BRING IT ON Begins Previews Tonight- Page 4

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 2:42pm

Great review Whizzer--is it wrong that that made me wanna see it much more?

"Correct Jordan. It really is false advertising and may be the single biggest fault of the show. Why license the name and become part of the franchise if you're not going to musicalize the characters/story of the movie."

It's sad that I know this, but this seems to be popular with the Bring it On franchise. They have, what, 5 or so films now, and the only connection is the basic theme (cheerleading and, I gather, a sorta white school/black school rivalry). Of course those sequels were all direct to DVD or TV and I've only caught a few minutes of some of them on MTV, but they must do better than many direct to DVD sequels to have so many and whoever owns the franchise name must think this is the way to milk it.

It's kinda interesting in a way--people often complain that recent musical adaptations of musicals are too faithful to the movie, and now people complain that it's not faithful enough, but I get how some could see it as disingenuous to not feature the same characters, etc, but still use the movie name to sell it. And if the actual story and characters still have a lot of similarities to the movie, and are not an improvement (and I admit, I found the movie a lot of fun, though I haven't seen it since it was in theatres), what's the point?

I think Andy Blankenbuehler is a decent choreographer, who hasn't proven himself yet, but it doesn't sound like he's impressed too much with his first major job as director.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 2:46pm

"They don't have to pay royalties to use the original's characters and plot. "

But the original writer, Jessica Bendinger, still gets an "inspired by" credit as she did with all of the DVD sequels/spin offs. I am certain she still gets SOME royalties--though I suppose not as many as she would if they used her script as a more direct basis.

Obviously the franchise title holds *some* weight--would a cheerleading show (especially right after Lysistrata Jones) even interest any producers without that title, right now?

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/14/12 at 1:54am

"would any producers be interested without the title"?
The producers own the title, it's very confusing.
They own the title but not the script?

At least the overweight girl is white and not diverse, that's original.

[latitudex1]

Posted: 7/14/12 at 2:56am

Well, they own the IP and probably any merchandizing rights, so stuff like titles, logos, etc. The writer owns every thing she write and the world she created. Of course she would get an "Inspired by" credit for any spinoff and the royalties that come along with that. I didn't really think about that.

Ultimately though, I seriously doubt royalties had anything to do with the decision to create new material over adapting the original.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/14/12 at 6:52am

I can't imagine that ALL they wanted was the title, but I suppose very little suprises me all the time.

Was anyone there last night that can verify the story of the other poster's thread about the house management issues last night?

[Playbilly]

Posted: 7/14/12 at 12:34pm

If it didn't have the "Bring It On" name, nobody would bother to notice it. Anyone see that "Fame" musical tour? Same thing.

[TheresaG]

Posted: 7/15/12 at 11:02am

I saw this show last night and thought it was very entertaining and very enjoyable. The size of the cast surprised me and reading the Playbill later on I was really surprised to see how many are in this.

It's nice to see a show with a lot of storyline and boy gets girl, etc. is not the only concern. I liked the first act more than the second; thought there were some slow parts that could be cut down in the second. The finale was good and well handled. The audience was perfect for the show; they really got into it and let the actors know they were watching.

The stage door was crazy afterwards. Huge crowds waiting for everyone to come out and most didn't move at all! The management will have to get a better system into place there otherwise no one will be able to walk down that part of the street when the show gets out.

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 7/15/12 at 5:01pm

I know it's dealt with in another thread, but I was there Friday, and that's exactly how it happened, Dramamama. Big house-management mess.

Back to the thread at hand: Big creative mess. The show starts with something like 4 ballads in a row, bad ones, and goes downhill from there. And BORING!! I've never seen a show so poorly paced. The (admittedly mixed) reviews of the tour were WAY too kind. Awful direction. Awful choreography: like a combination of SpiderMan and Ghost, (why do I keep seeing all these shows???). Nice gymnastics, but I think I'll get my fix from the Olympics instead.

I guess I should have known better than to see a show like this, but I hoped it would surprise me.

Don't attack, it's just MY opinion, but I found it to be cliché-ridden, hackwork torture from start to finish. If I heard one more Facebook/Twitter/social networking/Google joke, I'd have sworn they were all financing the show.

And I must admit, the audience cheered like... well... high school cheerleaders THROUGH THE WHOLE CURSED THING. They loved it.

To each, their own.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 7/15/12 at 5:57pm

Keep in mind when I saw LEAP OF FAITH at the same theater, the audience was cheering and clapping throughout. Audiences are dumb. Doesn't mean they'll turn up for this once it officially opens.

[Mystic Pasta]

Posted: 7/15/12 at 7:26pm

I completely agree with TimesQuared review. The first act is boring and the jokes are tired. Surprised such a strong creative team put this bland confection together. My friend thought the costumes were racist and I can see how some people would be offended by so many stereotypes. It feels like a musical from 1990 and maybe I missed the point that it was set then? Some of the gymnastic stunts are cool but I can watch ESPN3 and see the same thing for free. Why is the trend for young choreographers to take on directing duties. It's a lot of work and maybe the art form would be better served with dividing the jobs. I saw some of this same problem in Lissie Jones. Actually, Bring It On reminded me of LJ with more people on stage in better shape.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 7/15/12 at 10:10pm

Ryan Reynolds is the only reason to see this show, if the show focused on her it might have been a more enjoyable evening. Saw it in LA and at times the words Train Wreck comes to mind.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/16/12 at 1:50pm

My friend thought the costumes were racist and I can see how some people would be offended by so many stereotypes.

Really? What did your friend think the characters should be wearing? I can see how people could find anything offensive if they are specifically looking for reasons to be offended, but it would seem they'd also be offended by the film.

[TheLadyoftheWood]

Posted: 7/16/12 at 3:12pm

To be honest, I know Taylor Louderman personally and I am told by some friends who have seen the show that her talent is not really used to its full potential. She has a really amazing belt and it is not even begun to be showcase her vocal abilities.

[aliceidinabernadette]

Posted: 7/16/12 at 8:26pm

I saw the show when it was in Toronto and was highly unimpressed. I considered leaving at intermission (something I NEVER do) but the tickets were a birthday gift and I still wanted to see what this team pulled together, so I stuck it out.

I'm not going to give a full review, because it would just be echos of previous comments, but I have a few things to add.

1. I am shocked at the praise Ryan Redmond is getting for her work. I found her to be insufferable. The performance some of you are deeming Tony worthy was one of the worst I have ever seen. I found the character to be terribly written, but also, for lack of a better word, "schmacted" by Redmond. I hate to be this person, but I am utterly confused by the solid positive reviews her performance is getting. She was the lowest point of the show for me.

2. In the same vein, I found that I wanted to see more of the characters I wasn't supposed to like, and found the presumed sympathetic characters grating. My favourite part of the show was the first 15-20 minutes. While still not a masterpiece, the Truman material off the top was a lot more interesting to me. The "Truman girls, we're super human girls" number was invigorating and I found myself interested in Campbell, Skylar, Kylar, Eva, and Neil's character. Yes, this section had major problems (bad lines, the same tacky sets, the whole "happy kitty sleepy puppy" thing they had Neil and Taylor doing), but once the Jackson plot line kicked in, I found the show to go downhill (fast).

3. My favourite (and I think the only interesting/not irritating) character: Skylar, the bitchy senior spirit leader of the Truman squad. Of course she is played by one of the more seasoned performers in the company (and that definitely shows), but she also has some of the few witty/entertaining lines in the show. In fact, the bitchiness of the character services the show well in that it gives the voice of unimpressed audience members. I don't know if all her snarky lines were kept (I can see them being cut as they demean some of the heart they are trying to give to the sympathetic characters, but we know how I feel about them already), but I remember her "puberty, meet Bridget...don't run away, she needs you!!" line and thinking "spot on", as well as her "I didn't grow at all, oh well, I like me" line at the end. I felt that she stood above the forced feel-good teen camp that was put upon the majority of the characters.

4. The drag queen gimmick was SO unnecessary. And I love my queens. In what world did that character make sense? Seemed to me like they were pulling every "I'm different" card and "cheap humor" card they could to get laughs.

5. I found our second leading lady to be completely unmemorable (the leader of the Jackson dance crew, I cannot for the life of me remember her name, so that says something). A show with this many principal characters really needs to justify them all, and I found her to be completely unjustified and unimpressive. Didn't Campbell have enough tension against her coming to Jackson? She was obviously the odd one out and cheering wasn't respected, the stakes were pretty high. It could have been about her starting a squad and teaching them about cheer while learning about another side of life from them, and I feel this second "diva's" presence hindered the plot.

6. I wanted to see more of Eva. I found Elle McLemore to be an impressive performer but her material was so sparse and poorly written. Eva could have been an interesting character. Let's see her try and steal Campbell's boyfriend, watch her captain the Truman squad, it would make the whole rivalry between squads more interesting and give the plot more of a direction.

