Lollll. I havent seen this , But the description of this reminds me of the Steve Koogan film with the song . . . Rock Me Sexy Jesus. I just looked it up on Google its from Hamlet 2. Omg Its the age old question Should we do this? And not Can we do this! Tacky AF
The most annoying thing about that scene with young Miriam telling the Queen that Moses's name means "deliverance": it objectively, definitively, does NOT mean "deliverance". It means "child of the Nile" or "pulled from the water", because the Queen literally found him in the Nile.
That's true, however you could argue that water in the hebrew mind is the place of chaos and death. The Nile would represent this great majestic river which gave life to the Egyptians, and the very channel of chaos and death to the Hebrews. The Hebrews were delivered from the land of the dead, and were delivered through the waters of death to the other side. If we take that as a background Moses could be the one drawn out of chaos and earth and delivered into the promise land of God's making. Though I agree that's a huuuuuge stretch
I mean, it is a very rough translation. It does mean to pull out, so it could refer to pulling the Hebrews out of oppression, as in rescuing or delivering them, or it could refer to Moses being delivered to the Queen or out of the infanticide. That said, it's still much more idealistic than literal.
From the very surface of research I have done, it seems like Moses can mean delivered by water, so in some spiritual sense deliverance could be considered an exaggeration, but maybe not a total lie
The choice to absolve Ramses by having him be "manipulated" into his decisions just removes all the bite and the tragedy from the original film. The reason why there's such high emotional stakes in the original film is because Ramses believes the only way he can fulfill his legacy is to be absolute- even when faced with losing people he loves. By putting that absolutism on advisors and his wife, it removes all responsibility for the willful ignorance Ramses has adopted from his father, and why Ramses' punishment to live with the bitterness of losing both his son and his brother for the rest of his days due to his own absolutism no longer rings true. To shift that responsibility fundamentally weakens the ending. Ugh.
Even more odd, since the biblical story has him wanting to free the slaves but god hardening his heart to prevent him from doing so so moses could come back and try again. Kind of like it's funny that the movie ends with the first set of commandments and doesn't show moses smashing them, having a whole bunch of people killed, and then get another set. Was it he led a small army of 3k to kill anyone who didn't follow the rules they didn't know yet, or was it like 30 soldiers slaughtering 3k? I'm a little rusty on the numbers. Second time i watched the movie, i wasn't sure if it had ended before he had the golden calf melted down and fed to people as torture or if they just skipped that whole section and had him only ever recieve the first set of commandments.
I agree. I didn't mind the ensemble so much, I thought there were some good ideas there. But the whole changing of Ramses' character and putting it all on this priest as the random villain? That killed it for me.
@@ricks8618He’s trying to be edgy by bringing in criticisms of the literal biblical story into a discussion about a movie adaptation of it. Basically saying “hey, did you all know Moses wasn’t actually a very nice guy?”
@@catelynh1020 All of that was incorrect. Nowhere will you find a verse saying Pharaoh wanted to free the slaves; what you will find is him saying he would, then changing his mind when the plague was removed. The Israelites didn’t have the ten commandments, but they would have known giving a golden cow the credit for something they knew God did was wrong. Moses making them drink the water with the remains of the golden cow wasn’t torture because 1) you can eat gold and be totally fine, and 2) he was punishing them for doing something that they knew was wrong.
Can we talk about the horrendous costumes? Who told this people those costumes were ancient Egyptian and Hebrew? I absolutely despise the fact that they did not respect the time the story is set and how it’s supposed to be.
It seems like an unsuccessful attempt to combine modern elements with the animated simplified styles of the movie. A choice that seems to be inspired by the costumes of shows like Hadestown and Hamilton. But unlike those two shows, I think it does not execute the concept well.
@@oliviaspring9690 but at least Hamilton kind of respected most of the elements of the clothing in the era is set in, for example the background ensamble, especially the women, are wearing trousers and the corset only, but the corset is a very faithful style of corset that was used in the 1700s, same as the dresses of the Schuyler sisters. But in the Prince of Egypt? That’s another’s story all together, the Hebrew women always had their hair covered due to modesty beliefs. And that’s one of the many things they did not do with the costume department.
@@oliviaspring9690 Oh, I apologize if you thought I was angry at you! I’m not, believe me, I was angry at the Prince of Egypt costume department! And I also agree with your statement.
What. Did. They. Do. To. Miriam?!?! She was rough in the Bible, don’t get me wrong, but not chewing the scenery harder than a production designer in bath salts. And in the film she’s the steady, unwavering-but-kind voice of reason. She’s someone weighed down by grief but too stubborn to let it go when a chance for real freedom presents itself; Miriam of the film isn’t the twee “I’m so pure and good and innocent and that’s why I hope” girl, she’s the “I have been deeply traumatized and oppressed since conception, but hope is all I have left and I’m holding onto it by my fingernails” girl.
For me at least the great sin with the ensemble is that it actively dehumanizes the Hebrew slaves. Like, I'm not saying it couldn't have been done tastefully, but turning them into set pieces, the Nile River, and... sand? means that we the audience are constantly used to seeing them not as people, but as things--as useful objects to tell the story, instead of as a group of oppressed people. How are we supposed to feel their plight when they are, essentially, set dressing? The point of this story is that life matters, that dehumanization is actively wrong--see Seti's comment that "they were only slaves" and Moses's horrified response in the original movie. Here, they are only sand, they are only water, they are only the walls of the temple. If there was any show to have your ensemble be human, it was this one. Can't believe they failed so badly.
Actually could one not argue that by the actors for the slaves being used for the background abstract set dancing/moving piece show how chained they were to the land of Egypt being enslaved? Because once they're declared free and cross the red sea I don't think they appear as those set pieces again do they? I'm not saying you're wrong. It still dehumanises them because we don't see their suffering as much. I'm just saying that potentially they were trying another way to show it. By haaving them as part of the setting when enslaved and then not used as part of the landscape when free. But looking at it as a stage production it's obvious having them be the nile and sand and that was done to keep the audience engaged and to keep energy up as it was being performed.
@@JustAnotherPerson4Uthis is a fair point - the ensemble leaving the stage to join the audience in the house could arguably be symbolic of the transition into freedom. Something tells me that isn't what the director was going for but, hey, plausible deniability.
Is there supposed to be that much meaning behind the slaves also portraying the set pieces? I mean, they are extras. These are just the actors who play multiple little roles, from slaves to waves. I remember playing in a kids theatre, where I and a bunch of other extras played the waves, then the bandits who attacked one of the main characters, and then the furniture pieces in a palace. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just how theatre works, you can’t have a separate actor for every 5-second long role, that would require hiring too many of them. And it’s not like in cinema, where you can just gather extras for one scene, pay them and let them be on their way as soon as you’re finished, these people work in theatres officially, it’s their job. Of course the ones that don’t play significant roles will play multiple insignificant roles instead. So, it’s not meant to be dehumanising, it’s just actors doing their jobs.
Plus their oversexualization! Objectifying the enslaved as this band of shirtless hunks out of Abercrombie ad and fit women in tight tops doing the spread-eagle... I will just repeat it: Objectifying enslaved people. Yeah...
