RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Remember, for every negative post on FB, there are probably a hundred who like it.
Remember, for every negative post on FB, there are probably a hundred who like it.
London Rocks!
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
I know I am in the minority, but I really like the very first version of Entwined over it's current version...because I was able to really use my imagination and get in the show. London Rocks is a pretty good show...is it the best ever, no, but it is a good show. It has some flaws, but it is something different.
I know I am in the minority, but I really like the very first version of Entwined over it's current version...because I was able to really use my imagination and get in the show. London Rocks is a pretty good show...is it the best ever, no, but it is a good show. It has some flaws, but it is something different.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
I'm guessing it's the same, because they're still giving out tickets.
I'm guessing it's the same, because they're still giving out tickets.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Sold Out means there are no more tickets. It just so happened two of the sold out shows were full theater.
Sold Out means there are no more tickets. It just so happened two of the sold out shows were full theater.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Here's a proper cut of the soft opening video I threw online last weekend. This is the "Mellow" cast. Video of the "Yellow" cast is coming soon so keep an eye out for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ff43ZXV1k
It'll go full 1080p soon.
Here's a proper cut of the soft opening video I threw online last weekend. This is the "Mellow" cast. Video of the "Yellow" cast is coming soon so keep an eye out for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ff43ZXV1k
It'll go full 1080p soon.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
UUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
On the one hand, Zachary, you've disappointed me by shattering my hopes and dreams that this would be an interesting, entertaining, or otherwise redeemable show. On the other hand, you've saved me the time it would take to go see this mess in person. So I'm not exactly sure how I feel.
As to the kissing controversy: 9:12. I wonder if it is just a product of our culture and time or what, but I wonder if people are capable of displaying an emotion other than lust when kissing another person (or wanting to, as is the case) any more. Seriously, I went to a wedding a few weeks ago -- sweetest couple, two understated, corny church-centered types -- and when it came time for the kiss it was like you were left wondering if they were going to be able to contain themselves and walk out of the church without getting arrested for public indecency. Physically uncomfortable in the room.
There's an emotional context to a kiss, which sort of determines whether you're going to have parents thinking "what a sweet love story" or "I don't want my children growing up to be unabashed heathens." That emotional question is usually decided by something like "does this kiss look like the culmination of a sweet romance, or the first scene of an adult video?
Take a look at 9:12 and judge for yourself.
One more thing: why does everything have to rock? Why does every show have to feature "hit" songs? Is there something wrong with an original story, with original music?
UUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
On the one hand, Zachary, you've disappointed me by shattering my hopes and dreams that this would be an interesting, entertaining, or otherwise redeemable show. On the other hand, you've saved me the time it would take to go see this mess in person. So I'm not exactly sure how I feel.
As to the kissing controversy: 9:12. I wonder if it is just a product of our culture and time or what, but I wonder if people are capable of displaying an emotion other than lust when kissing another person (or wanting to, as is the case) any more. Seriously, I went to a wedding a few weeks ago -- sweetest couple, two understated, corny church-centered types -- and when it came time for the kiss it was like you were left wondering if they were going to be able to contain themselves and walk out of the church without getting arrested for public indecency. Physically uncomfortable in the room.
There's an emotional context to a kiss, which sort of determines whether you're going to have parents thinking "what a sweet love story" or "I don't want my children growing up to be unabashed heathens." That emotional question is usually decided by something like "does this kiss look like the culmination of a sweet romance, or the first scene of an adult video?
Take a look at 9:12 and judge for yourself.
One more thing: why does everything have to rock? Why does every show have to feature "hit" songs? Is there something wrong with an original story, with original music?
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Because it wouldn't be pandering if it wasn't.
Because it wouldn't be pandering if it wasn't.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
From my understanding, the moment you are referring to at 9:12, is a progression into the "free love hippie" movement that overtook the generation. Any emotion is that is covered under the umbrella of the word, "Love" is an appropriate choice (lust, confusion, warmth, happiness, interest, etc.). The moment is a first for the couple (first love, first kiss, first car, first car accident, first paycheck, first A+), whatever, "first" you want to use, it's a physical reaction that isn't controlled by your brain.
This movement overwhelmed the generation. After being told for so long to keep your emotions in check, finally people were letting go (insert Frozen joke here) and expressing themselves.
