# Sound of Music Live - NBC Dec. 5th - Gonna watch?



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm not usually a Broadway musical type person, but I have seen the movie many times and generally have enjoyed it. It's my wife's favorite movie, so we will be watching, and I plan on watching this live, which intrigues me. Supposedly the first time in 50 years they are doing this.

http://news.yahoo.com/hills-coming-alive-sound-music-live-153420903.html


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jan 18, 2006)

I will watch. I've been trying to schedule the recording for about four days now. For some reason, the guide data on both my TiVos only goes up to the 5:00 hour on that day.

The Sound of Music is one of my favorite movies. I'm interested to see how a live production goes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

This feels like something I want to watch live. It would seem to defeat the purpose of watching a "live" broadcast from a recording (sounds kinda weird, but that's my thought process with this).


----------



## jeff92k7 (Jan 18, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> It would seem to defeat the purpose of watching a "live" broadcast from a recording.


I totally get that, but on the reality side (for us), we have busy schedules with three kids, so we rarely get more than an hour or so to sit down and watch TV, and that is after they go to bed. We never have the freedom to sit down and watch anything uninterrupted during prime time.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jeff92k7 said:


> I totally get that, but on the reality side (for us), we have busy schedules with three kids, so we rarely get more than an hour or so to sit down and watch TV, and that is after they go to bed. We never have the freedom to sit down and watch anything uninterrupted during prime time.


And I get that too. This one, I'm just not sure I'd feel it if I didn't watch it live. I'll probably record it anyway, just in case life comes a callin'.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

glad to see it being revived in a different format. 

mom would play alternate sides of the album (remember those!) every night for me to fall asleep. those memories will probably make it hard for me to be happy with another production, but i'll still watch.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'll definitely be watching. Love the movie and Carrie Underwood is super hot (and very talented). 

FYI, there's a special this Wednesday night (Nov 27) at 8/7 on NBC about the making of this special. I have that set to record as well.


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

I'll watch.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

We have a house full of Carrie fans, so we'll be watching.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> This feels like something I want to watch live. It would seem to defeat the purpose of watching a "live" broadcast from a recording (sounds kinda weird, but that's my thought process with this).


You thought process makes zero sense, actually. It is not live in the sense of a sporting event where you don't know the outcome. It is live as in a live performance. Just like a concert film or a live music album. The performance is not affected by if YOU watch it live nor is it an in-the-moment activity like a football game. However, the live aspect brings a different performance that will not change if you watch it recorded or not.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> You thought process makes zero sense, actually. It is not live in the sense of a sporting event where you don't know the outcome. It is live as in a live performance. Just like a concert film or a live music album. The performance is not affected by if YOU watch it live nor is it an in-the-moment activity like a football game. However, the live aspect brings a different performance that will not change if you watch it recorded or not.


I know it makes no sense. It's kinda like recording the Macy's Parade or 4th of July Fireworks. To me, it just feels weird watching something like that recorded.

Plus, if there's buzz about any flubs in the media, I don't want to be spoiled.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

DougF said:


> We have a house full of Carrie fans, so we'll be watching.


I hope the one with Sissy in it and not the recent crappy remake.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'll be watching. I love the movie and I like Carrie Underwood.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I know it makes no sense.


At least you are honest.


----------



## MHunter1 (Oct 11, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> It is not live in the sense of a sporting event where you don't know the outcome


TiVo asked me if I wanted to pad this recording because it will be performed "live" and may run long. But you say the outcome is pre-determined, so should I not worry about padding it like a sports event?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

MHunter1 said:


> TiVo asked me if I wanted to pad this recording because it will be performed "live" and may run long. But you say the outcome is pre-determined, so should I not worry about padding it like a sports event?


What?

It could run long but It is scripted. And I doubt it will run long. This isn't American Idol or the Oscars. Oops. Neither of them is pre-determined.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Nothing we watch "live" nowadays is truly live like TV was back in the day. By the time all the digital processing and sat delays are taken, what you see is several seconds behind real time, unlike the times past when the signals were carried over microwave by the telephone companies (with no delay) pre satellite.

I know, this is nit picking, but technically correct. Might as well be recorded.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Is this just some Broadway production that they are going to televise?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

mrdbdigital said:


> Nothing we watch "live" nowadays is truly live like TV was back in the day. By the time all the digital processing and sat delays are taken, what you see is several seconds behind real time, unlike the times past when the signals were carried over microwave by the telephone companies (with no delay) pre satellite.
> 
> I know, this is nit picking, but technically correct. Might as well be recorded.


There was always some delay. It still took time for sound and light to travel from the source to the cameras and mics up to the satellite, then back down, then to your TV

So, really, no one has ever seeing anything totally live on TV.


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

Based on the "making of" special tonight, I am really excited to see this next week. The kids seem perfect to me and I loved the whole special.


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Is this just some Broadway production that they are going to televise?


No. This is a totally new production for the one-time Live special next week. Their goal is to make it look like a movie of a live show. Tons of work went into/is going into making this Live version.


----------



## MauriAnne (Sep 21, 2002)

After watching the "Making Of" special tonight, I'm intrigued. Looks like they mostly nailed the casting and this has always been one of my favorite movies.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just watched the Making Of special. We're totally excited for the real thing. And I didn't realize my two older girls haven't seen the movie and don't know what it's about. 

So now I'm debating whether their first experience should be with the original, or with this new version. Carrie Underwood is really good, but nobody can hold a candle to Julie Andrews. 

Hmmm, decisions.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Was "Sound of Music" originally a movie? Or was it a play/musical?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Was "Sound of Music" originally a movie? Or was it a play/musical?


The musical debuted on Broadway in 1959. The movie was released in 1965.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sound_of_Music


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

so, really, this may be a bit more like the original original?


----------



## Zephyr (Sep 16, 2005)

Definitely watching. The "live" aspect is very interesting. One performance and off to the next project. I used the Sound of Music recording (forgotten whether cartridge or album), wrapped in a note containing her tickets for Innsbruck and a 10 day ski trip I took her on as a Christmas gift.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> so, really, this may be a bit more like the original original?


Yes. In the OP's link it mentions that they will have a song that was in the original play but dropped for the movie.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> There was always some delay. It still took time for sound and light to travel from the source to the cameras and mics up to the satellite, then back down, then to your TV
> 
> So, really, no one has ever seeing anything totally live on TV.


I'm talking about back when television was distributed by the telephone companies nationwide via microwave. There was no satellite distribution of television of regular program feeds, so there was no satellite delay. What you saw was at the speed of light, for all practical purposes real time, not the several second delayed video caused by today's digital processing delay and satellite transmission delay.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Who are these people that are sending Carrie Underwood hate tweets for taking on this role? People are nuts!


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

haven't sent any "hate tweets" , but it took less than a minute watching for me to delete the "behind the scenes" and the upcoming recording. just too emotionally tied to the original, so i can't stand to hear anyone besides julie andrews & crew sing the classic movie tunes - at least i tried.

i do hope carrie is able to bring the production to a new audience, like she's said in interviews...