Wait no!! That beautiful moment where Tuya looks her child in the eye and asks 'Did you hate us all along?' and for just a breathe you can feel actual pain and grief and betrayal and for a split second Moses looks like the lost little boy he was when she found him. And then it gets ripped apart with no time for emotional payout by the Chorus of Body Horror has blocking to do!
That was the one change that I actually loved, since she kinda disappears in the movie. I loooved the physical movement of her standing up + away from Moses and him being "dragged" back into the plagues (metaphor for the family schism, wooo!), but I agree that the dancers jumping in were too much.
Using the chorus to symbolize the suffering people and also things such as the chariots might have worked because to limit it to items the pharohs are using plays into the dehumanization that they're going through, but that gets lost when they're also the nile and all the other nature items
It also gets lost when the chorus isn't emotionally or physically displaying any of their, like, suffering. It'd be one thing if they all look wearied and grim when acting as the chariot, but they don't, they're just sexy ensemble.
Agree with both of you! It's such a shame, as having them perform as everyday Egyptian objects could've really brought home to the audience how they're viewed by the Egyptians. This entire show is just so disappointing: so much potential ruined by some baffling decisions.
@@joshygoldiem_j2799 yes, we know the ensemble is not specifically designed as slave characters. We are saying that using the ensemble to represent enslaved characters AND inanimate objects could have been thematically very strong, by making connections to how the enslaved people are treated as property, but the direction framing them as sexy at all times is worse.
The same designer also made the costumes for the Disney Beauty and the Beast musical but these designchoices are SOOO wierd. Why is the pharohs clothe more remenicent of King Uther? And his wifes dress is something out of a cheap pagent??? And the boys? They look like gym bros with a mix of athletic clothes and formal wear, but like, branded, who’s about to come over and hit on or bully you. And DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE CROWNS. They had historical advisors on Alladin, did they not have someone for this??! I think what they should have done was hirering a designer with ties to egypt, and even if you’re not of the culture, if you’re representing historical people you do historic research!!. I’m studying to become a costume designer myself and I can’t defend ANY of the costumes in this production, and I really like the film so I was SO dissapointed.
I assume they used pants because they're easier for dancing. While I didn't hate the choreography as much as the people responsible for this video, I had enough problems with it, especially during the plagues scene, that this doesn't really reconcile me to them.
Yeah, I think she was just executing Scott Schwartz' wishes and can't blame her about the costumes. Ann Hould-Ward is a legend as a costume designer--besides Beauty and the Beast her designs include the original Sunday in the Park With George and Into the Woods.
The westernization of the costumes was low key a little offensive. It’s as if they somehow thought the audience could not relate unless they HAD to be in familiar clothing styles.
@@theadaptationstationmasterI severely doubt that pants are easier to dance in than the short skirt-like shenti loincloths that they wore both historically and in the movie.
Tell me you've never read the bible without telling me you've never read the bible. I watched the filmed stage version with my family and couldn't help but feel like the production team had no clue what the point of the story was. They saw the Dreamworks movie and thought "man, this could be a cute story about two brothers who fight each other then make up--we should really lean into this bromance and nothing else." They wanted to feel clever by making "Prince of Egypt" refer to both Moses and Ramses. At the end, I couldn't help but face palm as Moses and Ramses had a "buddy bow" for the final bows as double protagonists. The sense of wonder and awe from the roots of the story are completely lost, and I think audiences can feel that. The story of Moses is dark but it's also full of wonder and awe at God's power. I feel like that got completely lost in the production team's desire to make the characters more hip and relateable. I think they wanted to take a different angle and see more of the Egyptian side of the story, but the cheesey, early modern european costumes ruined any chance of that happening in my opinion.
@@ehuslugiLooks like he tried to “update” and “improve on” his work without realizing it was already excellent to begin with. Sadly not too uncommon with writers.
Honestly the story never really communicated awe of god for me, if anything it's a showcase of how bloody terrifying he is and how brutal he can be for no reason
I can understand what they were trying to get at with the children dying; in the movie, a few children are shown dying in a similar way - they exhale, their soul slips past their lips, they die - but notably the children you see dying onscreen are asleep so there's no awkward wide mouth inhale and then collapse. The one child you see die who is awake dies off-camera; they pass through a doorway carrying a jug to collect water, then you hear the jug shatter from being dropped and a small hand falls into view. Ultimately in live action, without CGI, there's no way to make dying by exhaling look good.
Not to mention that the dying by exhaling here suffered from the same overacting that plagued the entire show. The kid goes full bug-eyed open-mouthed, then drops with his legs all splayed out. Like... that's not just a corpse, that's a _comedic_ corpse.
So glad y'all covered this musical. There were SO MANY missed opportunities from a stylistic and director's point of view. I hope this gets a revamp because the potential this has to be a groundbreaking musical (because the music is already amazing).
If I'd been writing the script, I might have had Nefretari telling Rameses not to pursue the Hebrews by the end and him insisting on it, a complete reversal of their earlier roles, sort of like Lady Macbeth and her husband with one feeling guiltier as the story went on and the other feeling less guilty.
It’s funny, though, because in The Ten Commandments (I think it was the 50s version) it was Ramses’ wife who gave him that final push to go after the Hebrews and Moses. He was ready to let them go with no problem because the death of his son had been the straw to break the camel’s back and pulled the fight out of him. But then his wife convinced him to keep fighting because how could he also them to leave when his son was dead.
but if it aint broke, dont fix it 😅 the film was an animation/storytelling masterpiece, im sure people were looking forward to seeing that translated to the stage 😢
@@lazylei6109 I get that. The 1998 movie is pretty awesome. I meant I might have done that if I were writing the script and had to make similar changes to what Philip LaZebnik made. FWIW, because of the change of medium, the play was never going to be as grand a spectacle as the movie (sorry, all you theatre fans reading this) and the audience wouldn't be able to see the actors' facial expressions, something upon which the film relied a great deal. So I don't think it would have translated perfectly to the stage with no changes. But that doesn't mean I like what this musical did with the plot.
Ahh! Moses or Moishe means little frog or plucked from the river. Deliver my 🤬. It’s annoying enough that poor Aaron, who actually spoke to Pharaoh has his role cut to the bone, but seriously? There’s a reason that Aaron’s descendants were the priestly tribe and not Moses’, Moses refused to speak with Pharaoh due to shame over a speech impediment and Aaron had to act as intermediary.
Granted, I’ll accept Aaron losing his place as this was intended for entertainment, not religious edification. But Moishe is a named still used in Modern Israel, Hebrew is a living language, you can’t just invent meanings when there are literal existing definitions. He was pulled from the reeds, hence the Pharaoh’s sister’s choice of moniker.
What? Maybe it’s been a while since I read the Old Testament but Moses still spoke with pharaoh it’s just initially when he spoke with God he was scared and asked why choose him because he couldn’t speak properly due to his speech impediment.
