

The original film was largely panned, and found its audience via midnight screenings -- all that history is easy to find online and in assorted books on the subject.  I never understood why people have such disdain for it -- sure there are some lapses, nobody's calling it a masterpiece.  It's good silly fun, never really taking itself particularly seriously, it has a great cast and a great score and it is made with a skill and professionalism that no one associated with last night's atrocity could begin to approach.

Watch the original film's version of "Sweet Transvestite."  It's on youtube, easy to see.

Then watch the version shown last night.  You can probably find it somewhere.

The differences between them, both cinematically as a piece of filmmaking and as a piece of performance, should be pretty obvious.  The original version is head and shoulders above that thing from last night.  Frank's entrance alone -- my God.  Giving Curry the great moment of whipping back that cape to reveal the corset and hose is a moment of pure genius, simple and direct and still shocking, that the remake couldn't hope to re-create.  Whose bright idea was it to put Frank in a Lion King head-dress and perch him atop a camera crane like that?

Updated On: 10/21/16 at 11:59 AM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 12:14pm

"I'm really amazed when people question things like "where did the blood come from when Eddie didn't have any blood on him".  Seriously -- this is Rocky Horror and you're questioning believability?"

I'm not questioning it for believability, but because the reasoning it happened was because had they actually shown a wound and blood they would of been dinged by the FCC.

[Patash]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 12:22pm

I knew I wouldn't explain it well.  I was NOT offering disdain for the original film.  I merely mention it was a flop originally (fact, not opinion) and I think I was pretty spot on as to how and why it became a classic.  Would it have become a cult classic without people getting into the audience participation thing for example?  of course not.

 

Meanwhile let me say, I can't stop thinking about seeing Little Shop of Horrors with this guy who played Brad and Annaleigh Ashford!  

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 12:48pm

 



 

Patash,

Everyone here who has nothing but love, affection and respect for the original film is well aware that the original flopped originally. That is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that a film such as "Rocky Horror" was ahead of it's time.

The original show it is based on was a major hit in London and ran for well over a year at the Roxy in Los Angeles, so there was already a cult forming around the show.

As a matter of fact, when the movie opened it was a hit in one city and one city only - - - Los Angeles. Why? Because the stage version was still running at the Roxy. Shows for the first week of previews sold out at the UA Westwood. It then moved to the UA Cinema Center about a month later. It continued to do good business, so much so it's run was extended. In the interim Fox opened it in about 5 other U.S. cities, where it flopped - - - it went over people's heads in the midwest and Fox got cold feet and cancelled the scheduled Halloween premiere in New York and shelved it's national release plans, except it never pulled it in Los Angeles because it continued doing good business there.

In April 1976, Tom Deegan in an effort to salvage the film from oblivion had the bright idea of selling the film to the midnight movie circuit and convinced the managers at New York's Waverly Theater in Greenwich Village to screen the film. It opened in New York, with very little fan fare as a midnight movie on April 1, 1976 and the rest as they say is history.

Because it was never pulled from release in Los Angeles it is now the longest running theatrical release in motion picture history, it has grossed over 100 million dollars...and counting and was selected in 2005 for preservation in the Library of Congress' film library as "culturally, historically or aesthetically" significant.

 

Updated On: 10/21/16 at 12:48 PM

[CindersGolightly]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 1:00pm

It also flopped on Broadway when it first premiered! I think what people are saying here is, yes, both movies are critically panned flops, but when a remake flops, it's not the same as when an original flops. Especially when said original is still to this day being played in theaters. And of course, maybe there could be a cult following for the remake, but it's unlikely, and paired with a television release, unrealistic. I'm happily going to be buying this on DVD, and I've been happily listening to the soundtrack since last night. But that's because my favorite actress is in it, and she just happened to elevate her performance over the forced camp thrown around her. I think that this film will go down as a misdirected piece of musical film history only worth watching for Annaleigh, and to see a different take on Frank. 

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 1:03pm

And now we have Dirty Dancing to look forward to

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 1:03pm

And now we have Dirty Dancing to look forward to

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 10/21/16 at 1:08pm

"I mean, if ever there was a show that called out for a "live" broadcast its Rocky Horror.  I can't get past the lipsyncing to pre-recorded tracks."

This may have been the main problem for me. My daughter and I watched together and gave it a grade of Meh Minus.

I can forgive so much when a show has a sense of "life" to it. This seemed totally canned from the outset with the usherette. The lipsyncing was so overt. We thought, maybe it would just be that number, but no. If this had been live I could have forgiven so much, it probably at least would have had a sense of fun. Another TV musical in the one and done file.