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

mrdbdigital said:


> Nothing we watch "live" nowadays is truly live like TV was back in the day. By the time all the digital processing and sat delays are taken, what you see is several seconds behind real time, unlike the times past when the signals were carried over microwave by the telephone companies (with no delay) pre satellite.
> 
> I know, this is nit picking, but technically correct. Might as well be recorded.


I just learned something.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Bummer that it's 8-11 on a school night. It's Thing 2's birthday and they love the movie but it'll have to wait for the weekend.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

What did folks think of Stephen Moyer (the male lead)? They didn't show him singing very much, but what I saw was underwhelming. His voice doesn't seem very strong at all.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I am assuming that it will be "Previously Recorded" live for the West Coat?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

dbranco said:


> What did folks think of Stephen Moyer (the male lead)? They didn't show him singing very much, but what I saw was underwhelming. His voice doesn't seem very strong at all.


That was my reaction as well. "That's Captain Von Trapp? Really?"


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

DeDondeEs said:


> I am assuming that it will be "Previously Recorded" live for the West Coat?


Almost live, yes.

So much for a "live" event.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Just watched the Making Of special. We're totally excited for the real thing. And I didn't realize my two older girls haven't seen the movie and don't know what it's about.
> 
> So now I'm debating whether their first experience should be with the original, or with this new version. Carrie Underwood is really good, but nobody can hold a candle to Julie Andrews.
> 
> Hmmm, decisions.


I think it might be fun to let them watch this version (so they don't have any preconceived notions going in) then let them watch the movie. They can compare the two after, as someone would a Broadway production to a movie version (as is usually how it goes for staged musicals).

I saw bits and pieces of the Making Of, and it looks like it's going to be fun. Since I've seen the movie dozens of times, I'm going to watch this as I would a car race, for the crashes  Since we know the lines and the songs pretty well, my wife and I will be able to figure out some of the glitches.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Robin said:


> Bummer that it's 8-11 on a school night. It's Thing 2's birthday and they love the movie but it'll have to wait for the weekend.


Yeah, same here. My kids aren't staying up until 11 to watch this. We'll watch it over the weekend.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> Who are these people that are sending Carrie Underwood hate tweets for taking on this role? People are nuts!


Hate tweets? Wow, people are nuts. I hope an out of control Amazon Prime drone crashes into each one of those people. If anything, they should be thanking Carrie Underwood, because she is drumming up interest in a movie that most young kids wouldn't bother watching otherwise.

My kids are very interested in watching the special (which we'll do the next night via Tivo) and might want to see the movie after seeing the show with Carrie. Absent this live show, there's no way I'd get them interested in the movie.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

So I realized now that there's a hockey game on I want to see the same night as this. So I might end up not watching this live after all.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> So I realized now that there's a hockey game on I want to see the same night as this. So I might end up not watching this live after all.


Ehh.. It's not really live live anyway. And neither is the hockey game.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

I wonder how much of the movie version will be in the broadcast. (The one major change I can think of: in the stage version, "The Lonely Goatheard" is not done with puppets like it is in the movie.)


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

That Don Guy said:


> I wonder how much of the movie version will be in the broadcast. (The one major change I can think of: in the stage version, "The Lonely Goatheard" is not done with puppets like it is in the movie.)


Based on the little bit of "The Making of" special I saw, "The Lonely Goatherd" is done during a game of "Blind Man's Buff".

Also based on what I saw, I will be giving this a pass. Carrie Underwood is no Mary Martin.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

jsmeeker said:


> Ehh.. It's not really live live anyway. And neither is the hockey game.


:up:


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

My kids loved the movie and are looking forward to this performance.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

mrdbdigital said:


> What you saw was at the speed of light, for all practical purposes real time,


But that's still a delay. It makes no sense to get all pedantic about the delay issue while accepting a delay just because it's shorter.
For all practical (not scientifically pedantic) purposes a few seconds delay is still live.
It's being broadcast live. When you get it and see it is irrelevant.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> But that's still a delay. It makes no sense to get all pedantic about the delay issue while accepting a delay just because it's shorter.
> For all practical (not scientifically pedantic) purposes a few seconds delay is still live.
> It's being broadcast live. When you get it and see it is irrelevant.


I think of this type of delay as the delay you get when someone speaks over the loudspeaker at a stadium.

Splitting hairs really 

Still torn about watching this or hockey live. I'm leaning toward hockey, but my mind could change depending on my mood later. I might watch hockey, flip to it during commercials/between periods and then watch the whole thing over the weekend.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Fifteen minutes in, and so far so good. It helps to have Audra McDonald as the Mother Superior.

I can totally buy Carrie as young and inexperienced Maria.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I know this version is following the Broadway play more closely than the movie, but that was an odd placement for "My Favorite Things."

I suppose that shows how dominant the movie has become in people's thinking of how the story goes.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Graymalkin said:


> Audra McDonald as the Mother Superior.


Thanks. I was wondering who the woman with the vocal chops was. She looked vaguely familiar.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

It's getting horrible reviews on my facebook feeds. I'm planning on watching it later.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Let's try to remember that Carrie Underwood isn't enjoying the benefit of multiple takes and film and sound editing by some of the finest Hollywood craftsmen who ever made movie musicals. Also, it's a LIVE theater show, not a $100 million movie. And that she doesn't have the British accent, which most Americans will accept as European.

This is LIVE, people. LIVE. No retakes.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Fifteen minutes in, and so far so good. It helps to have Audra McDonald as the Mother Superior. I can totally buy Carrie as young and inexperienced Maria.


She has a great voice but as far as any semblance of realism, nope. This is based on a true story. Set during the Nazi years.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> She has a great voice but as far as any semblance of realism, nope. This is based on a true story. Set during the Nazi years.


Based VERY loosely on a story told by the von Trapps, who were not renown for their truthfulness.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I think TonyD is observing that it would be unusual for a Austrian mother superior to be of African descent.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I keep waiting for the captain to fang up and bite Maria.


----------



## knuckles (Dec 21, 2002)

Carrie has a beautiful voice and used it in song quite well. The dialog was not quite as good. She seemed to lack emotion.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

When it comes to acting, Carrie is a wonderful singer.

Even so, I think they did an excellent job in putting on a live performance. And I thank NBC for putting this on the air.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

knuckles said:


> Carrie has a beautiful voice and used it in song quite well. The dialog was not quite as good. She seemed to lack emotion.


Agreed. I found most of her acting to be very painful to watch. She has a phenomenal voice, but it was very obvious that she does not have a theater background.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Pretty much what others have said. Beautiful songs but no connection, no feeling of a bond or romance between the Captain and Maria.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

If you go over the mountain from Saltzburg you end up in Germany...


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Pretty much what others have said. Beautiful songs but no connection, no feeling of a bond or romance between the Captain and Maria.


