London Rocks!

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Let the complaining Begin...

From Shannon:
"We were super excited to be able to see London Rocks today...and it was short lived. My whole family sat there wondering what the heck we were watching. It was weird and not in a good way. They butchered classic songs. It seems they were trying to perhaps produce a show that would tell a story through music a la Across the Universe...but they failed. I am so glad i didnt waste my day waiting for this. If you are considering this show...dont go. Choose Celtic Fire twice! I felt so bad for the performers. They really werent too bad but this story and production was AWFUL. The music pumping outside the theater in London is a million times better than what happens inside. Dont say i didnt warn ya...."

Next....

From Ed:
Love the park! As far as London Rocks goes, tonight was the first night? It should be its last!

-_-
 
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

WOW!! ^^ People must not know much about musicals. Can't help it that people suck in general.
 
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

I'm honestly not surprised, the reaction for Entwined (v.1) was the same way. The park should've learned that people aren't going to like a show if the plot isn't clear, because they don't understand, and they hate not being able to understand a show. If the show is going to have a plot they need to make it clear, if it doesn't have a plot then they don't need to.
 
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

The plot is clear to us super fans who know what the show is supposed to be about. If you were just a random person seeing the show, with no pre-knowledge of it, you wouldn't get it. The plot for the show is so intricate and complicated, but, yet they tell you nothing about it.

Really, I have yet to see a really positive comment about the show, other than "My kids like it!"(o_O) or one of their ambassador bloggers blindly preaching about it, like it's the best thing since the iPhone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wombat96, MrLaptop and Mushroom
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Never, ever blame the audience. The show is new, and yes, and it's possible that this fan is just a grouch, but if the show gets bad reviews consistently as we move forward, it is the park's fault and their's to fix no matter what.

The park exists to entertain the audience. If the audience isn't entertained, the park must adjust. It doesn't matter if the audience are all a bunch of uncultured idiots -- it's the park's job to know that and make something they'll like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginique, wombat96, gazisghost and 11 others
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Money, basically what I got from your post was, the park should make shows that are just entertaining and not necessarily of high quality.

Personally, they should either give the show a strong clear plot or not. If you try to incorporate a plot, but not make it clear it can confuse and bewilder your audience.

That said, I have seen many mixed reviews about the show. Not everyone is complaining and not everyone is praising it. I have seen many people who love it and those who hate it. I seriously hate how people are saying "most people think this way" or "most people thank that way" Because honestly, it is 50/50 right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Julia
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

On the scale of budget for the show, what kind of ride could the park have bought? I imagine the rights to all those songs could've bought the park a nice shiny flat, or at least given them a street performer group for Americana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mad Ludwig
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Thanks Money, that is exactly what I have said time and time again. Personally this show entertains me and I enjoy it.

Zach, actually 50/50 is good especially considering how Entwined was received and because it means for the first time in a while there is no bandwagoning going on like with the other most recent additions to the park. It means they have really created a unique product that is much different from any thing they ever had before. They just need to capitalize on the specific aspects that people are praising.

What I hate the most are people who criticize a show, but give no legitimate reason for not liking it other than it sucked. Look at Eds comment versus Shannons. At least she gave two reasons for not liking it. The mixed songs and story. Ed just hated it with no reason. The park should pay more attention to those that give reasons and improve upon them.

I have no doubt they are doing everything they can conceive to make sure this show is not a complete failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CastleOSullivan, DrMoneyReturns and Julia
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

What is "high quality," exactly? When you think about it, in these terms Entwined is a "high quality," show, but does that make it good? Obviously not. Entwined had so much money spent on it for two years in a row, yet people still loathe it entirely. However, technically, Entwined is a "high quality," show, because of the amount of money that constantly goes into it, and what it took to produce.

London Rocks! and Celtic Fyre are both "high quality," also in terms of what it took to produce them. That doesn't mean London Rocks is an amazing show.

"High quality," does not mean a good show.

Look at TIO. Technically, by definition, it is no where near a "high quality," show. It may very well be the cheapest show in the park, probably the smallest cast, with only 1-2 technicians on site during show-times. But is it a bad show? Obviously not, it's probably the most enjoyable show in the park(IMO).

Or Giardino Magico, only 2 cast members, but yet it's still regarded as the best Illuminights show.

A "high quality," show doesn't automatically mean it's good, in fact sometimes it could be just the opposite.

I think the real problem with the Ent. Dept. right now, is that they think the more money spent on a product, the better it is. However, they get proved wrong time and time again, but yet, they use that method constantly, over and over again. They just need to make a show enjoyable, not expensive, and it will be good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wombat96, BBW, MrLaptop and 7 others
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

I think that the show was done better than what I was expecting. I really enjoyed it. I just don't understand why everyone has to pull everything the park does apart at the seams. It just doesn't make sense to me. Not at all. I do believe that if everyone would quit putting the park under a microscope, they'd enjoy it more. I also believe that all this negativity about what the park does or doesn't do entertainment wise, comes about because a lot of people don't like Scott. Point blank! I do believe that is where it all resides. You throw out negative, that's what you are going to get in return. JMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: usc33 and Mad Ludwig
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Party Rocker said:
What I hate the most are people who criticize a show, but give no legitimate reason for not liking it other than it sucked. Look at Eds comment versus Shannons. At least she gave two reasons for not liking it. The mixed songs and story. Ed just hated it with no reason. The park should pay more attention to those that give reasons and improve upon them.
Click to expand...
Have you ever hated something, and you have no idea why you hate it, but you do, before? People experience this feeling all the time. I personally experience this feeling towards some people who are friends with my friends, and have only encountered them a few times. But something about them just makes me not like them, and I can't explain why, because I don't know. It happens a lot actually in the world.