In the show, as in real life, the people are mentally and quite physically running towards this new emotional state. They end up in Hyde Park where there is a proposal and a celebration.
Just my thoughts...
ART.
From my understanding, the moment you are referring to at 9:12, is a progression into the "free love hippie" movement that overtook the generation. Any emotion is that is covered under the umbrella of the word, "Love" is an appropriate choice (lust, confusion, warmth, happiness, interest, etc.). The moment is a first for the couple (first love, first kiss, first car, first car accident, first paycheck, first A+), whatever, "first" you want to use, it's a physical reaction that isn't controlled by your brain.
This movement overwhelmed the generation. After being told for so long to keep your emotions in check, finally people were letting go (insert Frozen joke here) and expressing themselves.
In the show, as in real life, the people are mentally and quite physically running towards this new emotional state. They end up in Hyde Park where there is a proposal and a celebration.
Just my thoughts...
ART.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Well I wasn't there, so I can't say what the historical veracity of it is...but I know that:
1 - Some people have complained about the "making out" and "inappropriate" sexuality of it.
2 - Other people have been surprised by this criticism.
Just shedding a little light on what might be the cause. To me, it's irrelevant what history says about it -- the audience's opinion of the content (moral, artistic, historical or otherwise) is the issue. Some of Scott's shows have been criticized for their content in this respect, and I understand those criticisms.
Obviously, morality is a personal thing. Some things that I find indecent wouldn't cause others to raise an eyebrow. Some things I wouldn't raise an eyebrow at are considered by others to be indecent. The only meaningful part of any of it is what the general audience thinks, and the general audience has, like I said, been critical of some of these elements in the shows.
If I'm in Scott's job, I look at it and say "what does this add to the show that makes the facebook complaints and negative opinion worth it? Does this element add fans to counter those I'm losing, or would the show have just as many fans without it (not to mention those I wouldn't be losing)?"
Well I wasn't there, so I can't say what the historical veracity of it is...but I know that:
1 - Some people have complained about the "making out" and "inappropriate" sexuality of it.
2 - Other people have been surprised by this criticism.
Just shedding a little light on what might be the cause. To me, it's irrelevant what history says about it -- the audience's opinion of the content (moral, artistic, historical or otherwise) is the issue. Some of Scott's shows have been criticized for their content in this respect, and I understand those criticisms.
Obviously, morality is a personal thing. Some things that I find indecent wouldn't cause others to raise an eyebrow. Some things I wouldn't raise an eyebrow at are considered by others to be indecent. The only meaningful part of any of it is what the general audience thinks, and the general audience has, like I said, been critical of some of these elements in the shows.
If I'm in Scott's job, I look at it and say "what does this add to the show that makes the facebook complaints and negative opinion worth it? Does this element add fans to counter those I'm losing, or would the show have just as many fans without it (not to mention those I wouldn't be losing)?"
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Regardless of execution, did we ever have a poll or thread talking about whether the theme of this show is popular or not? The idea of a show about 60's London just doesn't interest me regardless of production quality or quality of plot, script, etc. Am I the only one?
Regardless of execution, did we ever have a poll or thread talking about whether the theme of this show is popular or not? The idea of a show about 60's London just doesn't interest me regardless of production quality or quality of plot, script, etc. Am I the only one?
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
You're not. As somebody who was not alive during this period of music, it just seems so stale and old and "weird" that it does not appeal to me, just as an idea. This is what perplexes me, because it's clear that the entertainment department is trying to act "hip" to cater to the younger crowd, but at the same time I don't think anybody under the age of, say, 40, is going to give a MOD EDIT about the show's theme. And most of those old enough to remember this are old enough to appreciate a classier production than 60's hippie psychedelics.
Still, even as self-proclaimed Quality Control Police, I think there gets to be a point where you do need to just "get over it" and judge the show on what it actually is. And whether or not what it actually is good, seems to have already been debated enough on here.
BBW said:
You're not. As somebody who was not alive during this period of music, it just seems so stale and old and "weird" that it does not appeal to me, just as an idea. This is what perplexes me, because it's clear that the entertainment department is trying to act "hip" to cater to the younger crowd, but at the same time I don't think anybody under the age of, say, 40, is going to give a MOD EDIT about the show's theme. And most of those old enough to remember this are old enough to appreciate a classier production than 60's hippie psychedelics.