Yep, the connection wasn't nearly as strong as it was between him and Sookie ...


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Enjoyed it very much.

Knowing nothing about the musical, I find it interesting that there are a few major differences from the film. As previously noted, the song placement. Here the Captain and Baroness split because of philosophical differences. IIRC correctly, in the film they split because of the love between the Captain and Maria. And in the film, Rolf blows the whistle on them in the end, where here he protects them. Also there were a few songs here left out in the film.

I think the film flows better, but that's to be expected. Overall I think very well done.

And yes, I think the Captain was the weakest singer.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I only watched bits and pieces live and plan to watch the whole thing over the weekend. I set my bar low, knowing how great the movie was, and I thought it was well done for what it was, a live TV event of a VERY well known story. The problem is, the movie sets the bar SO high that it would be hard to even come close. That's why I'm going to try and NOT compare it to the movie so much and try and enjoy it for what it is. 

And yeah, I thought an African American Mother Superior in 1930s Austria was unusual casting, but that oddness was gone fairly quickly. And to me, these are Austrians, so what difference did it make if Maria had a British or American accent? Didn't Mary Martin play her in the original Broadway production and isn't she an American? I never saw it, so did she play Maria with a British accent?


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

I wanted to enjoy it, but I kept getting pulled out of the show by Carrie's acting. She seemed very wooden. This was offset somewhat by her singing (which was great!). She seem to better in her interactions with the kids but, as other have mentioned, had absolutely no chemistry with the Captain. I just couldn't believe any feelings between them.

That being said, I do give her (and the rest of the production) a lot of leeway. This wasn't a TV movie with multiple takes and a director coaching her show different emtions for each take. Nor was it a Broadway play that would have given her months to develop the character. She had a couple of months of rehearsals and then was thrown in the fire. 

I think the kids did a really good job. 

I admit I was also looking for mistakes. I caught a few minors one (sound issues and people moving in the background) but nothing major at all.

Overall I give it a solid B.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> I wanted to enjoy it, but I kept getting pulled out of the show by Carrie's acting. She seemed very wooden. This was offset somewhat by her singing (which was great!). She seem to better in her interactions with the kids but, as other have mentioned, had absolutely no chemistry with the Captain. I just couldn't believe any feelings between them.
> 
> That being said, I do give her (and the rest of the production) a lot of leeway. This wasn't a TV movie with multiple takes and a director coaching her show different emtions for each take. Nor was it a Broadway play that would have given her months to develop the character. She had a couple of months of rehearsals and then was thrown in the fire.
> 
> ...


Another factor, no live audience. You don't get that in a movie of course, but that's less a factor because of multiple takes and studio tweaking and so forth. Stage actors will tell you they feed of the audience emotions in their acting. There was none of that here, just acting on a sound stage. I wonder why NBC just didn't do this on a stage somewhere with a live audience?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

I had no problem with the Mother Superior being African American, but there were several other things that made it, er, shall we say, not so good.

1. The actor playing Rolf was far too old to be '17 going on 18'!
2. The Captain was far too young to be a widower with seven kids.
3. As previously stated, as an actor, Carrie is a darn fine singer! The acting was definitely 'stage acting', buy she was just terrible.
4. You'd have thought that the Admiral, with only about four lines, could actually remember them - or at least been able to ad lib well enough to cover up the flub. Elsa did a great job of this when someone stepped on her dress.

As a side note, this was the stage play, not the movie. To compare the two is ridiculous. Of course there's not puppet show - it wouldn't work on stage!

On the positive side, all the singing was very well done and the kids performed really well for the most part.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

TonyTheTiger said:


> I had no problem with the Mother Superior being African American, but there were several other things that made it, er, shall we say, not so good.
> 
> 1. The actor playing Rolf was far too old to be '17 going on 18'!
> 2. The Captain was far too young to be a widower with seven kids.
> ...


B.S. It's perfectly fine to compare a play and a movie. Or a book and a movie. Happens all the time.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

I think a live audience would've helped.


----------



## PKurmas (Apr 24, 2001)

Howie said:


> I hope the one with Sissy in it and not the recent crappy remake.


You deserve a :up: for that.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

What I think I had problems with was also comparing it to the live musicals on tv in the 60's - Cinderella and Peter Pan. I am not sure when they were first aired or if they were filmed from a broadway show. This did fall short in my mind. I wonder if this would have done better if it had been on Broadway and time for any issues worked out.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

The sound issues were what bothered me the most. The hum of studio fans was pretty bad, as well as the occasional microphones rubbing against the clothing, and finally, the mixing issues - music overpowering the singers, etc.


----------



## Hot4Bo (Apr 3, 2003)

I did notice a visible camera too. It was in the top right of the screen when the Captain, Elsa and Max were singing and discussing politics.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> The sound issues were what bothered me the most. The hum of studio fans was pretty bad, as well as the occasional microphones rubbing against the clothing, and finally, the mixing issues - music overpowering the singers, etc.


Must be a issue with what we have these days with HD and audio equipment. I am sure when they did this in the past there was no issue. I was surprised they even used mics on the actors. Something 3 feet above them would have worked better. I am not sure if the music was for us only or if they had it piped in.

I do agree though. Fathom events stages things like this in theaters all the time and don't have hardly any issues.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

WO312 said:


> B.S. It's perfectly fine to compare a play and a movie. Or a book and a movie. Happens all the time.


Yeah, if you spent 'all the time' comparing apples to oranges!


----------



## Zephyr (Sep 16, 2005)

I thought this was wonderful and would like to see more of this. This was a bold, and very expensive move by NBC. I commend them. Perhaps more of you should spend time going to the theater! I grew up on both the movie and multiple stage presentations. They were not trying to regurgitate the past, they were trying to foster interest in young people. I think the twitterverse will destroy this with their two second attention spans.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Another factor, no live audience. You don't get that in a movie of course, but that's less a factor because of multiple takes and studio tweaking and so forth. Stage actors will tell you they feed of the audience emotions in their acting. There was none of that here, just acting on a sound stage. I wonder why NBC just didn't do this on a stage somewhere with a live audience?





DUDE_NJX said:


> I think a live audience would've helped.


 Several reasons they had no audience, but the biggest one is that the audience wouldn't have been able to see anything but the backs of the camera operators and other crew. This wasn't just a televised stage play. This was developed to be a live TV event. So that means they had to build the sets in place rather than have them mobile. They needed a huge soundstage where all the sets could be in place at once. The sets needed to look good from multiple angles, not just the front, etc. All of the blocking had to be done in such a way so that it could be filmed properly.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Zephyr said:


> I thought this was wonderful and would like to see more of this. This was a bold, and very expensive move by NBC. I commend them. Perhaps more of you should spend time going to the theater! I grew up on both the movie and multiple stage presentations. They were not trying to regurgitate the past, they were trying to foster interest in young people. I think the twitterverse will destroy this with their two second attention spans.


