indigi posted:

if he could then I absolutely think he could. you're just being mean for no reason with this, it's uncalled for

the milk machine posted:

i bet you wouldn't. and also couldn't

Pepe Silvia Browne posted:

In one episode Goku puts his hand on Krillin's bald rear end head and reads his mind and this power is never used again lol

Pepe Silvia Browne posted:

In one episode Goku puts his hand on Krillin's bald rear end head and reads his mind and this power is never used again lol

Some Guy TT posted:

its not the competency of the production itself that bothers me but the reaction of the audience in the 2005 scene that this is the most horribly offensive thing theyve ever seen only to change their minds when hitler shows up in the exact same showtunes style theyve already seen i should probably put these side by side to better explain what i mean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCf9VRLnDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca7063tXIP4

irritatingly i cant find beatnik hitler on youtube so youll have to take my word for it that hitler does in fact look and act like a beatnik but you can clearly see in the second clip the entire production is gay camp long before hitler ever actually shows up so its a bit perplexing why a tonally consistent hitler inspires laughs while the pro nazi hitler free part of the production inspired horror

as long as i have these side by side im really struck by other differences just in sheer quality the 1968 number has much more elaborate choreography with way more dancers and a giant human swastika it actually looks like something that requires a fairly high budget the 2005 version is weirdly halfassed by comparison the wardrobe is like halloween costume versions of the original and theres no depth and no stairs

this same style is also really obvious in the audience shots in the original version the audience shots emphasize not just size of the crowd but the variety of reactions we get slow pans of expressions that are mostly disgusted but also fairly specific types of disgusted and you can even see some people being kind of excited with the one guy at the end doing excited clapping this neatly foreshadows how the setpiece could be interpreted multiple different ways which directly leads to the show becoming a hit when the appearance of beatnik hitler seems to confirm the satirical interpretation

the 2005 audience is just really flat by comparison i get the impression that the 1968 audience was not given specific direction on how to respond and may not have even been told in advance what they were going to be watching the 2005 audience is so in lockstep they may as well be computer generated their response to gay camp hitler feels really artificial because gay camp hitler is no more or less satirical than the part of the show theyd already seen

oh and while im at it the same scene timestamped in the broadway camera recording you posted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7laQLJ_K9C0&t=6390s

and now i can actually see why these changes were made the broadway musical version doesnt have an audience because it doesnt have an objective camera so the actual audience as in the people who are watching the show are just laughing their heads off at the whole setpiece theres no tension about the plan seeming to succeed only to fall apart when hitler shows up because the whole sequence is presented as an unbroken straight line not an abrupt pivot

the 2005 film must have maintained these editing decisions solely because they were in the 1968 film even though they dont work at all with the changes that were made in the broadway musical adaptation im a little surprised the same person who made the broadway musical also made the movie although maybe i shouldnt be just because shes good at broadway doesnt mean shes good at film and her never having done another film suggests shes cognizant of these limitations

btw if youre wondering what susan stroman has been up to lately since she hasnt made any other films

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ZnYOP96TA

aw frig aw dang it posted:

only touch the stove once

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

The combination of those means you have acting choices and direction that is going to be off on way or another when people film musicals these days. The only good ones, to my memory, are filming of stage shows. I could be wrong, I've heard Schmigadoon was good, but I've already heard Crazy Ex Girlfriend and Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist suck. You have film actors who don't know how to be in musicals, or musical directors who can't shoot a movie. We're just not doing the genre any favours.

i say swears online posted:

i did not watch season 2 but it seems like a radical departure

i say swears online posted:

i say swears online posted:

yeah i got that feeling. when i saw the chicago setting in the S1 finale i was like "oh this may be too niche for me"

Open Source Idiom posted:

You'll be fine. I've seen the films Chicago and Sweeny Todd and that's it and I laughed like a drainpipe. It's good fun.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

Let’s further breakdown Springtime for Hitler and what it means, with some background on theatre.

We’re going to cover three things. What is “a show within a show” and how does it work? What kind of performances do we expect to see from actors when this device is used? (Depending on if they’re performing in the show we are watching or “the show within the show”) Finally, what kind of audience would attend a play like the one the producers stage during the 1960s?

"The Producers," as presented on Broadway, (though I saw it during its Toronto run) encounters a unique challenge with its “show within a show” format. This format raises the question of how to distinguish between the performance we, the audience in the theatre, are viewing and the one being witnessed by the fictional audience within the play.

By “problem,” I don't want to give a negative impression. Personally, I find the “show within a show” approach interesting because of its ability to incorporate parody and creative framing, playing with the narrative by allowing shifts in genre and tone. This technique is notably effective in "The Producers," but works in other shows as well, a recent example that also starred Nathan Lane was "Something Rotten."

An instance where this is more of a problem is RENT. In RENT, if you’re familiar, Maureen stages her one-woman show. It’s supposed to be - as written - artsy and terrible. It’s a character moment that tells us about Maureen. She sucks.

By the time they made the 2005 film version of RENT, Idina Menzel, who played Maureen on both stage and screen, was a huge star. This is a problem within the film, because Maureen the character is not supposed to be Idina Menzel, the actress. Idina clearly didn’t want to, or wasn’t directed to, give a bad performance as Maureen (within the one-woman show). She (Idina) hits all her notes, belts, riffs, and shows incredible dynamism in her vocal performance. These are all things Maureen, the artsy loser with delusions of grandeur, should not be able to do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pXNd2V88d60&pp=ygURTWF1cmVlbiBzaG93IHJlbnQ%3D

The play within the play is undermined by the performance being too good. It doesn’t tell us anything about the character. In fact, it gives the opposite impression of the character from what we’re supposed to have. Maureen is not supposed to be a great and talented performer and vocalist.

An example of the opposite problem happened in a show that just finished its run on Broadway this week, the revival of Sweeney Todd. If you don’t know, this is the one that originally opened with Annaleigh Ashford and Josh Groban. Now, the reviews early in its run, from the media previews, people had problems with Annaleigh Ashford’s accent work. The point is that her accent undermined peoples impression of the character. It took them out of the play.

(Whatever, I enjoy her as an actress, I think she made interesting choices in the role. She wasn’t trying to be Angela Landsbury. It’s okay to “miscast” someone from type, just like Hitler in the Producers, if it helps set the tone of the show. Too many performances in revivals, Lea Michelle in Funny Girl, are stuck in the shadow of their originating cast.)

To save the production there was a bit of, I suppose you could say, stunt casting, because two of the biggest, most respected, stars on Broadway, Sutton Foster, and Aaron Tveit, were cast as replacements for Ashford and Groban. This led audiences, cornfed middle American tourists, going to Broadway to see Sweeney Todd, expecting to see those actors perform essentially as Broadway stars. This is the opposite problem as Mendel in RENT.

So, when Sutton Foster, who is a very talented actress, as well as singer and dancer, decided to play a character and make vocal choices as the character we would say, singing the way the character would, audiences responded extremely negatively.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nwkR1svlmJg&t=85s&pp=ygUac3V0dG9uIGZvc3RlciBzd2VlbmV5IHRvZGQ%3D

Can Sutton Foster, the actress, hit every note as written for The Worst Pies in London? Absolutely! Of course she can! She’s very talented. But should the character be completely polished vocally? I don’t think so.

(We can circle back to this if you want, but this is kind of a problem with musical theatre generally, because some shows are sung through in a way that we, the audience, know the songs are diegetic. They are reflecting the characters’ speech. In other shows, the character’s singing voice is dramatically different than their speaking voice, and that tells us that the songs reflect the characters’ thoughts. Other shows have even more complex relationships between the book and libretto, but essentially the through-line in all of this is that there’s a relationship between music and character. That’s without getting into Rogers and Hammerstein, and the mid century innovation of the dream ballet - how dance, in addition to acting and singing, reflects the character.)

So these are all of the performance considerations that are in the background of Springtime for Hitler within The Producers. How should the number go? How should the ensemble and the character of Hitler play their parts? Well, that leads us into the next thing we have to discuss, now that we’ve covered a bit about the device of a show within a show, and the relationship between performance and character. We have to talk about audience.

That’s because within a show, within the show, (try saying that ten times fast) we are not the (only) audience. There’s a fictional audience as well. What is Springtime for Hitler supposed to convey to them? How would it be performed? Who is the intended audience and what kind of performance will have the intended result?

Understanding the cultural and historical context of musical theater during Mel Brooks' era is crucial. The medium held significant prestige and cultural relevance. It was, chiefly, the mark of having upper middle class taste. Standards sung today, “the great American songbook”, often originate in musical theatre between 1950 and 1970. If you read impressive, newspapers and magazines, as well as Book-of-the-Month club books, you were expected to have at least a passing familiarity with the Broadway shows of the day. It was an important sign of taste, and the plots and songs of shows were often referred to in conversation.

To provide an example of this, I almost guarantee that everybody here, even if you haven’t seen the shows, knows, at least some lyrics or phrases or references that allude to, Camelot, drat Yankees, My Fair Lady, Bye Bye Birdie, The Fantasticks, How to Succeed in Business, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Oliver!, Fiddler On the Roof, Funny Girl, Hello, Dolly!, Man of LaMancha, or Cabaret. For chrissakes, the first filmed part of the Adam Friedland Show contained a musical number from Cabaret. 34:15

https://youtu.be/NKo8VVqHoTA?si=L7GkD68bX2T9W_my]

The Kennedy administration was dubbed 'Camelot,' in reference to the successful Broadway musical, highlighting the profound impact of musical theater in the mid-1960s. It was on everybody’s minds. It dictated how they thought about politics. It still does! Aaron Sorkin is practically the avatar of upper middle-class educated baby boomers, who developed their cultural preferences around this time. He refers to the ending of Camelot as a pivotal moment - connected to a political message - in his show The Newsroom.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5bqAVUkUgw


Will McAvoy : [to MacKenzie, smiling] Camelot. She's the kid at the end of Camelot!
[Turns to Jennifer]
Will McAvoy : Ask me again.
Jennifer Johnson : I'm sorry?
Will McAvoy : Ask me your idiot question again.
Jennifer Johnson : What makes America the greatest country in the world?
Will McAvoy : You do.
[to MacKenzie]
Will McAvoy : Hire her.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_lhduy0Em74&pp=ygUOY2FtZWxvdCBlbmRpbmc%3D

Critic and theatre historian Ethan Mordden says that Broadway was mid century idealism, and liberalism, given cultural form. Broadway was a big deal. This is the cultural context in which Bialystok and Bloom are making their musical. so that being the case, how could they disgust and revolt an audience, on the opening night of a show, to guarantee it failed?

The Producers revolves around the producers' intent to stage a flop by offending the post-war audience, capitalizing on the sensibilities of an era where the horrors of World War II were still fresh. The film and its 2005 remake illustrate this through the audience's shocked reactions, up until the very moment that the character of Hitler, contrary to expectations, can’t stay in character, and they burst into laughter. As you know, the twist ruins the producers' original plan, as the audience, thinking it’s a parody, loves, rather than hates the play, as intended.

They were not intending to make a parody at all. A parody would not achieve the kind of failure that they said out to make. It had to be played straight, and so we see a straight performance.

mawarannahr posted:

I just finished dream scenario and I thought it was one of the better new movies ive seen lately. nic cage was perfect for the role, I liked the awful topics they explored, and the alt right + France stuff was pretty funny. it was also great that it didn't overstay its welcome at about 100 minutes without many dull moments, and they didn't try to shoehorn a happy ending. and lol @ dreamfluencers. 4/5

Tricky D posted:

Trying to imagine the type of person who has never tried to make their own kamehameha wave and just shaking my head in shame.

indigi posted:

if he could then I absolutely think he could. you're just being mean for no reason with this, it's uncalled for

indigi posted:

I just finished The Shadow of the Torturer (part 1 of Book of the New Sun) and my main question is: does the narrator ever explain why they spell it "Urth"

indigi posted:

does the narrator ever explain why they spell it "Urth"

mawarannahr posted:

I just finished dream scenario and I thought it was one of the better new movies ive seen lately. nic cage was perfect for the role, I liked the awful topics they explored, and the alt right + France stuff was pretty funny. it was also great that it didn't overstay its welcome at about 100 minutes without many dull moments, and they didn't try to shoehorn a happy ending. and lol @ dreamfluencers. 4/5

Pepe Silvia Browne posted:

In one episode Goku puts his hand on Krillin's bald rear end head and reads his mind and this power is never used again lol

Ghost Leviathan posted:

The trick with Dragon Ball Z is the same as the rest of shonen; it's all pro wrestling. You have your babyfaces and your heels, both of them build up cred by plowing through jobbers and taking on colourful mid-carders, building heat and anticipation, they have their signature moves and finishers, and even usually commentators on the side explaining what's going on to the audience. They aren't subtle about this, there's a reason a key part of Dragon Ball was literal martial arts tournaments with a commentator, audience and referees. (and lol the bit where Goku and Jackie Chun actually do a play-by-play re-enactment of a fight sequence that went by too fast for the audience to see)

YaketySass posted:

They should have the Japanese speak English and the white guys speak Portuguese.

That makes sense; I guess that means that in comparison MCU stuff does the bare minimums to sell the fight and connect it to the story? Maybe there's also the element that it's supposed to be a universe with very varied powers so having every character does this look stupid and lame.

Xaris posted:

lol dude, what planet and what time do you think it takes place on?

YaketySass posted:

They should have the Japanese speak English and the white guys speak Portuguese.