Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! South Park the musical performed live has the potential to be superb btw. You ARE Andrew Lloyd Wanker. Eh? How so, do you not think it could be good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! South Park the musical performed live has the potential to be superb btw. You ARE Andrew Lloyd Wanker. Eh? How so, do you not think it could be good? It'd be shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 A lot of early theatre was invented for the lower classes, to be fair. Funny how it has metamorphosised. Theatre has nothing to do with class now man. And you just made that statement up, didn't you? Historically, theatre was more for the ruling classes, surely? Peasents stayed in the pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! Actually I've been a few times. When I'm watching a film my mind can switch off the synapse that says these are people pretending and I can go along for the ride. When I'm sat in the same room as someone on stage who's shouting every line and exaggerating every move because there's no mics or close ups I just think it's shit. Every single theatre actor wants to be them blokes out of that episode of the third series of Blackadder, "You must emit.....a rrrrrrrrrrroooooarrr!" Tossers. I quite enjoyed 1984 though so it's not all bad, just the vast majority of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! South Park the musical performed live has the potential to be superb btw. You ARE Andrew Lloyd Wanker. Eh? How so, do you not think it could be good? It'd be shite. Probably right, on reflection. Funny film though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! Actually I've been a few times. When I'm watching a film my mind can switch off the synapse that says these are people pretending and I can go along for the ride. When I'm sat in the same room as someone on stage who's shouting every line and exaggerating every move because there's no mics or close ups I just think it's shit. Every single theatre actor wants to be them blokes out of that episode of the third series of Blackadder, "You must emit.....a rrrrrrrrrrroooooarrr!" Tossers. I quite enjoyed 1984 though so it's not all bad, just the vast majority of it. Well I couldn't disagree more but each to their own I suppose. In 1996 I saw a play called the "Beautiful Game" at the Theatre Royal set in the present about a Newcastle United fan (and us having just lost the title as well). No film could have come close to touching the emotions evoked by it. There's an obvious analogy of it being the difference to listening to a CD or going to a gig - I have always preferred the latter (providing the band can play of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patrokles Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 A lot of early theatre was invented for the lower classes, to be fair. Funny how it has metamorphosised. Theatre has nothing to do with class now man. And you just made that statement up, didn't you? Historically, theatre was more for the ruling classes, surely? Peasents stayed in the pub. Passion plays, Dionysian festivals, holidays, shamanic gatherings, religious worship, military jubilation, mead halls, the original Globe; theatre evolved and was for the masses, the people; the lower classes. Beer was often very much in evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44109 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Renton would make a good Widow Twankie actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! Actually I've been a few times. When I'm watching a film my mind can switch off the synapse that says these are people pretending and I can go along for the ride. When I'm sat in the same room as someone on stage who's shouting every line and exaggerating every move because there's no mics or close ups I just think it's shit. Every single theatre actor wants to be them blokes out of that episode of the third series of Blackadder, "You must emit.....a rrrrrrrrrrroooooarrr!" Tossers. I quite enjoyed 1984 though so it's not all bad, just the vast majority of it. Well I couldn't disagree more but each to their own I suppose. In 1996 I saw a play called the "Beautiful Game" at the Theatre Royal set in the present about a Newcastle United fan (and us having just lost the title as well). No film could have come close to touching the emotions evoked by it. There's an obvious analogy of it being the difference to listening to a CD or going to a gig - I have always preferred the latter (providing the band can play of course). A live band should be able to match their studio sound on stage, expand upon it, experiment and reinvent it to excite their fans. There are no restrictions going from studio to stage. In theatre you're relying on backdrops, limited scenery changes and performances whose subtlety is hampered by ensuring everyone can see and hear what's going on no matter where they sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 A lot of early theatre was invented for the lower classes, to be fair. Funny how it has metamorphosised. Theatre has nothing to do with class now man. And you just made that statement up, didn't you? Historically, theatre was more for the ruling classes, surely? Peasents stayed in the pub. Passion plays, Dionysian festivals, holidays, shamanic gatherings, religious worship, military jubilation, mead halls, the original Globe; theatre evolved and was for the masses, the people; the lower classes. Beer was often very much in evidence. None of that is really exclusive to the working classes though. I think you have disproved your point, not that it was relevant in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 The star Wars trilogy in an hour is where the highbrow critics of the South Bank say it's at like. Not one man Star Wars trilogy in particular, the theatre in general you ignoramus! Actually I've been a few