Sapora is such a well defined and expressive character that I literally NEVER noticed that she doesn't even have lines in the second half, and I've seen this movie like a dozen times
I agree. Tzipporah just being present with Moses in Egypt through the second half shows us that she loves him, and just being so far away from her family and back in the land that oppressed her is enough. We already know who she is and what she can do.
I was excited when this musical was announced, but every step made me less confident. To hear you break this down confirms my deepest fears. I will say: -Miriams talk to the pharaoh's daughter is actually in the bible. (Not the naming though) infact baby Moses is actually raised by his birth mother for a short time after being found then sent back to the palace. -i think in trying to make the show "more accessible" the kinda gutted it's heart.
@@seraphimc.2231 yeah they dropped the Ball Biblically, and really for no reason. Like if you're telling this story on lean on the 3000+ years of storytelling. Tell the story of the Egyptian rebel doulas or The Angel of the Lord confronting Moses.
The reason Moses’s mother was able to act as wet nurse was because her own child was presumed to have been killed, along with all the other male babies. There would have been many nursing mothers with no babies to feed at that time. I’ve always found it an example of casual cruelty that Pharaoh’s sister think nothing of looking for a wet nurse amongst the population whose babies her brother had slaughtered.
The original script of the movie had a way nicer version of Ramses. But they changed it, because it made Moses look like a complete asshole for killing his nephew.
I remember seeing a live performance of the cast do “when you believe” and thought it was so beautiful. I’m so sad to see that this is the final product of that.
I've never seen a West End show with so many obvious mistakes and blunders... Something backstage fell over and the clang rang around the auditorium. I called the ensemble 'wrigglers'.
I have to think that the choice to change the musical theme for god’s miracles into Deliver Us has something to do with not having rights to Hans Zimmer’s score, because WHHHHHYYYYY WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT…!?! Literally, watching your clip of the parting of the red seas from the movie, on my phone with one earbud in, was able to give me a shiver thanks to that fucking score. This watered down, baby-time but also sexy-time musical… major bummer :(
Thank God I thought I was going crazy. When I saw parts of the play I was like "Wow, this is bullshit" for all the reasons you mentioned. And I was so unsure when all the commenters were screaming, crying, throwing up because they thought it was SOOOOO bEAuTiFuL.
What a coincidence. I saw the video of the opening number show up on UA-cam a few weeks ago, and having always been a huge fan of the movie, I obviously was excited to see it. You raise all of the exact points I had issues with (the over-choreographed ensemble immediately killed it for me), but the narrative choice to have Myriam, a slave child, showing up uninvited into the palace, speaking unannounced to the Queen, suggesting a name for a baby, and completely fabricating an etymology and meaning for that name that has no basis in anything... and then letting Myriam walk away? Alive? Insane storytelling. Adding insult to injury, the Egyptian Queen then sings using the slaves' melody - while the entire song is from the slaves' perspective. It feels wrong to hear that melody from the other perspective. Why is this scene here at all? Genuinely, within the first song, the entirety of the story and its themes feels like it has been undermined. Immediately I had to look up the opening from the movie, and indeed, it is a mostly silent sequence with perfectly economic storytelling.
To be fair to the play, the set is kind of ambiguous. That scene may have actually been meant to take place some distance from the palace. Or...something.
What’s the most crazy is that’s actually Biblically accurate…Miriam actually went up to the Queen and really did talk to her, specifically about letting their mother being a nanny to the baby, so that their mother could at least raise Moses somewhat…to my knowledge they were actually being more Biblically accurate than the movie was, I love the Bible as a Christian but I can admit when there’s some iffy story telling
It’s unfortunate, because the movie was so incredibly, I thought it would’ve been a perfect candidate for a musical adaptation, but sadly, that didn’t seem to be the case. So disappointing
Oh it's still a perfect candidate, that's not the issue. The issue is adapting from one medium to another has become a lost art and nobody seems to want to do it right. I noticed a while ago that a trend of trying to "make the adaptation different and new, blah blah blah" pervaded the theatre industry. But in trying too hard to do this, it ends up being a failure. The movie is the perfect example a film that really needs no adapting to the story and script itself, just the production design. The musical would have been a masterpiece of Julie Taymor's hands but ya know...nepotism.
Huh, changing the naming of Moses is certainly a choice! What happens in the Bible is that Pharoah’s daughter (changed to his wife in PoE, but it gives us the rival brother relationship with Ramses so it’s fine) finds the baby and says she’ll name him Moses because it means “drawn out” and she drew him out of the Nile. Also the family thing is there in the original story - Miriam pops out of the bushes and tells Pharoah’s daughter that she happens to know a good wet nurse, so Moses is actually raised by his own mother until he’s weaned. Adaptions always drop that, but I think there could be interesting tension in Moses’ mother living in a palace for a year or so and then having to walk away from her own child and possibly never see him again. The thing that really strikes me is that PoE is strongly based off of The Ten Commandments, which was one of those insane old Hollywood epics where they built literal palaces in the desert and hired entire villages including livestock just to be extras. Very verrrrry few movies if any are made on that scale these days, but animation allowed PoE to keep that grand scope. Bizarrely, the creative team to the stage show decided to go in the complete opposite direction and try to tell a stripped-down version of the story. Which sure, seems like they have the foundation of a really fantastic Moses ballet here, but nothing about this staging matches the epic scope of the music or the movies that came before. Here’s hoping that somewhere out there is a team with the vision (and financial backing) to really do this show right.
I don't think it's needed to show Moses's mother raising him in the palace, even to show her having to abandon her child. I mean... Because it already happens in the beginning of the movie. Why do the same thing twice?
"And lo, the Lord said unto Moses, "And I shall bring one more plague upon Pharoah and Egypt and on the entire world. And it shall be called the Prince of Egypt musical. Thus the 11th plague shall be greater and more terrible than all the other devilries unleashed upon humanity..."
Wtf are these costumes? I can’t get past them. It’s like a grade school play where they sent the kids home with a vague costume request and the parents tried while having no idea what was going on.
I can kind of understand the musical wanting to redeem Rameses at the end. They presumably thought it would be more interesting than just having him maintain the same bitter, stubborn attitude throughout the whole second act. But they'd already shown so little of him being really bitter beforehand and scapegoated the other characters for his bad choices so much that it didn't really register as an interesting contrast. And why on earth didn't they actually show Nefretari and Hotep manipulating him instead of having it all be offstage? It just makes him seem pathetic. I guess that was supposed to be the contrast. He was finally thinking for himself in the last scene. But having some of his problems be the result of his own pride and stubbornness and not just him being easily influenced really made the 1998 animated character more compelling.
“Never in a million years.” 🤣 I saw this on tour in San Jose. You know something went terribly wrong in pre-production when you end up feeling sadder for Rameses, who just wanted his brother to hang out with him again, than anybody else in the show.
Miriam in the movie could be firm but she had such a soft sweetness to her, you felt for her and it made her believing in Moses so much more Impactful. I don’t know if it’s the acting choices but the clips you showed took all the softness out of her and made her seem manipulative and egotistical of getting the others to see her side. Worst character derailment I’ve seen from film to musical. YIKES.
Miriam's actor in this production delivers her lines very strangely sometimes. I don't understand it. I think a lot of the female actresses in this production are doing that.