I agree. We'll definitely see more things like this as the ratings were very good.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Several reasons they had no audience, but the biggest one is that the audience wouldn't have been able to see anything but the backs of the camera operators and other crew. This wasn't just a televised stage play. This was developed to be a live TV event. So that means they had to build the sets in place rather than have them mobile. They needed a huge soundstage where all the sets could be in place at once. The sets needed to look good from multiple angles, not just the front, etc. All of the blocking had to be done in such a way so that it could be filmed properly.


I think we all understand why there was no live audience. Just saying that it would probably work out better if somehow there was one.


----------



## ihatecable (Apr 16, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I keep waiting for the captain to fang up and bite Maria.


Go Vampire Bill Go!


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

I liked it a lot, and want to thank NBC for trying something bold. It worked for me, I'd love to see more performances like this on NBC instead of endless police dramas and juvenile comedies.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

Zephyr said:


> I thought this was wonderful and would like to see more of this. This was a bold, and very expensive move by NBC. I commend them. Perhaps more of you should spend time going to the theater! I grew up on both the movie and multiple stage presentations. They were not trying to regurgitate the past, they were trying to foster interest in young people. I think the twitterverse will destroy this with their two second attention spans.


Well said.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

TomK said:


> I liked it a lot, and want to thank NBC for trying something bold. It worked for me, I'd love to see more performances like this on NBC instead of endless police dramas and juvenile comedies.


I agree I miss event TV like miniseries and specials like this. There is a lot of musicals they could do like Annie or West Side Story.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm giving NBC a grade of B. Glad to hear the ratings were good. Maybe we'll get more shows like this.

Carrie's next step ought to be a real Broadway show, so she can get more stage experience. She should start with "Oklahoma!" or "Annie Get Your Gun".


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TonyTheTiger said:


> 2. The Captain was far too young to be a widower with seven kids.



The actor, Steven Moyer, is 44. How old do you think someone has to be to have a 16 (going on 17) year old child?


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> The actor, Stephen Moyer, is 44. How old do you think someone has to be to have a 16 (going on 17) year old child?


And Christopher Plummer was nearly 10 years younger than Moyer ...


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> The actor, Steven Moyer, is 44. How old do you think someone has to be to have a 16 (going on 17) year old child?


I had the same thought. Someone who is supposed to be 40 in the late 30's would have probably got married around 18. 7 kids is no surprise. I was more shocked he landed a girl 15 or so years younger than him. How old was the real Von Trapp when he married Maria? Or is all of that false?


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

mwhip said:


> I had the same thought. Someone who is supposed to be 40 in the late 30's would have probably got married around 18. 7 kids is no surprise. I was more shocked he landed a girl 15 or so years younger than him. How old was the real Von Trapp when he married Maria? Or is all of that false?


Wikipedia says he was married at 31 and was 42 when his first wife died. He married Maria 5 years later, but did not leave the country until he was 58. So the age portrayed in the movie is from 47 to 58 or there abouts.

For my money Plummer was 36 trying to act like a 47+ year old man while Moyer was 44 trying to act like a 35 year old man. I preferred Plummer's take on the role.


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

TomK said:


> I liked it a lot, and want to thank NBC for trying something bold. It worked for me, I'd love to see more performances like this on NBC instead of endless police dramas and juvenile comedies.


I feel the same way, I'm not one of those people who have to constantly compare something to it's original. I went in with an open mind and knowing it was not a remake of the movie. Also helps that I'm a fan of Carrie Underwoods and I've seen her live.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

CNN tells me the Twitterverse and Facing Books were blowing up with people bashing it. But based on the comments here, there seems to be a disconnect.

I thought it was a little underwhelming. The music and singing was very good. I didn't notice any major flubs or mess ups. But I think the non-singing portions were just a little flat.

As far as doing in a big sound stage and no audience vs. doing in a theater with an audience? I guess it depends on what is more important. If it's more important for it to look good for a TV viewer at home, then doing the way they did was better. You can build multiple, large, elaborate sets for the various scenes. Much more so than you could if you had a single stage and had to move pieces in and out at breaks. Also, the sound stage setup frees you up with lots of cameras and positions and what not to get the shots you need.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> What I think I had problems with was also comparing it to the live musicals on tv in the 60's - Cinderella and Peter Pan. I am not sure when they were first aired or if they were filmed from a broadway show. This did fall short in my mind. I wonder if this would have done better if it had been on Broadway and time for any issues worked out.


I still have Peter Pan on a VHS tape somewhere. NBC showed it again (with Mary Martin) in the late 80s or early 90s and my son loved it when he was little. I wonder is some of the "problems" we are having is we are SO used to modern TV, with all of the advancements in sound and so forth that this looked a bit "off". I haven't watched it all yet, but I enjoyed the pieces I saw. But I was lucky enough to catch a couple of songs and very little dialog, so maybe that's why I don't have a strong impression of the acting just yet.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Several reasons they had no audience, but the biggest one is that the audience wouldn't have been able to see anything but the backs of the camera operators and other crew. This wasn't just a televised stage play. This was developed to be a live TV event. So that means they had to build the sets in place rather than have them mobile. They needed a huge soundstage where all the sets could be in place at once. The sets needed to look good from multiple angles, not just the front, etc. All of the blocking had to be done in such a way so that it could be filmed properly.


I get that, but, I think NBC should have done this as a stage play. I know they were going for the type of thing they did in the 1950s and 60s, but unfortunately, technology has passed it by. Doing it as a stage play, might have worked better.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I get that, but, I think NBC should have done this as a stage play. I know they were going for the type of thing they did in the 1950s and 60s, but unfortunately, technology has passed it by. Doing it as a stage play, might have worked better.


Better for who? Certainly, it would have been neat for those in the audience in the theater. Better for the TV audience? Possibly maybe for the acting. But plenty of actors act just fine without a live audience. The way they did it certainly made it LOOK better for TV.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Better for who? Certainly, it would have been neat for those in the audience in the theater. Better for the TV audience? Possibly maybe for the acting. But plenty of actors act just fine without a live audience. The way they did it certainly made it LOOK better for TV.


I say for the acting. How many actors have done something like this? Live TV in front of NO audience? I'd say VERY few. So even the best actors might have had trouble with something like this. And these were hardly the best actors out there.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

FWIW the NY Times review seems to echo the sentiments of most here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/a...-sound-of-music.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> I say for the acting. How many actors have done something like this? Live TV in front of NO audience? I'd say VERY few. So even the best actors might have had trouble with something like this. And these were hardly the best actors out there.


Well, maybe the real problem was the casting and not the staging.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Well seems we could have had the best of both worlds. Seems they approached Anne Hathaway for the role first.


----------



## Zephyr (Sep 16, 2005)

BIG stage... you can easily see how they accomplished a couple of their scene transitions, by simply walking from one to another. This studio is HUGE!

http://grummanstudios.com/

Think as big as the moon!


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

While no one should be comparing this with the movie, it was doomed from the start. It was supposed to be a performance of a musical _*play*_. In order for that to succeed, the performers, particularly the one in the lead role, must be able to _*act*_ as well as sing.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I give Carrie Underwood a lot of credit for doing this, because the downside for her was a lot bigger than the upside.

Also, while a seasoned Broadway performer certainly could have played the part better than Carrie, hardly anyone would have watched, which means the show would have never been made.

I agree that Anne Hathaway would have done better than Carrie, but even Anne wouldn't have generated the buzz that Carrie did. My eight-year-old daughter was watching while talking to a friend on the phone who was also watching. They barely knew what The Sound of Music was prior to this, and have no idea who Anne Hathaway is. They were excited about it because Carrie was in it.

So, the critics may not have liked it, but it wasn't made for them.

I may be able to get my kids to watch the movie now, and that wouldn't have happened before.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

What I find amusing is how a lot of the negative people are calling it a disgrace to remake the movie. It is not that at all. It is a remake of the original Broadway play. They followed the original play book. The movie was actually a remake of the play. Trying to compare it to the movie is stupid. In the movie they were able to do as many retakes as necessary to get it right. Julia Andrews lip sync'ed the sound tract that had been recorded ahead of time in a studio. This was actors performing live. That's why you saw Carrie stumble near the start. They also sang the songs live. With the movie they had months to rehearse the parts. This cast had about 6 weeks. This was not ment to be a movie. It was to be a play. I wish they would do more shows like this instead of the dumbing down reality shows that are all over the TV channels.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

SNJpage1 said:


> What I find amusing is how a lot of the negative people are calling it a disgrace to remake the movie. It is not that at all. It is a remake of the original Broadway play. They followed the original play book. The movie was actually a remake of the play. Trying to compare it to the movie is stupid. In the movie they were able to do as many retakes as necessary to get it right. Julia Andrews lip sync'ed the sound tract that had been recorded ahead of time in a studio. This was actors performing live. That's why you saw Carrie stumble near the start. They also sang the songs live. With the movie they had months to rehearse the parts. This cast had about 6 weeks. This was not ment to be a movie. It was to be a play. I wish they would do more shows like this instead of the dumbing down reality shows that are all over the TV channels.


Yeah, this format could be a way to bring Broadway plays to people who don't see Broadway plays, especially to young people who aren't familiar with the classics. It may take young stars like Carrie Underwood and Taylor Swift to do that, but so what? Like you say, it seems like better programming than most of what is on TV now. Seems like the networks should try this a few more times with other plays. Some people will hate it, but they don't have to watch.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

betts4 said:


> What I think I had problems with was also comparing it to the live musicals on tv in the 60's - Cinderella and Peter Pan. I am not sure when they were first aired or if they were filmed from a broadway show. This did fall short in my mind. I wonder if this would have done better if it had been on Broadway and time for any issues worked out.


Cinderella wasn't aired live, but it was a specific production for TV. I don't recall whether the songs in Cinderella were sung live-to-tape or lip-synced


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> While no one should be comparing this with the movie, it was doomed from the start. It was supposed to be a performance of a musical _*play*_. In order for that to succeed, the performers, particularly the one in the lead role, must be able to _*act*_ as well as sing.


How cute. You think the ability to act is a must.


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

My NBC affiliate decided to screw up the audio so it's filled with constant pops. I could not bear to watch it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> How cute. You think the ability to act is a must.


How sad that you think it isn't.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

lpwcomp said:


> While no one should be comparing this with the movie, it was doomed from the start. It was supposed to be a performance of a musical _*play*_. In order for that to succeed, the performers, particularly the one in the lead role, must be able to _*act*_ as well as sing.


Not sure it's fair to say it was doomed. It got boffo ratings for NBC. In that regard, it was as a huge hit as they were hoping for, despite the mixed critical reviews.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> How sad that you think it isn't.


Sometimes a name that will sell tickets is all that matters.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Carrie Underwood certainly brought in the people. She was always used as the person to promote the show. I don't think any TV ad I ever saw on NBC really actually named or featured any other performed. Her involvement is probably THE reason the show drew such a large audience. From what I heard, NBC's largest non-sports event audience since the final episode of Frasier.

She can sing for sure. She sure looks nice. Can she act? Well, her acting wasn't so great in this. But COULD she act? Could she work on it? Lots and lots of actors LEARN how to act. It's a skill that's developed over time with practice, experience and formal training. Could Carrie do this? I bet she has it in her to make real improvements if she wanted to. She certainly grown as a singer since she first showed up on American Idol.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> Sometimes a name that will sell tickets is all that matters.


On that basis, I suppose it was a success. As a performance (not remake. You don't "remake" a play) of the musical, it was an abject failure. And therein lies the difference between a one-off TV production and a Broadway show. Gimmick casting only has to work one night for TV.

The only concern for quality in this production was from a technical standpoint, not an artistic one.

Having Carrie Underwood play Maria is as stupid as having Mary Lou Retton play Tiny Tim.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I thought it was basically third rate. It did not feel like a play but a cheaply produced movie. I have heard the name Carrie Underwood but have no idea what genre she sings. Obviously she is not a Broadway actress though she sings well. There were too many commercials even though I have a TiVo I don't expect to be scrolling through so much of a "live" program. I wonder if the West coast experience was worse than the East coast? I looked up the Trapp family on Wikipedia and the movie and play have this thing set during the events leading up to the Anschluss. Maria and the Captain were married in 1927 when the Nazi party had very little power in Germany. The Captain actually served some time in the German Navy. The man who played the Captain was just plain awful


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I looked Carrie Underwood up on Wikipedia. I guess they chose her because of her popularity among country fans(which explains why I had never heard her sing) She certainly has very little acting experience


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I looked Carrie Underwood up on Wikipedia. I guess they chose her because of her popularity among country fans(which explains why I had never heard her sing) She certainly has very little acting experience


Just two words

American Idol.

She is cross popular because of it.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I looked Carrie Underwood up on Wikipedia. I guess they chose her because of her popularity among country fans(which explains why I had never heard her sing) She certainly has very little acting experience


She is more than just a country singer. She regularly has songs that cross over to popular radio. Her popularity is probably only slightly below Taylor Swift. I don't consider her just a country singer (although that is her primary genre).

I give her a LOT of credit to take this role. Her acting may not have very good, but her singing was wonderful.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

They chose her because she is young, attractive, can sing very well, and is very very popular amongst a broad range of fans. As mentioned, she isn't just "some country singer" though that is where most of her musical acts fit into. Really, she's crazy popular. American Idol's biggest success by far. Though Kelly Clarkson has done very well too.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Was it just me, or did Carrie Underwood sound a little out of breath during the part where she was running around teaching the kids to sing Doe, Ray, Me? She seemed to be covering it pretty good, but she sounded a little breathless in a couple of places. I'll bet she was happy they went to a commercial break and she wasn't in the immediately following segment, and so could catch her breath.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Having Carrie Underwood play Maria is as stupid as having Mary Lou Retton play Tiny Tim.


????? She's the right age. She has an awesome voice. I must be easy to please, because I loved it. And I thought Carrie did fine with the acting. There's more singing than speaking anyway. I also thought the guy who played Max was good as well as Mother Superior. But then I'm very familiar with the play as well as the movie and I love all the songs.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> She is more than just a country singer. She regularly has songs that cross over to popular radio. Her popularity is probably only slightly below Taylor Swift. I don't consider her just a country singer (although that is her primary genre).


I disagree. Underwood is indeed primarily a country singer. Her and Swift are probably very close in terms of country star power, but Swift positively blows her away as a crossover artist. That's why swift has sold so many more albums and generates way more money from touring.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> I also thought the guy who played Max was good as well as Mother Superior ...


No surprise there. Audra McDonald is one of the most talented and respected Broadway actresses alive today. I've seen her live three times. Once in Ragtime, and twice in solo concerts. The woman is a phenomenal talent!


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Having Carrie Underwood play Maria is as stupid as having Mary Lou Retton play Tiny Tim.


Or Peter Pan.

Oh, wait...

(I assume you are referring to _Scrooged_?)

However, I do agree with what seems to be the general consensus - the musical numbers were good, but Underwood was a little underwhelming in the acting department. I also notice that there aren't swarms of "Care Bears" demanding that she be nominated for an Emmy ("but of course she won't, because TV is loaded with Taylor Swifties").


----------



## MauriAnne (Sep 21, 2002)

gweempose said:


> No surprise there. Audra McDonald is one of the most talented and respected Broadway actresses alive today. I've seen her live three times. Once in Ragtime, and twice in solo concerts. The woman is a phenomenal talent!


I never realized that "Naomi" on Private Practice had so much vocal talent, Now that I hear her sing, the Private Practice role seems like an odd one for her.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

MauriAnne said:


> I never realized that "Naomi" on Private Practice had so much vocal talent, Now that I hear her sing, the Private Practice role seems like an odd one for her.


No doubt. My wife and I used to always say how much of a waste of talent it was having her in that role. It's not that she was bad on the show, but the woman was born to sing.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> ????? She's the right age. She has an awesome voice. I must be easy to please, because I loved it. And I thought Carrie did fine with the acting. There's more singing than speaking anyway. I also thought the guy who played Max was good as well as Mother Superior. But then I'm very familiar with the play as well as the movie and I love all the songs.


I'm with you 100% on this one. I'm continually amazed at the things people complain about, not just in this thread, but most Now Playing threads. I sit back and enjoy it for what it is - entertainment. I save my critical thinking for the important things in life.

Now everyone was absolutely right to complain about the Survivor spoiler. 

Edit: I guess that makes me easy to please too.


----------



## dbranco (Nov 20, 2003)

Aside from the -- imho -- miscast of Stephen Moyer (weak, pitchy singing voice; too young for the role; wooden performance) I really enjoyed the broadcast. The Sound of Music is one of my all-time favorite movies, and I looked forward to seeing this stage version. Didn't even try to make comparisons of Carrie to Julie.

Having watched the "Making Of..." segment, it was interesting to see how the actors fared in some of the 'trouble spots' that were being worked on during rehearsals: Kurt hitting the high note in the "Goodbye" song; choreographing the scene where Liesel and Rolf roll down the hill; the threat of the actor who played Friedrich's voice changing/cracking in the weeks before the broadcast. Everything worked without a hitch.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WO312 said:


> I'm with you 100% on this one. I'm continually amazed at the things people complain about, not just in this thread, but most Now Playing threads. I sit back and enjoy it for what it is - entertainment. I save my critical thinking for the important things in life.
> 
> Now everyone was absolutely right to complain about the Survivor spoiler.
> 
> Edit: I guess that makes me easy to please too.


I enjoyed it a lot, but, I have to agree, the acting was not great. And there were some glitches with the singing. There were times when the music drowned out the singers, and the singing was slightly out of sync with the soundtrack. Not a big deal. I think Carrie could have pulled this off with more acting lessons. I think she could really do it, but you could tell that she was a singer who was asked to act. I thought the kids were really cast well and enjoyed their performances and was amazed they made few mistakes.

I hope NBC does this again. I'll watch (assuming it's a musical I like).


----------



## Honora (Oct 16, 2006)

MauriAnne said:


> I never realized that "Naomi" on Private Practice had so much vocal talent, Now that I hear her sing, the Private Practice role seems like an odd one for her.


Audra has won 5 Tony Awards out of 7 nominations. I have seen her live too, and cheered when she won for Master Class.

However, you don't make really big money on stage, and it can be really hard doing 8-9 shows a week. So, a good TV role bulks up the bank account and keeps you in the public eye.

Laurence Olivier (one of the greatest actors in the 20th century) made movies for the money and then ran back to the stage at every opportunity.


----------



## Honora (Oct 16, 2006)

TonyTheTiger said:


> 4. You'd have thought that the Admiral, with only about four lines, could actually remember them - or at least been able to ad lib well enough to cover up the flub. Elsa did a great job of this when someone stepped on her dress.


 Of course Elsa handled the dress problem well. Laura Benanti has been in 9 plays on Broadway since 1998. Experience shows.


----------



## kettledrum (Nov 17, 2003)

tivoboyjr said:


> I agree that Anne Hathaway would have done better than Carrie, but even Anne wouldn't have generated the buzz that Carrie did. My eight-year-old daughter was watching while talking to a friend on the phone who was also watching. They barely knew what The Sound of Music was prior to this, and have no idea who Anne Hathaway is. They were excited about it because Carrie was in it.
> 
> So, the critics may not have liked it, but it wasn't made for them.
> 
> I may be able to get my kids to watch the movie now, and that wouldn't have happened before.


This. The only reason my 8 yr old daughter wanted to watch this was because of Carrie Underwood. She talked about it so much even my 2 yr old son picked up on it and would randomly ask to see Carrie Underwood.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Heh. My 8yr old wanted to see the show because of the movie, and hated that Carrie is in it, because she likes Julie so much. She did warm up to CU as the show progressed.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Well just know for all you critics Carrie is praying for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/carrie-underwood-sound-of-music-critics_n_4412146.html


----------



## knuckles (Dec 21, 2002)

I'll be praying to Jesus that Carrie takes more acting lessons. What a cop out.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mwhip said:


> Well just know for all you critics Carrie is praying for you: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/carrie-underwood-sound-of-music-critics_n_4412146.html


Is denial a deadly sin?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

I'm a little surprised that none of the reviews that I saw complained that "they removed 'I Have Confidence' for those two other songs," which would have made them completely unaware of the concept that TSOM was originally on Broadway and they were doing a staging of that version ("I Have Confidence" was written for the movie).

BTW, ABC is airing the movie on Sunday 12/22.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> I'm a little surprised that none of the reviews that I saw complained that "they removed 'I Have Confidence' for those two other songs," which would have made them completely unaware of the concept that TSOM was originally on Broadway and they were doing a staging of that version ("I Have Confidence" was written for the movie).
> 
> BTW, ABC is airing the movie on Sunday 12/22.


In addition to "I Have Confidence", the song "I Must Have Done Something Good" (not sure if that's the title) was also written just for the movie. Oscar Hammerstein died in 1960 so Richard Rodgers did both the lyrics and the music for those two songs.

I liked the TV version so much I watched the movie version the other night. I just really like the music.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

WO312 said:


> I liked the TV version so much I watched the movie version the other night. I just really like the music.


We plan on doing this too


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Let's see. I'm going to have to watch My Fair Lady. And Camelot. And maybe Oliver. And then My Fair Lady again.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

I still haven't gotten around to watching this yet. I heard on the radio this morning that NBC got such good ratings from this they are going to do it again next year with a different musical. I don't think they've decided on which one yet.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

brettatk said:


> I still haven't gotten around to watching this yet. I heard on the radio this morning that NBC got such good ratings from this they are going to do it again next year with a different musical. I don't think they've decided on which one yet.


It's gotta be Oklahoma starring Carie Underwood.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> So I realized now that there's a hockey game on I want to see the same night as this. So I might end up not watching this live after all.


Thankfully you have your priorities straight.

Signed,
Blackhawks Fan


----------



## 702 (Feb 9, 2003)

JFriday said:


> It's gotta be Oklahoma starring Carie Underwood.


I'd rather see Starlight Express, on Ice... staring Carrie Underwood.


----------



## bayern_fan (Aug 12, 2013)

People who like stuff like this should check on "Great Performances" on PBS. They did Oklahoma last month with Hugh Jackman.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/rodgers-hammersteins-oklahoma/about-the-show/1923/


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I never cared for Sound of Music, so I didn't watch when it was originally on. I did stop for a few minutes during tonight's replay, though, just to get a feel of what it was like.

I think for me, I'd prefer if they would just stage this in an actual theater in front of an audience, and film that. Frankly, it sort of felt like they were 90% of the way there already; stage design, lighting, and blocking all seemed like they were designed as live theater rather than a television production. Even the acting seemed at times like they were "playing to the [non-existent] cheap seats."

As I watch a little longer, given that this was originally a stage production, there are clearly moments in the script written expecting an audience reaction, and it feels a little awkward when that reaction never comes, another reason I'd like to see them just film a traditional stage production.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

We watched the replay today that aired last night. I think the critics were pretty hard on Carrie Underwood. I thought her acting was fine. Not great of course, but no better than some of the other cast members.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just watched it last night. I'll agree with critics that Carrie wasn't a great actor, but her worst scenes were at the very beginning and then she settled in. I feel like people immediately decided she sucked and didn't notice the fact that she improved.

But there were many other things to complain about before talking about Carrie's acting ability. The sound was bad. The lighting was bad. The kids weren't great. 

The sets were fantastic. I'll give them that. I had no problem with the fact that there wasn't a live audience. 

Looking forward to the chance to watch the movie with my kids now that they've seen this one.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

brettatk said:


> I still haven't gotten around to watching this yet. I heard on the radio this morning that NBC got such good ratings from this they are going to do it again next year with a different musical. I don't think they've decided on which one yet.


The King and I
with 
Patrick Stewart 
and 
Carrie Underwood


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

The second showing was slightly shorter than the first one after the commercials were removed. Since the original was in a 3:15 block, and the second one was in a 3:00 block, I expected something, and they DID shorten the closing credit sequence, but the show itself was a bit shorter. Did they remove a three minute scene, or maybe time compress it just a bit?


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I still have the live showing on my tivo. It was just 3 hours.


----------



## kdelande (Dec 17, 2001)

Yeah, the original broadcast seemed to hit 3:00 pretty much right on the nose.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

bayern_fan said:


> People who like stuff like this should check on "Great Performances" on PBS. They did Oklahoma last month with Hugh Jackman.


Little-known facts about that show:

1. That cast of Oklahoma was supposed to be in the Broadway version for its first three months, but somebody (Actors Equity? The American Theater Wing?) threw a fit that there was only one American-born actor in the cast (whoever played Jud was born in Atlanta), especially since Tony Awards rules say that only the cast listed as scheduled to appear on opening night is eligible for acting awards for that production. In the end, the actress who played Laurie and the actor who played Jud stayed, but the rest were replaced (the only person I remember being in the original cast was Andrea Martin as Aunt Eller (and if you said, "Wasn't she born in Canada?", I thought so too, but she's American) - remember, this is before anybody knew who Hugh Jackman was).

2. The audience consists of friends and family of the cast and crew - this wasn't a "public" performance.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

whenever I watch really bad acting, it makes me appreciate those that excel at the craft, and their process.... method acting seems so dooshy (Daniel day lewis, Christian bale, will farell to name a few that use it), but darnit if those guys aren't great. (not to say method actors are dooshes, or only method actors are great)


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

In what universe is Will Ferrell a 'method actor'??????????


----------



## TiVolunteer (Jul 10, 2001)

In what universe is Will Ferrell "great"?


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

TiVolunteer said:


> In what universe is Will Ferrell "great"?


In what universe can Will Ferrell act?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> In what universe can Will Ferrell act?


Not in this one, judging from his performance in "Bewitched." God, that was awful. The concept, the plot, the dialogue, the acting.

I may call HBO (or was it Starz?) and demand my money back.

As for "The Sound of Music," I watched the movie, in Blu ray, yesterday to test the new Sony BD player. Just absolute perfection. I'm still mad at Christopher Plummer (may he rest in peace) for denigrating it as "The Sound of Mucus."


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> Not in this one, judging from his performance in "Bewitched." God, that was awful. The concept, the plot, the dialogue, the acting.
> 
> I may call HBO (or was it Starz?) and demand my money back.
> 
> As for "The Sound of Music," I watched the movie, in Blu ray, yesterday to test the new Sony BD player. Just absolute perfection. I'm still mad at Christopher Plummer *(may he rest in peace)* for denigrating it as "The Sound of Mucus."


Christopher Plummer is still with us. He's 84 years old.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

will Ferrell is known to stay in character, which is funny on his level cuz it's a stupid character he is staying in.

hey, I guess I like will Ferrell more than you guys... he's no Oscar nominee, but he's a comedic genius. old school, anchorman, ricky bobby... not to mention SNL, sorry, I like him.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Plummer's still here? I could've sworn I saw his obituary within the past year. Well, glad to know he's still alive -- but I'm still mad at him.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

We watched last night and had our bigger speakers on. It sure seemed like there was a lot of background noise. It sounded like fans or something.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> Plummer's still here? I could've sworn I saw his obituary within the past year. Well, glad to know he's still alive -- but I'm still mad at him.


Funny, I thought he had just recently died, but Wikipedia has him among the living.

Reminds me of the old game they used to play for prized on the old WNEW-FM in NYC called dead or alive. They'd throw out a series of names, and the caller would have to say whether the people were dead or alive.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> In what universe can Will Ferrell act?


You obviously never saw Stranger than Fiction.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> You obviously never saw Stranger than Fiction.


I put Will Farrell in the same category as Adam Sandler, Robin Williams and Bill Murray. When you put them in a vehicle where they are heavily involved and that's skewed to the things that made them popular, you get what you'd expect, their schtick. But when you put them in something that's not written by them, and is a bit more serious, they are actually pretty darn good. Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting, Adam Sandler in Spanglish or Reign Over Me, Bill Murray in Lost in Translation or Hyde Park on Hudson, and yes, Will Farrell in Stranger than Fiction or Melinda and Melinda.

The problem is, they do SOO many of those types of typecast movies that it's all you remember them as doing. I'm not as much a Will Farrell fan as I am the other three, but I think he's a decent actor in something other than his typecast roles.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I put Will Farrell in the same category as Adam Sandler, Robin Williams and Bill Murray. When you put them in a vehicle where they are heavily involved and that's skewed to the things that made them popular, you get what you'd expect, their schtick. But when you put them in something that's not written by them, and is a bit more serious, they are actually pretty darn good. Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting, Adam Sandler in Spanglish or Reign Over Me, Bill Murray in Lost in Translation or Hyde Park on Hudson, and yes, Will Farrell in Stranger than Fiction or Melinda and Melinda. The problem is, they do SOO many of those types of typecast movies that it's all you remember them as doing. I'm not as much a Will Farrell fan as I am the other three, but I think he's a decent actor in something other than his typecast roles.


Agree 100%


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Funny how at least one of the movies for each 'star' is an absolute stinker (Spanglish, Hyde Park on Hudson, Melinda and Melinda)!


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Funny how at least one of the movies for each 'star' is an absolute stinker (Spanglish, Hyde Park on Hudson, Melinda and Melinda)!


Stinker as far as what? You didn't like them? Critical failure? Box Office bust?

I liked Spanglish a lot, Melinda and Melinda was decent, Hyde Park is sitting on my DVR, but haven't watch yet.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I thought Spanglish was actually one of Sandler's best films.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

gweempose said:


> I thought Spanglish was actually one of Sandler's best films.


Me too, and so was Reign Over Me. Which was my point. His best work was stuff he didn't write or was involved in the concept, but just hired as an actor.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Did she have 'backing vocals' or whatever you want to call it? That is, not actually lip syncing, but not fully "live" singing either?

I've watched around a third of it so far... I don't hate it, and I find it entertaining, but I'm mostly just using it to 'fill in' time when I've finished watching whatever main show I watched while walking on my treadmill. (i.e. to fill up the length of time I usually walk for)

Also, I've wondered how many times they do a FULL run through. I seem to remember seeing some small 'goofs', but nothing huge so far (nobody falling down, etc.)


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I put Will Farrell in the same category as Adam Sandler, Robin Williams and Bill Murray. When you put them in a vehicle where they are heavily involved and that's skewed to the things that made them popular, you get what you'd expect, their schtick. But when you put them in something that's not written by them, and is a bit more serious, they are actually pretty darn good. Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society or Good Will Hunting, Adam Sandler in Spanglish or Reign Over Me, Bill Murray in Lost in Translation or Hyde Park on Hudson, and yes, Will Farrell in Stranger than Fiction or Melinda and Melinda.
> 
> The problem is, they do SOO many of those types of typecast movies that it's all you remember them as doing. I'm not as much a Will Farrell fan as I am the other three, but I think he's a decent actor in something other than his typecast roles.


Very well said.

I really can't stand Will Farell in much of anything. Interestingly enough, Anchorman is the only role I have seen him in that I COULD stand. I think that is more of a memory because my husband liked it and we saw it together.

Elf? forget it. Maybe I need to take a moment and watch Melinda and Melinda, but I admit, just seeing his name in the line up makes me go 'no'.

And all that said, I will add that there are some of the movies that those actors have been in that were their vehicles and their 'schtick' but that I also enjoyed. Sandler and the one with the little boy, Williams and Peter Pan, Murray in Groundhog day.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

betts4 said:


> Very well said. I really can't stand Will Farell in much of anything. Interestingly enough, Anchorman is the only role I have seen him in that I COULD stand. I think that is more of a memory because my husband liked it and we saw it together. Elf? forget it. Maybe I need to take a moment and watch Melinda and Melinda, but I admit, just seeing his name in the line up makes me go 'no'. And all that said, I will add that there are some of the movies that those actors have been in that were their vehicles and their 'schtick' but that I also enjoyed. Sandler and the one with the little boy, Williams and Peter Pan, Murray in Groundhog day.


Have you seen Stranger than Fiction? I recommend it highly. Very non-Farrell Farrell.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

They showed it again last night. I didn't see it the first time it was on. I thought it was pretty good. I don't see why some people got so worked up over it.


----------



## NorthAlabama (Apr 19, 2012)

loubob57 said:


> They showed it again last night. I didn't see it the first time it was on. I thought it was pretty good. I don't see why some people got so worked up over it.


i tried to watch, but stopped shortly into the show. the original has too many memories for me, it ruins watching a different production.

the original (sing along version) is airing on abc tonight at 7/6c.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

Weird thing about last night's replay.

I'd recorded the live version, and stored an .mpg on my computer. It's been there all this time.

The closing credits, tho', my local station had messed them up by cutting in with the intro to local news, so last night I re-recorded the last ten minutes or so. (Figured maybe to splice the new ending with the original broadcast, make a new .mpg file.)

Something seemed odd about the closing, tho'.

Played the closing of last night's broadcast this afternoon, while simulatanously running the old recording of last year's broadcast.

They wouldn't stay in sync. The new recording kept getting ahead of the old one, as if it was running faster.

Is it possible they speeded up the playback ever so slightly to fit in a few more commercials this time around? Seems like a poor choice for a musical.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Just a guess - maybe in addition to last year's live showing they recorded another performance for posterity. One where they could do retakes, etc. for a better permanent show. I'm pretty sure the performance of this year's Peter Pan on DVD isn't the same one that aired live.


----------



## gastrof (Oct 31, 2003)

pdhenry said:


> Just a guess - maybe in addition to last year's live showing they recorded another performance for posterity. One where they could do retakes, etc. for a better permanent show. I'm pretty sure the performance of this year's Peter Pan on DVD isn't the same one that aired live.


Nope.

Move for move, word for word, everything was the same. It just was a hair faster.

Oh, as for Peter Pan, do you have a copy of the DVD, or are you just guessing that_ 'no one would sell a DVD of something as bad as the aired version'_?


----------