times. When I'm watching a film my mind can switch off the synapse that says these are people pretending and I can go along for the ride. When I'm sat in the same room as someone on stage who's shouting every line and exaggerating every move because there's no mics or close ups I just think it's shit. Every single theatre actor wants to be them blokes out of that episode of the third series of Blackadder, "You must emit.....a rrrrrrrrrrroooooarrr!" Tossers. I quite enjoyed 1984 though so it's not all bad, just the vast majority of it. Well I couldn't disagree more but each to their own I suppose. In 1996 I saw a play called the "Beautiful Game" at the Theatre Royal set in the present about a Newcastle United fan (and us having just lost the title as well). No film could have come close to touching the emotions evoked by it. There's an obvious analogy of it being the difference to listening to a CD or going to a gig - I have always preferred the latter (providing the band can play of course). A live band should be able to match their studio sound on stage, expand upon it, experiment and reinvent it to excite their fans. There are no restrictions going from studio to stage. In theatre you're relying on backdrops, limited scenery changes and performances whose subtlety is hampered by ensuring everyone can see and hear what's going on no matter where they sit. Well that's nonsense, and I suspect you know it. The restrictions you describe would apply to all live art forms, including gigs. If you are seriously bothered about things like scenery and backdrops, I think you may be missing the point in live performance, as well as an imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Well that's nonsense, and I suspect you know it. The restrictions you describe would apply to all live art forms, including gigs. If you are seriously bothered about things like scenery and backdrops, I think you may be missing the point in live performance, as well as an imagination. How do my restrictions apply to music? The tools at a musicians disposal in a studio are identical to those on stage. I'm lacking imagination because I'd rather see an actual AT-AT, than a bloke walking round like a chicken in an attempt to mime one? These film makers are missing a trick wasting their multi million pound budgets on making the spectacle believable and robbing us punters of using our imaginations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 Well that's nonsense, and I suspect you know it. The restrictions you describe would apply to all live art forms, including gigs. If you are seriously bothered about things like scenery and backdrops, I think you may be missing the point in live performance, as well as an imagination. How do my restrictions apply to music? The tools at a musicians disposal in a studio are identical to those on stage. I'm lacking imagination because I'd rather see an actual AT-AT, than a bloke walking round like a chicken in an attempt to mime one? These film makers are missing a trick wasting their multi million pound budgets on making the spectacle believable and robbing us punters of using our imaginations. If you think music at a gig sounds the same as one from a CD then I doubt you have ever been to a live music event. The two are entirely different experiences, but neither is more valid than the other - the same is true of film and live plays. Is your mind so closed though that you can only appreciate things which are realistic or are realistic representations of fantasy? Jesus wept tbh, that is sad. One man Star Wars was a comedic interpretation of the film, it was supposed to be (and was) funny, not try and rival the original! There is room in the world for both film and play, I just happen to prefer the latter usually. As for your , you're right, I'd better start informing all the theatres in the area and their patrons that they are wasting their time, as we have cinemas that do things so much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 If you think music at a gig sounds the same as one from a CD then I doubt you have ever been to a live music event. The two are entirely different experiences, but neither is more valid than the other - the same is true of film and live plays. Is your mind so closed though that you can only appreciate things which are realistic or are realistic representations of fantasy? Jesus wept tbh, that is sad. One man Star Wars was a comedic interpretation of the film, it was supposed to be (and was) funny, not try and rival the original! There is room in the world for both film and play, I just happen to prefer the latter usually. As for your , you're right, I'd better start informing all the theatres in the area and their patrons that they are wasting their time, as we have cinemas that do things so much better. Why not just imagine the whole thing and save yourself some money? I never said a gig sounds the same. I said "A live band should be able to match their studio sound on stage, expand upon it, experiment and reinvent it to excite their fans. There are no restrictions going from studio to stage." This suggests that I think a live gig can be better than the CD. In general this is not true for a live theatre version of a film. Kubricks cut from a bone to space station could not be recreated on stage, nor could the sinking of the titanic, the chariot race etc. Smaller scale films might make entertaining viewing on the stage, but it's still basically a bunch of shouty drama queens flaying their arms about and flouncing about the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Nowt gay about the theatre. Yeah, and Village People are the straightest band in rock. Hmm, says the uber film nerd. Well that's random. As random as saying the theatre is gay? I was alluding to the fact that someone who is pretty obsessed with one arts medium should be so dismissive of another. btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 