I feel like with Miriam, the creative team wanted to positively portray an ardent theist but were so out of sympathy with such people that they could only make her come across as a dangerous lunatic. I know that suggestion is kind of wild and provocative, but it really would explain a lot about the actress's performance, wouldn't it? LOL.
A friend of mine went and saw early production version of this show and was deeply upset at one decision they later removed. She is Jewish and in earlier version the had decided to include more of the Jewish Passover traditional phrases and story elements. Great that actual not a terrible idea to include Passover elements in a story which is important to all the Abrahamic faiths, except they fucked this up. She said if she hadn't been in middle of a row she would have walk out when a line in Hebrew was said by Ramses. We both think that at some point in production someone put this line in most likely given to one of the principle Hebrew characters but later it was changed but the original meaning of the line was forgotten and instead they just thought it be a cool nod to Passover like a reference? This wasn't some random line either it is according to her something that is recited during a Passover dinner sort of as a prayer. So to give this to the enslaver character was very offensive. I am not Jewish and so this story isn't as important and I dont know the traditions I just know my friend was deeply upset because she had loved Prince of Egypt growing up and had really REALLY wanted to see this version and love it as well. I think the closest thing I can think of is if you were doing a nativity and gave the line "He is the way the light and the truth" to king Herod.
You ask why they are dancing the plagues and making the slaves sexy. The answer is simple; they do not understand or believe the basic premise of The Exodus. The Holy One, Blesses Be He, did not rescue the Hebrews because He loved them more than the Egyptians. Midrash (oral teachings) tells us that when the sea closes over the Egyptians the angels began to celebrate and the Lord said to them, “How can you celebrate? Do you not see my children the Egyptians are dying?” The plagues were a necessary evil, one we regret to this day. At the Pesach Seder, a drop of wine is removed from our cups in remembrance of each plague, our joy is lessened by their pain. While the animated movie had its flaws, not least of all changing the role of pharaoh’s sister to his wife, however the film did convey that this was a miracle with a very high cost. Much like the ancient Pharaoh was blinded by pride, the director of the musical was unable to see that the story was enough and did not need embellishing. Jesus Christ Superstar actually worked because it was fairly stripped down and raw. Yes the costumes were a definite choice, but the director allowed the music and the story to shine. You don’t have to be Christian to recognize that under the mad 70’s clothing, that musical was faithful to the message of the source material. Prince of Egypt the Musical neither respected nor understood the source material and this was the result.
Jesus Christ Superstar might have worked as a musical, but boy if you think this misunderstood the Bible story JCS gleefully and openly contradicts it on many, many points. I like the music but let's not pretend otherwise.
Jesus Christ Superstar might have taken biblical liberties, but they respected the characters. They didn’t turn them into wh*res and go-go dancers. Despite the fantastical costumes, Jesus Christ Superstar gave gravitas to the characters. You can’t claim that of the musical for The Prince of Egypt.
To be fair in the original story, Miriam suggests her mother as Moses’ wet nurse to the queen, when she wasn’t sure how to care for her adopted child. However, it’s the queen, who chooses the name Moses because it meant “drawn up” symbolizing how the gods sent her a child. I’m not saying this to excuse the play’s writing, because it's not good.
When the Egyptians dehumanized the slaves as non-humans and the show.... ALSO dehumanizes the slaves by having act as inanimate objects. Seriously, where is the logic in that creative decision??
Guys, I’m an atheist and what they did to this story is a travesty. The Prince of Egypt is the best religious movie out there. Sharing the emotions and humanity of the message. And even if you aren’t a believer you can still be moved to tears, joy, and wonder by it. I certainly was. It deserved better.
This is really interesting - I saw a performance back in 2018, in America, Utah, Tuacahn Amphitheatre, and got a very different experience. The costumes were much better in general, where it wasn't like sexified outfits, but rather actual clothes and robes. They had plenty of set pieces so the cast members didn't have to do it all themselves. While there was a little bit of *Dance as Water/Sand* it wasn't nearely as bad and as often as your clips suggest the London performance had, so it felt more fitting, especially since those dancers were in the separate costumes than the slaves, thus creating that separation between them. And there wasn't a heavy abundance of choreography. They knew how to use it well. With there actually being other Hebrews, I didn't get that more intense/fanatic Miriam portrayal. It was more tame, which is probably a more directorial choice for many of the actors and how to portray their characters. The Utah Performance was being handled by a different director, I believe. Because the theatre was up in the canyons outside, and is literally split in three sections with rocks and alcoves all around, it definitely helped the grand sense that the animated film had and make it so locations could be easily setup while another scene was going. The stage doesn't have a back, but instead, leads out into a slight slope up the mountains. The theatre could do heavy effects, thus actually had fireworks/fireballs raining down in the background, as well as flood part of the stage for the Parting of the Sea, lighting the mountains behind and creating such a great image as the cast walked away from the audience, rather than into it. So yeah... From what you've said, it sounds like the stage itself limited what they could do (sets being non-existent and using people) as well as not splitting the cast into their own roles (Hebrews vs 'set pieces' and 'Environment'), and overall just having a different director setting the stage. It's a shame to hear about it like this, since I really enjoyed it before, and was happy to see it being brought to wider audiences.
In general, the Tuacahn theater is fantastic. I'm always impressed by their productions. I wish I had seen that version instead of the filmed version referenced in this review
I also saw the Tuacahn production and I agree the directorial choices were better, but I still didn't like the show due to the poor writing choices. Steven Schwartz deserves more of the blame in my opinion. He's called Prince of Egypt "Wicked with boys" before and that is just a HORRIBLE way to approach an Exodus adaptation
@@toosolidcuuj I've never heard that before but the comparison to Wicked really puts things into perspective. The musical twists so hard to give Moses and Rameses their "For Good" reconciliation at the end of act 2 instead of trusting that the original movie was better off for not doing that
The burning bush score is great, but it really needs the fantastic visual to really be powerful. Since it is a musical, I actually think making it a reprise of deliver us actually worked out. Tho they definitely overused the deliver us theme.
Love how you mentioned Hunchback! Was in an amateur production of it a few years ago and I loved it! It had the songs and storyline of the film, but the tone and characters of the book, it was really well done
In the scene when he knocks the soldier off the set I burst out laughing it looked ridiculous. I felt they lost a lot during the burning bush scene cos it feels more impactful hearing mose's voice. Also in the scene when the Egyptians are running to catch them. Miriam starts singing "there can be mircles" I burst out laughing saying "Not bow Miriam"
It’s interesting, because I had similar feelings of being underwhelmed after leaving the Hunchback musical (though it’s definitely a more successful adaptation than POE). Even though these animated musicals often follow the structure and musical style of Broadway shows, there’s still a huge hurdle when it comes to adapting them for the stage. The original films feel HUGE, and a lot of the songs are built to support grand montages and action sequences to ramp up the drama. Unfortunately I don’t think some of the epic highs of the movie musical work as well on a small stage with limited sets and ensembles.