Still, even as self-proclaimed Quality Control Police, I think there gets to be a point where you do need to just "get over it" and judge the show on what it actually is. And whether or not what it actually is good, seems to have already been debated enough on here.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
I do not care about the history of 60s rock London, either.
I do not care about the history of 60s rock London, either.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
First of all, the show is not set in modern day, therefore historical accuracy is completely relevant. If you disregard historical events, movements, timelines, etc. then you are watching something that is equivalent to an imagined future of our society, such as The Hunger Games. The show follows a very real timeline of how music changed the culture of our society. Take a look at videos of the Beatles performing live in the 60's where girls are physically fainting at the sight of them because they have never seen sexuality expressed so publicly. And then concert videos from the 80's, people are angry, screaming, and jumping up and down. The historical elements of our culture is what keeps this show, which many people have stated has a very ambiguous plot line, grounded in some amount of reality.
Now on to your second point, if the goal of live theater is to cater to the "general audience", then one has to gear their entertainment to lowest common denominator in terms of theater appreciation. Well then they would have been better off keeping the Globe as a movie theater because that is what you're asking for. The purpose and the joy of live performance is to make people experience something. Joy, sadness, anger, inspiration, ANYTHING! And if the piece makes you think a little bit as well, then in my opinion that is an added benefit. And it seems that this show as done exactly that. There is a lot of conversation on this forum regarding peoples opinions on the show, which means that it has made people think. If Scott had said, "okay let's keep the show simple and make sure no one has anything to say about it", then it wouldn't be a piece of theater worth watching. The fact that there are so many opinions, whether positive or negative, means that you left thinking about what you saw. Why cater to the "general audience" when you have the opportunity to expose people, some of whom possible have never seen live theater before, to a higher form of entertainment then they see on their televisions everyday? Personally I think that Busch Gardens taking a risk and producing a show outside of it's typical genre and comfort level is a huge benefit to the cultural environment of a theme park.
I have seen the show a couple times now between the preview weekend and the official opening weekend. And yes like many of you have stated I sat there and quite often thought "what is going on?!". But in the end if you open yourself up to just sitting and enjoying a piece of live entertainment, and watching these young people onstage having so much fun, I would like to think that you will come out of the theater with a positive experience regardless of what you think of the show.
First of all, the show is not set in modern day, therefore historical accuracy is completely relevant. If you disregard historical events, movements, timelines, etc. then you are watching something that is equivalent to an imagined future of our society, such as The Hunger Games. The show follows a very real timeline of how music changed the culture of our society. Take a look at videos of the Beatles performing live in the 60's where girls are physically fainting at the sight of them because they have never seen sexuality expressed so publicly. And then concert videos from the 80's, people are angry, screaming, and jumping up and down. The historical elements of our culture is what keeps this show, which many people have stated has a very ambiguous plot line, grounded in some amount of reality.
Now on to your second point, if the goal of live theater is to cater to the "general audience", then one has to gear their entertainment to lowest common denominator in terms of theater appreciation. Well then they would have been better off keeping the Globe as a movie theater because that is what you're asking for. The purpose and the joy of live performance is to make people experience something. Joy, sadness, anger, inspiration, ANYTHING! And if the piece makes you think a little bit as well, then in my opinion that is an added benefit. And it seems that this show as done exactly that. There is a lot of conversation on this forum regarding peoples opinions on the show, which means that it has made people think. If Scott had said, "okay let's keep the show simple and make sure no one has anything to say about it", then it wouldn't be a piece of theater worth watching. The fact that there are so many opinions, whether positive or negative, means that you left thinking about what you saw. Why cater to the "general audience" when you have the opportunity to expose people, some of whom possible have never seen live theater before, to a higher form of entertainment then they see on their televisions everyday? Personally I think that Busch Gardens taking a risk and producing a show outside of it's typical genre and comfort level is a huge benefit to the cultural environment of a theme park.
I have seen the show a couple times now between the preview weekend and the official opening weekend. And yes like many of you have stated I sat there and quite often thought "what is going on?!". But in the end if you open yourself up to just sitting and enjoying a piece of live entertainment, and watching these young people onstage having so much fun, I would like to think that you will come out of the theater with a positive experience regardless of what you think of the show.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
I didn't say anything about catering to the lowest common denominator...nor did I say anything about never making theater that makes people think. What I said was that you should not produce content at a theme park that people are going to find offensive.
If your position is that Busch Gardens has an artistic obligation to expose reluctant audience members to the realities of the human condition, I just disagree. If people object to certain elements or content, it's not their job to "get with the program." The show exists to entertain the audience, not to start a social movement. I doubt it aims to do so, anyway.
What I am commenting on is the necessity of gratuitous sexuality in the show. Granted, I don't think it crosses any lines too much, briefly maybe, and only in the slightest way...but some people feel differently, and it's not for me to tell them to get over it. You keep talking about the realities of history there...well, drugs and sex were big realities in the 60s. Cocaine was a huge thing in the late 70s. Why don't they have naked hippies or disco dancers snorting cocaine on stage? Because it would be inappropriate. That's the point I'm making: should something that is objectionable should be included in a Busch Gardens production, or is it better to leave it out?
In my opinion, every show at the park should be rated G. Not even PG. G rated. A kiss and a smile? Okay. A peck on the lips? Alright? Lustfully aching for a passionate kiss? PG. No good. You can show kissing, love, even hint towards the sexual aspects of the 1960s music scene in tasteful ways...ways that won't drive people watching a show with their six year old kids to complain on facebook and create negative publicity.
I didn't say anything about catering to the lowest common denominator...nor did I say anything about never making theater that makes people think. What I said was that you should not produce content at a theme park that people are going to find offensive.
If your position is that Busch Gardens has an artistic obligation to expose reluctant audience members to the realities of the human condition, I just disagree. If people object to certain elements or content, it's not their job to "get with the program." The show exists to entertain the audience, not to start a social movement. I doubt it aims to do so, anyway.
What I am commenting on is the necessity of gratuitous sexuality in the show. Granted, I don't think it crosses any lines too much, briefly maybe, and only in the slightest way...but some people feel differently, and it's not for me to tell them to get over it. You keep talking about the realities of history there...well, drugs and sex were big realities in the 60s. Cocaine was a huge thing in the late 70s. Why don't they have naked hippies or disco dancers snorting cocaine on stage? Because it would be inappropriate. That's the point I'm making: should something that is objectionable should be included in a Busch Gardens production, or is it better to leave it out?
In my opinion, every show at the park should be rated G. Not even PG. G rated. A kiss and a smile? Okay. A peck on the lips? Alright? Lustfully aching for a passionate kiss? PG. No good. You can show kissing, love, even hint towards the sexual aspects of the 1960s music scene in tasteful ways...ways that won't drive people watching a show with their six year old kids to complain on facebook and create negative publicity.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Wonderful post. A+ homerun on this one, Doc.
2014. Moral erosion.
Age of Discovery-Victorian Era > any other time period in England's history. Of course something holding pertenence to those eras requires a bit of thinking and appreciation over what is played on the radio in from 60s - present day. An educational program that is entertaining is lost in the context of today's society and something BGW once excelled at. I would the bold opinion of BGW did it better than EPCOT did before it became toon-ified.
Money said:
Wonderful post. A+ homerun on this one, Doc.
Money said:
2014. Moral erosion.
Money said:
Age of Discovery-Victorian Era > any other time period in England's history. Of course something holding pertenence to those eras requires a bit of thinking and appreciation over what is played on the radio in from 60s - present day. An educational program that is entertaining is lost in the context of today's society and something BGW once excelled at. I would the bold opinion of BGW did it better than EPCOT did before it became toon-ified.
RE: London Rocks! (2014 to Present)
Got a ticket to the 8:00 show tonight. We found ourselves on the other side of the park at the festhaus with 25 minutes till showtime. We gave up getting to the show when the Germany skyride had a 20 minute wait. Back to festhaus for beer and pizza and my 1st TIO experience. It was awesome! Still no LR for me. Maybe next time.
Got a ticket to the 8:00 show tonight. We found ourselves on the other side of the park at the festhaus with 25 minutes till showtime. We gave up getting to the show when the Germany skyride had a 20 minute wait. Back to festhaus for beer and pizza and my 1st TIO experience. It was awesome! Still no LR for me. Maybe next time.