That's my two cents (and I'm finding I have more and more to say about this production, but I'll leave it at that for now). Also, a bit of context: I'm a 17 year old girl (I know, I'm a baby, I'm going to get hell for this, but whatever) who wanted to be a cheerleader but has a bigger passion for theatre....I am the show's target audience, and this is the response it got from me.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/18/12 at 10:02am

I saw it last night...and full disclosure, I had a few drinks beforehand with friends, which may have altered my perception of the show. :)

That said, I sorta liked it. And THAT said, I also agree with 90% of what Whizzer said about it. The jokes are lame (when are shows going to learn to stop making stupid, forced pop culture references...it does the exact opposite of making them look hip), some of the lyrics are laughable (Lin's raps are pretty atrocious, which is odd considering how much I usually enjoy them), all of the music sounds exactly the same. The sets make the stage look ridiculously empty and there aren't enough cheerleading sequences (there were probably about three or four in the too long 2.5 hour span of the show). BUT....but...(God help me), I didn't hate the show. The cast is strong (Taylor Louderman has a ridiculous voice) and the cheerleading sequences are pretty exciting when they do happen. There are a ton of VERY campy elements in this production and I'm not too sure if they are intentional or not; that "Killer Instinct" number just needs to be seen to be believed. And for some weird reason, I had a solid (albeit two star) time at the show. It's clearly not aiming very high and for a light summer trifle that is easy to swallow, BRING IT ON sorta fits the bill. I'm going to forget I saw it by tomorrow, but it's harmless and while it has absolutely undeniably huge flaws, there is some fun to be had at the St. James...just have a couple of drinks first.



Updated On: 7/18/12 at 10:02 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 7/18/12 at 10:32am

Sadly, we had to walk out on this one; it just felt too juvenile and idiotic for the mood we were in. It was like we were watching a rejected pilot for an ABC Family show.

That said, I can imagine teens enjoying it, or, more specifically, 20-30 somethings who wish they were still teens or are obsessed with teens. And there is a good-sized market for that crowd. We just aren't their target demographic.

[PopAria]

Posted: 7/19/12 at 9:59am

Things I hated:
Eva's solo in act 2. Even her costume change fell flat. (that can be fixed with some lighting effects, which I hope they do, or just cut it )
And The first few songs in the show before Jackson HS intro were a lil bit BAAAD..
I really wanted Danielle to have a better solo in Act 1. She gets some good moments in other songs but she needs to impress us with her own song 1st.

Things I loved:
Bring It On has TONS of over produced synthy pop music. I liked how those pop songs worked at the end; those last three songs were the best!!. I loved the songs that were clearly In The Heights rip offs and I appreciated the Next To Normal homage in act 2 (the sweater from N2N and the song clearly written by Tom Kitt). I, thought the wicked homage was not needed. I really thing the show has already won a Tony for choreography and maybe some nomination's for the girls who play Rebecca and Danielle.

This show is lots of fun and the choreography is AMAZING. It's not a broadway show, but I appreciate their efforts to try to make it one.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/19/12 at 5:51pm

Well, they actually did make it a Broadway show when they put it on Broadway. :-P If you play a Broadway house, you're a Broadway show. That's the only requirement.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/19/12 at 10:38pm

I had a couple drinks, went to the show, got a seat in the last row of the mezz, and had the BEST time. This show is lame FUN! I had NO expectations, and was actually impressed! It's not musical theatre as we know it...it was obviously written for the ABC Family/MTV/Disney Channel audience (which is NOT me!) but I still had the BEST time. It's so ridiculous and just pure FUN! It's not trying to be serious, and it makes fun of itself in the same way XANADU did. It's just sooooo entertaining. I kinda want to go back!

I want to nit-pick at a lot of stuff that I would change. Very minor things. But why bother? It's not trying to be GOOD, it's trying to be entertaining! And it is!

Spoiler alert:
I also LOVED the backstage videos played after the curtain call!

[newintown]

Posted: 7/20/12 at 9:39am

"It's not trying to be GOOD, it's trying to be entertaining!"

Best pull quote ever.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 7/20/12 at 11:55pm

has anyone gone more than once? Lin has been tweeting about tons of changes and I'm curious if they are for the better....

[wicked4l]

Posted: 7/21/12 at 11:40am

I've been twice, i have a friend in the production. I saw the first performance and then one week after. I really didn't notice too many changes, nothing in the music from what I could tell. They've cut some dialogue, when Eva falls out of her lift there was some lines about the guys balls.lol. and then some little line changes for example Randall used to say "look who you're taking to" now he says "hell to the no" during "It's All Happening." i went back thinking that the first act would seem a little shorter, but it still felt just as long. the beginning reallyyyyyyyy drags in my opinion. I would have liked the first act to end with "It's All Happening," that just seems like an Act 1 closer to me more than "Bring It On." I think it feels too rushed having the squad form, rehearse,break up, get back together, and compete all in one act. If they formed the squad before intermission it would make it seem like they've been working at it longer.

[brobafett]

Posted: 7/26/12 at 10:52pm

in the tour, act one definitely closed with 'it's all happening'

[Love4Theatre]

Posted: 7/27/12 at 12:29am

I saw the tour at the Ahmanson in LA and the Orpheum in SF. Both times the 1st act ended with "Bring it on," not "It's All Happening."