If you think music at a gig sounds the same as one from a CD then I doubt you have ever been to a live music event. The two are entirely different experiences, but neither is more valid than the other - the same is true of film and live plays. Is your mind so closed though that you can only appreciate things which are realistic or are realistic representations of fantasy? Jesus wept tbh, that is sad. One man Star Wars was a comedic interpretation of the film, it was supposed to be (and was) funny, not try and rival the original! There is room in the world for both film and play, I just happen to prefer the latter usually. As for your , you're right, I'd better start informing all the theatres in the area and their patrons that they are wasting their time, as we have cinemas that do things so much better. Why not just imagine the whole thing and save yourself some money? I never said a gig sounds the same. I said "A live band should be able to match their studio sound on stage, expand upon it, experiment and reinvent it to excite their fans. There are no restrictions going from studio to stage." This suggests that I think a live gig can be better than the CD. In general this is not true for a live theatre version of a film. Kubricks cut from a bone to space station could not be recreated on stage, nor could the sinking of the titanic, the chariot race etc. Smaller scale films might make entertaining viewing on the stage, but it's still basically a bunch of shouty drama queens flaying their arms about and flouncing about the place. You know, I was hoping you were wumming, but I'm getting less sure, especially with your ridiculous drama queen comments (seemingly ignoring the fact that most TV and Hollywood actors also do plays). It's obviously quite rare for a story that was made for film to be adapted as a play, and there is no point unless the play can add something different, which is clearly the case here. The same is true the other way - Shakespeare, Wilde, or Miller are usually better seen live, for instance. The live experience is completely different though - be it music or story-telling. It is a social event, there is atmosphere, and usually there is a degree of interactivity you don't get on the big screen. You also get a chance to see the actor performing his trade in real life. To use another analogy, it's like the difference between watching football on TV or at SJP. I can't be bothered to explain any more, either you are on a wind-up or you're fairly ignorant and prejudiced against live acting for some reason. Maybe you should read a book on how to appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 Nowt gay about the theatre. Yeah, and Village People are the straightest band in rock. Hmm, says the uber film nerd. Well that's random. As random as saying the theatre is gay? I was alluding to the fact that someone who is pretty obsessed with one arts medium should be so dismissive of another. btw I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) you're fairly ignorant and prejudiced against live acting for some reason. Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Edited October 4, 2006 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15347 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 (edited) There are no restrictions going from studio to stage. C'mon now. Any band that uses any kind of vocal or instrumental layering or whose recorded songs contain more instruments/tracks than there are people on stage - every band, basically - is immediately subject to one very obvious restriction as soon as they play live. You could replicate the desired sound using computers, gadgetry or out-and-out playback, but what'd be the point of seeing someone live and in the flesh in the first place? Edited October 4, 2006 by Meenzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 you're fairly ignorant and prejudiced against live acting for some reason. Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Do you seriously have that much of a problem with live theatre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 you're fairly ignorant and prejudiced against live acting for some reason. Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Do you seriously have that much of a problem with live theatre? Never really thought about it to be honest, I've just been waiting five hours for some data to load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 you're fairly ignorant and prejudiced against live acting for some reason. Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Explain how they are getting worse than just stating it, I think it was fair. Why do you go to matches when they're on the telly then? I don't know what plays you have seen, but none of those adjectives could be attributed to the ones shown at the Live theatre for instance. Your basically just talking bollocks now tbh, especially given your use of the bolded word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 I don't get it. It was the tall one and the round one arguing that reminded me of them for some reason, nothing as abstract as tights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21052 Posted October 4, 2006 Author Share Posted October 4, 2006 you're fairly ignorant and prejudiced against live acting for some reason. Because it's invariably unrealistic, affected, stagy, overly dramatic shite. Your analogies are getting worse btw. Do you seriously have that much of a problem with live theatre? Never really thought about it to be honest, I've just been waiting five hours for some data to load. WUM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44109 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Never mind though Renton, your defence of the theatre has brought you a little bit closer to finally facing up to your sexuality. "Happy Face, you are GHASTLY! Simply GHASTLY!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now