That being said, sometimes you don't need a reason to hate or dislike something, you just do. Not everything is going to be catered to your interests, that does not make it a bad thing. And sometimes, people don't feel like explaining everything over the internet on a facebook page. They don't like the show, they said their peace and they move on. They don't continue going on about how awful the show is. If they do, they have issues that they need to work out. (*war flashbacks to Fiends 2011*) Ed gave his statement, and left it at that. I feel like you would have zero problem if somebody went on there and said "I loved London Rocks!" and gave no reason as to why they loved it. Not everyone likes the same things.

I do think that having people say what they don't like about the show, is more helpful than "I hate the show >: (". It doesn't make the person who said "I hate the show >: (" statement any less valid as their opinion. Their opinion is not hurting anyone, outside of maybe a few bruised egos. I haven't seen anyone who's said the cast is awful, only the show/production itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBW, Jrbgwfan06, Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser and 2 others
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

"50/50 is a success considering how much people hated Entwined."

This speaks volumes to the current state of entertainment in the park.

And no, you don't have to have a reason not to like something.
 
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

I think the real problem with the Ent. Dept. right now, is that they think the more money spent on a product, the better it is. However, they get proved wrong time and time again, but yet, they use that method constantly, over and over again. They just need to make a show enjoyable, not expensive, and it will be good.
Click to expand...

At this point I'm actually more willing to enjoy a smaller, cheaper show at the park simply because it's more financially responsible and I hate the level of flash that has become standard at BGW.

I haven't seen anyone who's said the cast is awful, only the show/production itself.
Click to expand...
This is the case of 99% of peoples' issues with the shows. There has only been one instance of people not liking the cast, and it was a comparison to the cast of the previous year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jrbgwfan06, Zachary, Mushroom and 1 other person
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Pretzel Kaiser said:
At this point I'm actually more willing to enjoy a smaller, cheaper show at the park simply because it's more financially responsible and I hate the level of flash that has become standard at BGW.
Click to expand...

Disneyland has something called the Golden Horseshoe which is a western saloon type thing where they have a stage and a live country music entertainment act (they don't just go up and play standards....it's a character driven show -- with music but no story really). I think a show like that would go over really well at Busch Gardens.

One of the worst things you can do in producing a show or product is to ask the fans what they want, and then give it to them. That's because most people can't tell you what they want, but they know it when they see it. Your whole job as a concept producer is to know what people want better than they do and then deliver it.

By the way, why do I feel like I'm bashing London Rocks when I haven't even seen it and might, in fact, love it?

My favorite shows in park history are Imaginique and Castle O'Sullivan. One has a cast of 20 or so...the other, a cast of 3. One played in a great big ampitheater, the other in a sort of sound stage. I think they were both very high quality, but they were also both very entertaining and, conceptually, they were both REALLY simple. You didn't have to "get it." Neither one of them "rocked." Both were immersive, original, colorful, playful and neither dealt with the outside world.

I don't *think* I'll like London Rocks, because it's not the kind of thing I like. I usually hate contemporary music revue shows. I generally dislike modernity at BGW, but there are exceptions. I'm excited to see the show for myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginique, Applesauce, Zachary and 3 others
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

Money said:
My favorite shows in park history are Imaginique and Castle O'Sullivan. One has a cast of 20 or so...the other, a cast of 3. One played in a great big ampitheater, the other in a sort of sound stage. I think they were both very high quality, but they were also both very entertaining and, conceptually, they were both REALLY simple. You didn't have to "get it." Neither one of them "rocked." Both were immersive, original, colorful, playful and neither dealt with the outside world.
Click to expand...

Exactly! We all live in the "outside world" every day. I don't go to Busch Gardens in the hopes of seeing pop-culture references. It would be very difficult to iron out the so-called "story" of London Rocks, but I think the Queen's broadcasts are what I dislike the most. For me, it is more than the Wunderbarn-reminescent stereo-types. I just think it's too much, and it is only funny maybe the first two times. It also distracts from the "story". There is a part where the screen shows a "Just married!" sign an "Congrats on triplets!". Throughout this, the "Queen" is talking about completely unrelated topics, such as tea. Also, if they want to talk about tea so much, they should at least sell tea. Otherwise, she just sounds like "Old Moll" from Corkscrew Hill using that voice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginique, BBW, MAZ and 3 others
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)

By the way here are more complaint's found.
From Chuck:
"Seen the video (entire show). Talent is wasted on this awful show. The outside of the globe theater looks like Austin Powers threw up on it. Another dud from BG. Again, sad to see talent wasted on a show like this"

Another...
From Kim:
"I was very disappointed when I saw it last week. After seeking the show Gloria during the Christmas season I know what Busch Gardens is capable of. This falls quite short."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad