What's new

Hairspray Live! (1 Viewer)

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
26,131
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
The positives:

The female cast. To a person, the women performers were all aces. Strong singers, strong performers.

An effort made to move the production out of soundstages on occasion and onto the backlot.

Splashy production values. This cost a pretty penny.

The not-so-positives:

Weak performers for Link and Seaweed.

Sound problems which have plagued all of NBC's live musicals (music louder than singers on occasion). Song lyrics and dialogue missed due to mics cutting out or faulty broadcast. Occasional sloppy direction which caught cameras in the frame.

More prerecorded numbers than in any previous live musical.

Lighting that was subpar in quite a few instances leaving main cast members in shadows.

Live audience which, like in Grease, sometimes applauded numbers and sometimes didn't and never reacted to any of the humor.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,081
Real Name
Malcolm
I recorded this to watch later, but did watch a couple scenes here and there. I also noticed the very low volume levels, as I had to crank my system up to hear much ("Welcome to the 60's"), then would get blasted out of my seat when I'd switch to another channel. I wonder if this will be fixed on a home media release?

I did see "Run and Tell That," for which I thought Ephraim Sykes (Seaweed) did a good job. But I didn't watch any of his non-musical scenes. Garrett Clayton (Link) has never displayed much talent beyond his pretty boy good looks, so that's not really surprising.
 

GlennF

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
536
Location
Toronto, Canada
Real Name
Glenn Frost
Wasn't bad...but wasn't great. Nothing that made me "cringe", like "Peter Pan" but nothing particularly outstanding. Didn't really add anything on the movie version.

Thought the physical staging was good -but the actual television direction lacked a lot (i.e. cameras in the wrong place and not showing things, like the choreography, in their best light.)
Some of the lighting was just plain...bad.
Performers were fine but the lead wasn't particularly memorable.
The live audience seemed pointless until the last sequence and then the energy of the whole thing picked up.
All in all, the best one NBC has done, but "Grease", despite its problems, is still the "gold standard" to me.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,081
Real Name
Malcolm
Overnight ratings have it as the lowest rated of NBC's recent "live" musicals (2.3 demo; 8.92 million viewers), just behind Peter Pan (2.4; 9.21 million). Final numbers will be out tomorrow.

Some of that may be subject fatigue as this is the fourth version of Hairspray in 28 years, with the Broadway musical, movie musical, and TV musical all within the past 14 years (original movie was 1988, musical version premiered on Broadway in 2002; movie musical in 2007).
 

Paul D G

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
1,914
I had a number of problems with this. Some already mentioned:

- Poor audio in many places. Couldn't hear the vocals clearly enough.I can forgive a mic cutting out briefly but the sound mix should be quickly and immediately repairable
- Bad direction. Cameras in the shot, poor framing esp the jail scene where the bars were too think to see Link through them; Motormouth's big number near the end had the camera too tight on her. It was like the cameraman was back up against a wall and had to make do. The first scene at the record store was marred by very shaky camera work by one of the cameramen. It was like image stabilization was turned off and the guy was nervous.
- The live audience was completely unnecessary. They could be heard elsewhere on the sound lot cheering during Short and Fierstein's number which was unprofessional. They were far too loud during the finale and we couldn't hear the singers at all. The epilogue with Hudson and Grande was even worse.
- The integrated commercials?!
- The MC during the commercial breaks. That was a really bad decision. Play it straight, not like this is New Year's Rockin' Eve.

I agree with GlennF - Grease was far and above the better production.

...and Bye Bye Birdie with JLo? Thanks but I'll pass.

EDIT: I should note my kids did enjoy it far more than I expected them to. And I appreciated the nods to Divine (ie the pet store/groomers? with the pink flamingo logo), and the original movie (the poster art was used for a record album on the walls of the record store)
 
Last edited:

cinemel1

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
250
Location
New York
Real Name
Mel Matsil
Who is JLo going to portray in Bye Bye Birdie? Certainly not the high school student Ann Margaret played in the film.
I assume JLo will play Rosie, who was a Latina played by Chita Rivera in the original show. Chita had one of the best songs in the show, Spanish Rose, which was cut from the film because Janet Leigh played the part and wasn't Hispanic.
I was disappointed in the poor lip synching in Hairspray Live! Mama I'm a Big Girl Now was inventively staged (cut from the theatrical film).
 

Paul D G

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
1,914
Were they lip syncing? I was trying to determine that during the opening number, but then the mic cut out a couple times and thought 'guess not!' and didn't think about it the rest of the show.

If they were they were cheating on the live aspect :thumbsdown:. Don't make a big deal about your show being live then use pre-recorded performances.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
I only saw bits and pieces (I wasn't home for the beginning, and the local PBS station was running Hamilton's America at the same time), but it didn't do a lot for me. The direction really reminded me of the 1978 The Wiz movie, which showed that a normally great director could take a great show and suck the life out of it if he doesn't understand how to stage a musical.

The lead was just OK. Some times she did great, but other times she was kind of stiff. Often both during the same number.
 

cinemiracle

Screenwriter
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
1,614
Real Name
Peter
The positives:

The female cast. To a person, the women performers were all aces. Strong singers, strong performers.

An effort made to move the production out of soundstages on occasion and onto the backlot.

Splashy production values. This cost a pretty penny.

The not-so-positives:

Weak performers for Link and Seaweed.

Sound problems which have plagued all of NBC's live musicals (music louder than singers on occasion). Song lyrics and dialogue missed due to mics cutting out or faulty broadcast. Occasional sloppy direction which caught cameras in the frame.

More prerecorded numbers than in any previous live musical.

Lighting that was subpar in quite a few instances leaving main cast members in shadows.

Live audience which, like in Grease, sometimes applauded numbers and sometimes didn't and never reacted to any of the humor.


So if the songs were pre-recorded, the show was not 100% live? It is Australia's turn to watch the film to-night.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I didn't see the entire broadcast as I was at work when it started, but my wife was watching when I got home so I caught about an hour in the middle...

- The MC during the commercial breaks. That was a really bad decision. Play it straight, not like this is New Year's Rockin' Eve.

...and this was about the first thing I saw, which I immediately objected to. Some emcee was breathlessly exclaiming "And here comes Kristin Chenoweth! She just finished her number! Wasn't she fantastic?" and it seemed like he just kept going on and on. Now, I like Kristen Chenoweth. I think she's an amazing actress and singer and I am happy for any chance to see her performing. But I think of the performance space as something a little more sacred than the powers-that-be did. When the show is going on, they shouldn't do anything to break the illusion of the show. Actresses shouldn't break character, and the broadcaster should not be announcing to the audience that we're watching an actress play a character. In a good production, all you should notice is the character.

Some of that may be subject fatigue as this is the fourth version of Hairspray in 28 years, with the Broadway musical, movie musical, and TV musical all within the past 14 years (original movie was 1988, musical version premiered on Broadway in 2002; movie musical in 2007).

I agree with that - I have been very unimpressed by NBC's choices. Each of their musical choices has been something that is readily available to a modern audience. The Sound Of Music is quite possibly the most famous film adaptation of a musical of all time. Everyone's seen it. I don't see the point in redoing it, especially in a television version that can't possibly compete with the film. Peter Pan has been done so many times. The Mary Martin and Cathy Rigby productions are readily available. It's been adapted into non-musical films and animated films. It's once again giving people something they already have. The Wiz has been made into a feature film. I think Hairspray has been the worst offender in this regard; first it was a film, then it was a Broadway musical, and then it was a film of the Broadway musical. It's been done to death. That's not a reflection on the quality of the source material. On the other hand, there are plenty of musicals on Broadway now, or that have closed on Broadway over the years, that a mass audience has never had a chance to see. I would love to see NBC (or any of the other networks) pick a show that has never been recorded before. Wicked is a giant Broadway hit, but no one outside of the Broadway area gets to see it. Lin-Manuel Miranda is very popular right now; someone just scooped up the theatrical rights for In The Heights, but that would have been a good choice to play off his Hamilton popularity. Book Of Mormon is hugely popular and not available to a mass audience. The list of potential choices is miles long. And yet, the next one will be Bye Bye Birdie, another musical that's already available as a film that everyone has already seen. I have little hope that anyone is going to break that mold, unfortunately. Back when Mary Martin did the Peter Pan broadcast, it was still running on Broadway! And putting it on TV didn't kill the Broadway audience for it. Doing the right show on TV could actually boost ticket sales, not kill them. But instead, I fear that we're going to be stuck with year after year of shows that already have been adapted to the screen, that everyone already knows, with no sense of adventure at all. And I think it's going to kill the concept. I think we'll see more ratings decreases year after year as long as they continue down this path.
 

Bob Cashill

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2001
Messages
3,798
Real Name
Robert Cashill
I do think IN THE HEIGHTS is a better bet for an "NBC Live"-type presentation than as a feature film, as planned. There's not much "movie" there. So, too, with THE BOOK OF MORMON--on HBO, of course. :)

I have a feeling interest is already waning in this concept. BIRDIE is an uninspired choice to be sure. Are more planned beyond that?
 
Last edited:

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
I mostly agree, although I think The Wiz deserves a much better movie than it got in 1978. (IMO the TV broadcast, while it didn't blow me away, was stiil a welcome improvement.)

Wicked has been touring around the country for years -- there are lots of opportunities to see it.

I haven't seen Book of Mormon yet, but from what I understand, no broadcast network would touch it. Too raunchy.

On the other hand, In the Heights would have been a PERFECT choice.

I was thinking about this the other day. . .you know what would be great? Spider Man: Turn Off the Dark! Hardly anybody got to see it, it's a popular IP, it will appeal to both U2 and Marvel fans, and it's very entertaining. It's way too expensive to ever have a proper touring production, although there has been talk of possible stripped-down regional versions.
 

Paul D G

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
1,914
I have been very unimpressed by NBC's choices. Each of their musical choices has been something that is readily available to a modern audience. The Sound Of Music is quite possibly the most famous film adaptation of a musical of all time. Everyone's seen it.

I don't know if I would agree with all of this. Let me first say I had no interest in Sound of Music, Peter Pan, or The Wiz. The first one of these I watched was Grease. I also watched Rocky Horror. As a John Waters fan I'm familiar with the original version of Hairspray.

For Sound of Music, I think this was a good choice. Yes everyone has seen the movie but some of the interest would be to see a contemporary take of it. It's probably better to do something people are familiar with. If you're not a musical fan you may not have an interest in seeing Wicked or Les Miz performed. They want to go for the mass public. I wouldn't call myself a Grease fan, but I'm well familiar with the movie and the songs. We weren't planning on watching it (based on what we saw of SoM and PP) but my wife and I both felt a fondness for it and thought we should at least check it out, even if we decide to crack jokes throughout it. We were delighted with the opening number.

Rocky Horror was an odd one. I've seen the movie dozens of times. The singing was good, but the songs lacked any punch. They followed the script to the film closely enough that I was saying callbacks in my head. But if I couldn't do that would I have still been disappointed? Probably.

I think Grease and Rocky Horror hit it right in the sweet spot. Gen X'ers who grew up with these and want to share it with their kids. SoM, PP, and Hairspray don't have that same vibe, I think.

I don't really like musicals for the most part so I can't think of what would be a good thing for them to do next. i just hope it's not something like Pippin or Cats. I'd really like to see Little Shop of Horrors.
 

Rob W

Screenwriter
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
1,233
Real Name
Robert
I don't really like musicals for the most part so I can't think of what would be a good thing for them to do next. i just hope it's not something like Pippin or Cats. I'd really like to see Little Shop of Horrors.

Warner Brothers are working on a theatrical remake of Little Shop according to recent trade papers.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
i just hope it's not something like Pippin

I absolutely love Pippin, but I don't think it would be a good choice for a telecast. (There's also a fantastic tape of the Ben Vereen version available, so it's already been done for television.) That play is really about the intersection of reality and fantasy, and in its soul, its as much about stagecraft and storytelling and theater as it is about the son of Charlemagne. I think you need to be in the room with the performers to really experience that show. Sure, they could capture it all on TV, but I don't think it has the same impact as when you're there.

I was thinking about this the other day. . .you know what would be great? Spider Man: Turn Off the Dark! Hardly anybody got to see it, it's a popular IP, it will appeal to both U2 and Marvel fans, and it's very entertaining. It's way too expensive to ever have a proper touring production, although there has been talk of possible stripped-down regional versions.

That's an interesting idea. I'm a huge U2 fan, so I'd watch it for that. I saw it on Broadway, but version 1.0, during the never-ending preview period. It was the version that Julie Taymor refused to change to the point that they had to let her go. I have to say, it was one of the worst things I have ever seen. It seemed as though Taymor's only frame of reference for Spider-Man was the Tobey Maguire movie, so the first half of the show was pretty much a remake of the first movie, and then the second half was like a hallucinogenic acid trip in which Peter Parker/Spider-Man isn't even the main character. And then scenes would frequently be interrupted by what was lamely called a "Geek Chorus" that would explain the scene that just finished, as if we hadn't just watched it a moment ago. It had some moments that were visually exciting, and a couple interesting musical things, but no part fit with the other part. I didn't get to see the redone version, but I heard they essentially jettisoned the second act and extended the first act's story to fill two acts.

Moral of the story: no one was asking for or wanting a Spider-Man musical in the first place, but if you have to make one, don't pick a director who doesn't know, understand or care about the material; don't pick songwriters who physically don't have time in their schedules to be involved with the production; and don't start building a single thing until there's a darn script. Glen Berger (the original book's author) wrote a fascinating behind-the-scenes book about the experience.

I wonder if Marvel would even allow it to be adapted for television at this point. They made the theatrical deal before the launch of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and now with the movies blowing up the box office and tie-in TV shows already, would they want two versions of their character out at the same time in very similar mediums? But I'd definitely watch it... just with low expectations!
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
I saw the revised version and loved it. It wasn't very adventurous, story-wise (it was basically a re-imagining of the first Tobey Maguire film), but it was a blast. They got rid of the "Geek Chorus" entirely and massively reduced the role of Arachne. I recently read Glen Berger's book, and "fascinating" is the right word. :)

And, honestly, Patrick Page as the Green Goblin was one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. He had the audience in the palm of his claw every time he hit the stage.

Someone recently posted a cell phone video of the whole revised production to YouTube, so you might be able to check it out. The quality sucks, but that's probably why they haven't taken it down yet. :)
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I saw the revised version and loved it. It wasn't very adventurous, story-wise (it was basically a re-imagining of the first Tobey Maguire film), but it was a blast. They got rid of the "Geek Chorus" entirely and massively reduced the role of Arachne. I recently read Glen Berger's book, and "fascinating" is the right word. :)

And, honestly, Patrick Page as the Green Goblin was one of the greatest performances I've ever seen. He had the audience in the palm of his claw every time he hit the stage.

Someone recently posted a cell phone video of the whole revised production to YouTube, so you might be able to check it out. The quality sucks, but that's probably why they haven't taken it down yet. :)

I'm glad to hear it was more fun. I wanted to go again, but between the high cost of Broadway shows and an unforgiving schedule, I just couldn't make it happen. It sounds like they made the changes that absolutely needed to happen. Arachne was the focus of about two-thirds of the original version of the play; Spider-Man wasn't the star of his own show! On one hand, the actress who played her, TV Carpio, was fantastic, but the part was so ill-advised for the show. That was apparently all Taymor - "You know what would make our Spider-Man show great? Making up a new character that no one's ever heard of our cares about, and making sure to keep her front and center no matter how much the audience wants to see Spider-Man."

The Geek Chorus was horrendous for multiple reasons, but the breaking of the momentum was the worst. Every time I'd just start feeling swept up in the story, they'd come out and bring it all to a halt. They made a ton of terrible 90s bad puns that seemed completely random. (I think there was a Titanic joke in there... why??) And that they'd stop and explain stuff that was so obvious, I just didn't see how anyone thought that was a good idea. If you show Peter being bitten by a spider, you don't then need to stop the show and have four kids tell us that he got bit by a spider. I honestly don't know how they even made it to the first preview - how did no one go "wow, that's incredibly redundant and ruins the momentum each time" after seeing it rehearsed even once?

I shortchanged Patrick Page in my earlier comments; he was great! In the version I saw, he randomly plummets to his death at the end of the first act, and that's that. Gone too soon. The night I saw it, they had some technical issues during one of the wirework scenes, and Spider-Man had to stay suspended above the audience for a few minutes as the house lights came up and technicians adjusted whatever needed to be adjusted. Page, fully enjoying his role, stood onstage taunting Spidey - "So, just how many of you have they dropped so far?" and so on. They could have just given Page a green robe and let him adlib whatever he wanted for an hour and it would have been priceless.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,087
Members
144,145
Latest member
treed99
Recent bookmarks
0
Top