pixeltracker

The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark

The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark

PalJoey Profile Photo
PalJoey
#1The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:12pm

Leave it to the New Yorker!


The Sound of Music and the Anticipation Trap


Updated On: 12/6/13 at 03:12 PM

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#2The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:25pm

But it's kind of BS. Plenty of us can handle hearing songs not sung exactly like they did in the movie. The set of expectations I had was that it would be well sung and acted, and that voices would blend when people sang together. Although there was some decent singing and acting from the supporting roles, Underwood was tragic and every time people sang together it sounded like ass.

binau Profile Photo
binau
#2The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:44pm

It is an interesting point though. I wonder how often negative reactions to shows etc.. are the result of other factors than the performance itself (e.g., resistance to change; expectations based on original performances etc.). My hunch is it happens all the time.


"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022) "Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009) "Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#3The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:52pm

I have a negative response to bad acting. It makes me nostalgic for good acting.

Updated On: 12/6/13 at 03:52 PM

Sutton Ross Profile Photo
Sutton Ross
#4The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 3:57pm

Why would they be sung like in the movie? This had nothing to do with the movie. You can compare Mary Martin's performance with Carrie Underwood's, both have pleasant sounding voices. Tons of people are swimming in hate, and social media gives them a platform to voice it, whether their friends went to hear about it not. Laura Benanti had a great quote about that, saying she has no time for people that small.

FindingNamo
#5The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:00pm

I think the inclusion of Something Good shows it had a little something to do with the movie.


Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

Jane2 Profile Photo
Jane2
#6The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:21pm

I fall into the category of people who have expectations (or hopes, in my case) and then are disappointed when they aren't met.

On the flip side, sometimes it works the opposite way. For instance, Audra's rendition of Climb Every Mountain.


<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES

Sutton Ross Profile Photo
Sutton Ross
#7The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:25pm

It was a televised version of the stage play, the movie had nothing to do with it.

Jane, but did you enjoy it and stay for the whole three hours? Did you expect it to be similar to the movie?

Jane2 Profile Photo
Jane2
#8The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:38pm

Yes, I watched the entire show, and the similarity to the film that I expected was only the story. I don't see how there could be other similarities.


<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#9The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:39pm

People should just put Sutton Ross on ignore.

Jane2 Profile Photo
Jane2
#10The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:41pm

Hmm, what was her question and my answer all about , anyway? oy


<-----I'M TOTES ROLLING MY EYES

Sutton Ross Profile Photo
Sutton Ross
#11The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:42pm

Yes, please do Phyllis!

"every time people sang together it sounded like ass."

You seem cool.


Jane, it was genuine question and I genuinely wanted your opinion on. Nothing more.
Updated On: 12/6/13 at 04:42 PM

DAME Profile Photo
DAME
#12The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 4:47pm

"It was a televised version of the stage play, the movie had nothing to do with it. "

Except it did.


HUSSY POWER! ------ HUSSY POWER!

ErikJ972 Profile Photo
ErikJ972
#13The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:09pm

The movie is iconic. For many it is the only point of reference they have to The Sound Of Music. Of course there's going to be comparisons.

SonofRobbieJ Profile Photo
SonofRobbieJ
#14The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:10pm

Well...I now know that I like the stage play (as a property) better than the movie.

oasisjeff
#15The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:22pm

The very nature of the Internet is that is most often surfaces polarizing views, which is why the majority of Amazon reviews are either five stars or one star. Everyone in the middle isn't compelled to share their opinion.

Having only watched the movie, I found it compelling to see the differences between the two. Of course, when I feel the urge to see the Sound of Music, I'm still far more likely to go classic.

It did huge numbers, though. 18 million viewers.


Now t/d/b/a haterobics on here.

Liza's Headband
#16The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 5:25pm

PRS, I'd love to know who you would have preferred in the role of Maria. I completely agree about Carrie's acting but strongly disagree about her vocal abilities.

Anyway, I would love to hear who you would see instead? And, for the love of God, don't say "Anne Hathaway."

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#17The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:03pm

I don't know, because it would have to be someone of Underwood's stature for there to have been a project in the first place. I didn't spend the show thinking I wish __________ had played the role (although recalling that Benanti replaced Luker in the revival made me wish I was watching her Maria), I just wish it had been someone else, at the very least someone with some breath control.

suestorm Profile Photo
suestorm
#18The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:10pm

There are only 3 people I think who could fit that phyllis. .. Taylor Swift. ANNA Kendrick or Amanda Siegfried


FINDINGNAMO, SNAFU, THEATERDIVE, JORDANCATALONO, LIZASHEADBAND, PALJOEY: You all claim to "IGNORE ME" I wish you would and stop constantly commenting on my posts. Thanks ...................................................................................................................................... The MOST POPULAR and DANGEROUS Poster on BWW! Banned by the PTA, PTC and the MEANGIRLS of BWW..................................................................................................................... ...Ukraine Girls really knock me out, they leave the west behind..........................

Liza's Headband
#19The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:11pm

It really comes down to this: was your dislike for Carrie more than your own personal desire/satisfaction of seeing a major network take on an ambitious venture like this one? For an art form that really could use the exposure? Because without Carrie's involvement, the broadcast never happens. Meron & Zadan practically spelled that out in a recent interview.

Phyllis Rogers Stone
#20The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:21pm

I.. don't know, because that's a confusing question. I guess yes, because while I'll probably watch the Elsa and Max songs a couple more times, I can't imagine ever watching this entire thing again.

#21The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:22pm

I think theater fans "Direct the show in their heads" and are almost always disappointed by the "real world" production.

While I agree Underwood's performance was lacking, the rest of the cast, the sets, the direction all more than paid back my meager investment in it.

It will be interesting to see how it is viewed in 30 years or so.

The film of Grease wasn't nominated for any Oscars.

henrikegerman Profile Photo
henrikegerman
#22The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:26pm

Thank you, Phyllis. It is bull****. I wasn't expecting miracles or even anything very good. I didn't expect it to SUCK!

Sutton Ross Profile Photo
Sutton Ross
#23The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:27pm

Sue, what role are you referring to?

I don't think Anne Hathaway could have gotten the ratings that Carrie got. A lot of people are turned off by her.

Liza's Headband
#24The New Yorker explains the neurological reasons for the SOM snark
Posted: 12/6/13 at 6:33pm

"Thank you, Phyllis. It is bull****. I wasn't expecting miracles or even anything very good. I didn't expect it to SUCK!"

That's your opinion. Theatre is subjective. As they say, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.'

For the thousands who thought it "SUCKED" or hated Carrie, I am sure there are thousands more who fell in love with musical theatre or Rodgers & Hammerstein. Maybe hundreds of thousands were exposed to the art form that never would have previously been exposed because of Carrie's involvement. Who knows?

I work in television (both creative and production). It's frustrating to be part of an industry that shies away from genuine, live classic theatre but glorifies such drivel as GLEE. I commend a major network for taking a leap of faith. It paid off, solely based on the ratings.
Updated On: 12/6/13 at 06:33 PM