Oh really??? I thought Hunchback took all the best parts of the movie and expanded on it. I was so happy they got rid of the gargoyles and replaced them with the saint statues
Man, I thought I was the only one who didn’t love the Hunchback musical. The tragedy at the end feels like it comes out of nowhere, and many characters are less likable but not more compelling. I dislike how Frollo’s motivation for bigotry is that a Romani woman indirectly killed his brother-it’s an unneeded “justification” (the whole musical has a problem with removing Frollo’s agency and accidentally justifying his “not my fault”ing) and the whole dead brother affair is really soap-opera-esque. It loses the sense of grandeur that the film has because it forgets to have any levity. When every other scene is trying to be important or serious or dramatic, the grandeur just feels like more of the same. Not that I want the gargoyles back, but would it have killed the guy who wrote the English libretto to briefly let someone experience joy? I still do like the musical, but not as much as the film it’s based on.
Aaaahh!! So excited to see more videos from you guys! This musical is one of the musicals of all time. The one word that kept popping into my head was: Bewildered. Just... at everything. Choices were definitely made for this show. Not good choices exactly, but choices. Props to the ensemble for literally carrying this show on their backs! They may not have gotten good direction, but by god, they were giving it their all! I will also say... wasn't there another Prince of Egypt musical that existed many years ago? I can't remember where I first heard about it-- it might've been sometime in the 2000s, maybe early 2010s... and I don't think it was a Dreamworks funded musical, but the big thing I remember about it was that it starred Val Kilmer - the voice of Moses from the '97 Prince of Egypt movie, as Moses... or it might've been Joseph but *not* Joseph and The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and the big talking point around this musical was that it was "like Prince of Egypt" because it starred Val Kilmer and was a musical set in biblical times. I really hope this jogs someone else's memory and they have an "OMG I remember that/know what you're talking about" moment, because while it feels like a fever dream, I swear I'm not making it up! 🤣
The musical starring Val Kilmer you're thinking of is "The Ten Commandments" which is a (very butchered) english adaptation of a french musical called "Les Dix Commandements".
They really changed Rameses from being a villan stuck in the traditions of his father and ancestors and refusing to see logic right in his face to a guy who has no agency besides listening to his wife or his priest(advisor?). I think people can sympathize with movie rameses even though he's done worse because at least he had agency but it's harder to sympathize with a someone whose a leader that can't make his mind.
I feel like everything about it (costumes, set, direction, etc.) was terrible EXCEPT for the soundtrack. Sure it wasn't as good as the original, but I actually like that we got some of the variations. The new beginning of "The Plagues" was great.
I saw the play in the West End when it first opened. It started about 20mins late IIRC and then we had to listen for what felt like an age from the director or whoever about "the journey" bringing the production from screen to stage. Someone towards the back ended up heckling "Get on with it!" which set the tone for the whole thing, as I don't think anyone was particularly impressed after the play concluded, given it was a pale imitation of the film.
The disappointment of watching this musical stuck with me for a week afterward. It's like the writer was like "Let's try to see the story from the poor, genocidal aristocrat's perspective." The film did an amazing job of helping us feel for Ramses, we WERE all rooting for him to wake up and change, but it would have been out of character and left us feeling the same way the musical felt: pointless.
Thank you...the amount of people commenting on various social media thinking it's good astounds me to no end. As a singer/actor, and as someone who adores the film beyond measurable emotion, so much that it's arguably my favorite of all time, seeing the production was...a let down to say the least. I went to see the world premiere production in California back in 2017 and it just irks me that absolutely nothing change from world premiere to the damn WEST END. And people want this on Broadway? It would get torn apart from limb to limb by critics. I'm not saying critics are the end all, be all, but there's no way this would last there due to the awful reviews it would get and the word of mouth that would follow. I do know when it opened in London, the word of mouth was atrocious and rightfully so. It just kills me that one of the most stellar films of all time that totally deserves an equally stellar and epic stage proaction, ended up being this mess.
I came across the soundtrack when trying to find a copy of the original movie soundtrack. I already didn’t care for it but wow I didn’t know about the rest. Turning the advisor character who has little screen time into the real villain was…a choice. This honestly goes to show you that you can’t go half-hearted in creative things, especially not when the stakes are supposed to be high
As soon as I saw the trailer for this show I was immediately turned off. I saw the slaves smiling and dancing happily in “Deliver Us” and I said nope. Because clearly, they don’t want to be delivered- they like slavery. I’m reminded of a Veggietales quote: “We WeRe iN sLaVeRy”
Miriam's depiction in this is horrible and borderline offensive. She is such an amazing figure in the Bible and this aristic license has made her an inappropriate punchline. In the Bible, she watched over her brother Moses to ensure his safety, when the Phaoroh's daughter (the movie has the wife finding Moses but in the actual story its his daughter) finds Moses, Miriam convinces the daughter to hire Jochebed, Moses mother, to be his wet nurse and raise him to weaning age. Without her, there wouldn't have been an Exodus, she is such an important catalyst to the story and the Bible describes her as a prophetess. The movie downplayed her role a little bit, but what this stage production did is at a whole different level of disrespect to the character
Speaking of costuming, why are Rameses and Seti dressed like a 19th century Disney princes? Of all the weird costume choices, THAT one sticks out to me as the most out of place. It’s like they were trying to be “subversive” by dressing him in a way that you wouldn’t expect, but ended up being incredibly bland and uninspired because he looks like virtually every other monarch and prince we’ve come to be familiar with.
as someone who grew up with the dreamworks movie (it was one of the "approved" rainy day recess movies at my catholic school) this is such a let down. I know fuckall about choreography or stage direction or anything so I can't speak to any of that but I do have a lot of opinions on the narrative choices the musical made (and also the costume design because yikes). I mean, I didn't do an english major back in college just to not rant obnoxiously long like the pedantic asshole I am about why I thought certain narrative choices were shit choices and leave a wall of text no one will read I hate the narrative choice to weaken Ramses in an effort to make him "redeemable." like, the whole point is to set him and Moses up as foil characters. the narrative begins with their similarities. they start out as brothers, united in belief and purpose even if Moses is the "softer" one and are shown to have a strong fraternal relationship that survives the entire time Moses spent out in the desert, Ramses welcoming him back with a hug and everything. the relationship only breaks apart when it turns out Moses is no longer pro-egypt. they are alike both in their shared history and in how they have strong convictions from which they refuse to waiver, steadfast in their beliefs and purpose, not to mention both are acting under the auspices of a power higher than themselves (their god(s) and the sheer power of tradition and cultural norms within their communities) however, beginning just in that reunion scene, the narrative then holds up these two characters and looks at their similarities, highlighting how under different circumstances either one might actually agree with the other, but then immediately juxtaposes how they hold to their convictions and how they go about achieving their purposes, throwing into sharp relief how far they've diverged from each other. each expects the other to agree with and support him, just as they did before, but as their paths and lives separated and their ideologies changed their goals and convictions became irreconcilable. the conflict between the brothers serves as a microcosm of the larger conflict between two communities both fighting for survival (albeit metaphorically on the part of the egyptians trying to preserve the status quo). however, as the conflict escalates and neither man yields, the struggle can no longer be solved by two brothers agreeing to come to the table and something has to give-and something does. it takes the death of his son to finally push Ramses past the breaking point so that he acquiesces, not because he's willing to understand Moses and recognize the Hebrew's humanity but because he and his people have suffered and lost so much under the brutality of Moses and his god. it takes the massacre of countless children (a parallel to the movie's opening scenes) to force his hand. and even then, with the corpse of his child before him, Ramses still can't let his convictions go with freedom in hand, Moses leads the people away from their enslavement in hopes of finally seeing an end to their suffering. for the first time in who knows how long the Hebrews have genuine hope because there's finally a light at the end of the tunnel and freedom is actually happening. then Ramses and his soldiers come tearing after them, almost extinguishing that hope before it can truly grow, bringing to a head why the brothers would never be able to reconcile. everything Moses did, all of his strength and determination, came from hope, whereas Ramses had nothing but anger and he cannot let that anger go anymore than he can the Hebrews. his grief-induced "moment of weakness" once again gets subsumed by rage and he resolves to stop Moses and the Hebrews, whether that means dragging them back or killing them outright. I know the whole story is about god saving Moses and the Hebrew people because, you know, scripture and all, but from a narrative perspective the deus ex machina of the sea parting could just as easily be seen as a metaphor for the strength of hope as a product of divine intervention. I think what truly supports this is, at the end, we see Moses surrounded by his people, the whole group celebrating their freedom together. meanwhile, all the egyptians but Ramses get washed away and he finds himself struggling for breath on a rock all alone. hope lead to community and a brighter future. anger left Ramses with nothing. if you change Ramses into nothing but a pawn of others so much of the story loses depth and meaning not to mention what I think is a crucial theme and, when you remove that piece, how much does the narrative have left to say? also, because I can't let it go, the costumes are fucking trash-the materials look cheap, the inconsistent anachronistic elements don't look like a creative decision so much as a result of cutting corners, the construction of the garments leaves some to be desired, even the accessories and detail work that's supposed to signify the wealth of the pharaoh and his court looks garish in a "I grabbed these beads and shit from the embellishments section at walmart" way. also, does no one working on this show own a fucking iron??? like, I get that it's a play and they're moving around but even the sleeve cuffs have wrinkles!! idk anything about shit behind the scenes but it looks like the costumers had a budget of $10 and I can tell you exactly which sections of a joann those fabrics would come from (spoilers: it's the cheap ones like glitterbug and witching hour). ok, now I'll shut up
On the topic of the naming of Moses, it's a topic of discourse among scholars but Moses is generally assumed to have been named by the Pharaoh's daughter (his adopted mother; the Queen in both adaptations). It is possible that 'Moses' was a Hebrew name and she just happened to know Hebrew, although it is speculated that that explanation was an attempt to distance Moses from Egypt. Most likely, however, 'Moses' has an Egyptian origin! (Again, highly debated, and I'm just a UA-cam comment. Take this with a heavy pinch of salt.) Either way, it's messed up that they got Miriam involved in the naming process (realistically she probably would have gotten murdered on sight /hj). (I would also recommend the Wikipedia article on Moses! It provides a few different explanations for etymology that other sites I found weren't able to do as concisely) Edit: Forgot to mention this, but (even ignoring the discourse around the origin of the name) the meaning of 'Moses' is even more controversial. There are so many better translations than 'deliverance' that it actively makes me angry that they chose that route. Why would the Queen pick that name???? It is implying that her kingdom's slaves will be delivered out of Egypt- correct me if I'm wrong (I don't think I am), but that is very much treason???
FWIW, in the show the queen interprets the name suggestion to refer to Moses being delivered to her by the Nile similar to Pharoah's daughter choosing the name because he was drawn out of the Nile.
I remember listening to the cast recording back when it came out and being whelmed. Them not being able to use Hans Zimmer’s original orchestrations hurts so much. The one song that I thought showed some potential was The Plagues, and that was only in the beginning when the chanting of the Egyptian priests gets overwhelmed by the chanting of the Israelites, that's a clever transition into the song (a decent nod towards Playing With the Big Boys without having that song *being* in the show imo.) And then the song gets ruined by the changes made to the lyrics (outside of the Egyptian Queen verse, that's fine). I would love for someone with editing skills to take that beginning transition from the musical and add it to the beginning of the movie version of the song. So yeah, in general, I agree with your opinions in this video. Great job.
I feel like even the Queen's added verse doesn't really work for me. Her previous use of that melody is so strong and so compassionate ("When the gods send you a blessing, you don't ask why it was sent"), while this one doesn't echo it in any meaningful sense other than the use of the word "home" ("this is your home" vs "I gave you a home"). "Did you hate us all along?" feels like a stupid question. Obviously not. Which isn't to say that character couldn't ask that question. But she shows such empathy and love that first time ("Here the river brought you, and it's here the river meant to be your home"), that you'd want this second, more desperate use of the melody to echo those thoughts in a very meaningful and clear way. It feels selfish now and full of reproach ("we loved you! not me, so many people! and you hate us now!") without that feeling intentional (because it doesn't go far enough with her disbelief at "what he's become"). I dunno. Just fell a bit flat.
@@beneddiected Moses' verses in the film version are so powerful and really hammer home how Moses didn't want the Plagues to come to pass and how he just wants peace with Ramses. "And even now, I wish that God had chose another. Serving as your foe on his behalf is the last thing that I wanted" Meanwhile his verse in the musical adds nothing to his character and has no emotional weight.
Oh my god this saved me so much time, I tried to watch it and couldn't make it past Deliver Us and the relentless use of the sexy dancers. Of all stage adaptations, The Prince of Egypt is the last one you should cheap out on and sanitize. Though I can see why they'd go this route, if it's anything like the La Jolla Hunchback (a budget-conscious scaled down version of the hit German run) they're probably eyeing licensing opportunities more than an actual proper Broadway blockbuster.
You put more thought and effort into this review / breakdown of the play than the writers and team of people responsible for the live adaptation. While criticizing this does feel a bit like shooting fish out of a barrel, you made it interesting and thought provoking for over 20 minutes. In fact, your review might be the best thing that came from this mess!
the decision to stage this as a dance show is so deranged and also totally absent in the original california production, which had an enormous set with running water and everything. what the hell happened between workshops
I was so honored when the movie came out I was invited by the Jewish Community to go see the Premier. I am not Jewish but had done volunteer work for their Bethsaida Excavation. I have never been more honored in my life.
I only watched the opening and the plagues. I thought it was really weird how the sister just came up to the queen to tell her what Moses's name was. And the Plagues - which is an awesome song from the movie - was accompanied by new bits of song not in the original that just felt like an interruption than anything else.
Literally one of my favorite movies of all time. Watch it all the time, listen to the music all the time…I was SO disappointed listening to the cast album
I saw this production in Denmark where it was first set up. I'll admit it's been so long that I can not remember a lot of the details. I am almost 100% certain though that the last plague was kept fully to the unravelling of scarves, without the actor in the end - it was extremly effective, as well with the sound design of the sighs of the spirit leaving everytime a bundle unfurled to reveal nothing. A small defence of the parting of the Red Sea too: the audience *actually* parted in that production. They had the seats mounted on movable/rotatable platforms, so the audience was physically pushed in their seats to each side. I was watching from the balcony, so I don't know how it was experienced from the ground floor, but again, the effect was impressive in my oppinion. This is not a defence of the entire musical though, there were strange choices of which songs they keot in (I believe The Plagues was actually not included at all), and the new songs were bland in my opinion. And the ending of making Rmses step down from the pursuit removed a lot of the emotional impact. Also, it's a fair point with the ensemble, though it didn't strike me at the time of watching.
This video articulated it pretty well. And like some of the other comments said: what is happening with the costumes!!?? A lot of bad decisions were made to what could’ve been an amazing show. 😢
thank you for sharing your honest feedback about this adaptation. I had wondered why it seemed this production came and went while the movie musical is so beloved. it’s crazy seeing how well they hit the mark with hunchback but how they totally missed it with this show. and it’s crazy to see them utilize the ensemble SO WELL in hunchback and yet seem to have no thought or intention behind anything they do with them here. it all seems to be cheap and quickly thrown together. I really hope someone else tries to adapt this show to the stage again and improve upon the mistakes you’ve mentioned.
I’m sorry but the MOST egregious thing they did was not using the Zimmer score for AT LEAST the parting of the Red Sea. It was the most breathtaking scene in the movie and I was so looking forward to what they were gonna do for the stage adaptation. So disappointing.
I rememebr watching this for my Bday with my sister and just thinking "god, this is poor". Went home, watched the movie, and noticed theyd mucked up the music themes so so much. Its just a whole shambles of a production.
I listen to this rendition of The Plagues whenever I need a laugh. In the official soundtrack, Rameses sounds like an overacting anime villain and Moses sounds like he would rather be anywhere else. The angels/voice of God sounds like a sadist, gleeful singing about the destruction of Egypt. It's a beautiful trainwreck.
Everything you've said is correct and how I thought. I saw it a filmed cinema screening and I'm so glad I didn't take a trip down to London to watch it in theatre. It just felt soulless in comparison and I was shocked to find out that the original song writers had been involved. The biggest sin was removing the Moses and Rameses harmony in the plagues. That and changing the meaning of Moses' name. You can't just ignore etymology!
The set and costumes should have been more opera in scope and the whole thing should have been more like Les mis with very little dancing and comedic relief…this is a tragic story
Dance and movement CAN be used to portray real emotions…..but you need an appropriate choreographer who is adept at choreographic emotive narrative dance, to competitive jazz/lyrical. Why are they voguing? Why are they tilting? Movement is powerful, but has to be appropriate.
I was so confused during the Plagues song and, to a lesser extent, the sandstorm scene trying to figure out what the dance movements were supposed to symbolize.
12:51 Well, I think Playing with the Big Boys holds up much better if you consider the fact it's the comic relief song of the movie. It's certainly a lot more badass than the comic relief songs in other animated movies.
So this musical about slaves decided the slaves would be too busy dancing to be slaving? So...Moses is really liberating the ensemble from a big dance party? Also, the clips from this musical give me Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat vibes. Not in a good way. Also, Nefretiri id from the 1950s epic The 10 Commandments, only there the reason she goaded Ramses to kill Moses was because she was a broken and manipulated princess who finally fell into line after Moses left and then lost her son. So again, they zapped away any interesting qualities there
I’m not kidding that I’ve watched this review 4 times now, your commentary is hilarious even if the show is infuriating in its execution. Would love to watch more musical reviews from you.
I almost feel like they got the idea of using the enemble as set pieces from deaf west end's spring awakening, but it actually worked when they did it for a few reasons. One, they weren't trying to do that in the same scenes they were also acting in, the technique was used sparingly. And two, the entire show was signed along with being spoken/sung, and the signs were incopereated into the choreography so they would match the artistry of the performance while still being readable. So using one's body to communicate thoughts and ideas was already a huge underlying theme of the show.
Thank you for this. I felt incredibly bewildered when i watched clips of this on YT, and you have encapsulated how i felt based on those minutes perfectly. It seems like there must have been some behind the scenes pre-staging stuff that led to all this. Like - did they not have the rights to Hans Zimmer's score or didn't want to pay him?? And also, it seemed like they went "hmmm, what's another beloved animated movie super successful musical adaptation that's set in a hot place? Let's take our cue from The Lion King!" in terms of making the people play all the nature elements of the story. One thing that seems like they really missed the mark was capturing the SCOPE of the movie as well as the TONE. I'd be very interested to know who it was that missed the mark on these two so badly.
I was so excited when I heard PoE was getting a Broadway adaptation, and then I see the previews and I hadn't felt pure disgust like that in a long long time. The costumes are horrendous, the singing is lifeless and rushed, the choreography is uninspired and dull. The change to the source material are baffling Just an abject failure of a show.
Thank you. For me it’s not just bad… it’s straight up an abomination. I was so pumped when I first heard, and then I SAW IT and was confused, thought maybe I came across a high school production from the thumbnail, the costumes were so BAD! But I realized, nope that’s it, okay well it has a lot of people talking positively about it, so the acting and music must make up for it… and I was furious at how much they had diluted it and removed any sense of true hardship. I don’t know how they managed to make it overly dramatic and bland at the same time, but somehow they did. I feel like Veggie Tales made a darker version than whatever the hell this was. Beautiful voices and talent wasted on a set and costume design that looks like a theater kid could throw it together over the weekend with his pocket money and a trip to Spirit Halloween and Michaels.
Awwww. I wish this had gone better for everyone, but especially the cast. I'm sure they put in a lot of hard work, but it feels like cruise ship entertainment.
"Why are they voguing to the plagues?" 😂😂😂
For me I was like "WHY ARE THEY DOING TIKTOK DANCE WHAT-"
Lollll.
I havent seen this , But the description of this reminds me of the Steve Koogan film with the song . . .
Rock Me Sexy Jesus.
I just looked it up on Google its from Hamlet 2.
Omg
Its the age old question
Should we do this?
And not
Can we do this!
Tacky AF
came here to post the same quote
Y'all got me over here crying! 😂😂😂
"Why are they voguing to the plagues"?
"TikTok dancing"?
it's not even real vogue 😭😭😭
Moral of the Story: Do not underestimate the power of an animated movie because one weak link can break the chain of amazing storytelling.
THE QUOTE.
@@gaiasolinas494HE SAID THE THING
😂
*sigh* you have my leave to go
...Father-
😐✋
*storms off*
The most annoying thing about that scene with young Miriam telling the Queen that Moses's name means "deliverance": it objectively, definitively, does NOT mean "deliverance". It means "child of the Nile" or "pulled from the water", because the Queen literally found him in the Nile.
That's true, however you could argue that water in the hebrew mind is the place of chaos and death. The Nile would represent this great majestic river which gave life to the Egyptians, and the very channel of chaos and death to the Hebrews.
The Hebrews were delivered from the land of the dead, and were delivered through the waters of death to the other side.
If we take that as a background Moses could be the one drawn out of chaos and earth and delivered into the promise land of God's making. Though I agree that's a huuuuuge stretch
I noticed that! It's bs
I mean, it is a very rough translation. It does mean to pull out, so it could refer to pulling the Hebrews out of oppression, as in rescuing or delivering them, or it could refer to Moses being delivered to the Queen or out of the infanticide. That said, it's still much more idealistic than literal.
as a native Hebrew speaker who was always taught the Hebrew meaning of Moshe as a child, this pissed me off in indescribable ways
From the very surface of research I have done, it seems like Moses can mean delivered by water, so in some spiritual sense deliverance could be considered an exaggeration, but maybe not a total lie
The choice to absolve Ramses by having him be "manipulated" into his decisions just removes all the bite and the tragedy from the original film. The reason why there's such high emotional stakes in the original film is because Ramses believes the only way he can fulfill his legacy is to be absolute- even when faced with losing people he loves. By putting that absolutism on advisors and his wife, it removes all responsibility for the willful ignorance Ramses has adopted from his father, and why Ramses' punishment to live with the bitterness of losing both his son and his brother for the rest of his days due to his own absolutism no longer rings true. To shift that responsibility fundamentally weakens the ending. Ugh.
Even more odd, since the biblical story has him wanting to free the slaves but god hardening his heart to prevent him from doing so so moses could come back and try again.
Kind of like it's funny that the movie ends with the first set of commandments and doesn't show moses smashing them, having a whole bunch of people killed, and then get another set. Was it he led a small army of 3k to kill anyone who didn't follow the rules they didn't know yet, or was it like 30 soldiers slaughtering 3k? I'm a little rusty on the numbers.
Second time i watched the movie, i wasn't sure if it had ended before he had the golden calf melted down and fed to people as torture or if they just skipped that whole section and had him only ever recieve the first set of commandments.
@@catelynh1020did u watch the movie or are you commenting on the biblical story in general?
I agree. I didn't mind the ensemble so much, I thought there were some good ideas there. But the whole changing of Ramses' character and putting it all on this priest as the random villain? That killed it for me.
@@ricks8618He’s trying to be edgy by bringing in criticisms of the literal biblical story into a discussion about a movie adaptation of it. Basically saying “hey, did you all know Moses wasn’t actually a very nice guy?”
@@catelynh1020
All of that was incorrect.
Nowhere will you find a verse saying Pharaoh wanted to free the slaves; what you will find is him saying he would, then changing his mind when the plague was removed.
The Israelites didn’t have the ten commandments, but they would have known giving a golden cow the credit for something they knew God did was wrong. Moses making them drink the water with the remains of the golden cow wasn’t torture because 1) you can eat gold and be totally fine, and 2) he was punishing them for doing something that they knew was wrong.
Can we talk about the horrendous costumes? Who told this people those costumes were ancient Egyptian and Hebrew? I absolutely despise the fact that they did not respect the time the story is set and how it’s supposed to be.
It seems like an unsuccessful attempt to combine modern elements with the animated simplified styles of the movie. A choice that seems to be inspired by the costumes of shows like Hadestown and Hamilton. But unlike those two shows, I think it does not execute the concept well.
@@oliviaspring9690 but at least Hamilton kind of respected most of the elements of the clothing in the era is set in, for example the background ensamble, especially the women, are wearing trousers and the corset only, but the corset is a very faithful style of corset that was used in the 1700s, same as the dresses of the Schuyler sisters. But in the Prince of Egypt? That’s another’s story all together, the Hebrew women always had their hair covered due to modesty beliefs. And that’s one of the many things they did not do with the costume department.
@@Sissie131 just for clarification, I can’t tell if you are agree with me or not? Don’t want to start a fight
Right?? Why are the Pharaohs wearing 19th century European style coats with Epaulettes??
@@oliviaspring9690 Oh, I apologize if you thought I was angry at you! I’m not, believe me, I was angry at the Prince of Egypt costume department! And I also agree with your statement.
What. Did. They. Do. To. Miriam?!?!
She was rough in the Bible, don’t get me wrong, but not chewing the scenery harder than a production designer in bath salts. And in the film she’s the steady, unwavering-but-kind voice of reason. She’s someone weighed down by grief but too stubborn to let it go when a chance for real freedom presents itself; Miriam of the film isn’t the twee “I’m so pure and good and innocent and that’s why I hope” girl, she’s the “I have been deeply traumatized and oppressed since conception, but hope is all I have left and I’m holding onto it by my fingernails” girl.
Forget that, Why did they make rameses into carlton from fresh prince
For me at least the great sin with the ensemble is that it actively dehumanizes the Hebrew slaves. Like, I'm not saying it couldn't have been done tastefully, but turning them into set pieces, the Nile River, and... sand? means that we the audience are constantly used to seeing them not as people, but as things--as useful objects to tell the story, instead of as a group of oppressed people. How are we supposed to feel their plight when they are, essentially, set dressing? The point of this story is that life matters, that dehumanization is actively wrong--see Seti's comment that "they were only slaves" and Moses's horrified response in the original movie. Here, they are only sand, they are only water, they are only the walls of the temple. If there was any show to have your ensemble be human, it was this one. Can't believe they failed so badly.
Actually could one not argue that by the actors for the slaves being used for the background abstract set dancing/moving piece show how chained they were to the land of Egypt being enslaved? Because once they're declared free and cross the red sea I don't think they appear as those set pieces again do they?
I'm not saying you're wrong. It still dehumanises them because we don't see their suffering as much. I'm just saying that potentially they were trying another way to show it. By haaving them as part of the setting when enslaved and then not used as part of the landscape when free.
But looking at it as a stage production it's obvious having them be the nile and sand and that was done to keep the audience engaged and to keep energy up as it was being performed.
So eloquently said 👏
@@JustAnotherPerson4Uthis is a fair point - the ensemble leaving the stage to join the audience in the house could arguably be symbolic of the transition into freedom.
Something tells me that isn't what the director was going for but, hey, plausible deniability.
Is there supposed to be that much meaning behind the slaves also portraying the set pieces? I mean, they are extras. These are just the actors who play multiple little roles, from slaves to waves. I remember playing in a kids theatre, where I and a bunch of other extras played the waves, then the bandits who attacked one of the main characters, and then the furniture pieces in a palace. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just how theatre works, you can’t have a separate actor for every 5-second long role, that would require hiring too many of them. And it’s not like in cinema, where you can just gather extras for one scene, pay them and let them be on their way as soon as you’re finished, these people work in theatres officially, it’s their job. Of course the ones that don’t play significant roles will play multiple insignificant roles instead. So, it’s not meant to be dehumanising, it’s just actors doing their jobs.
Plus their oversexualization!
Objectifying the enslaved as this band of shirtless hunks out of Abercrombie ad and fit women in tight tops doing the spread-eagle...
I will just repeat it:
Objectifying enslaved people.
Yeah...
"Why are they vogueing to the Plagues?" is my favorite sentence ever right now 🤣
@finleyforevermore
Great profile pic!
@@Joce-bl7qi Thank you so much!! 💚💚💚
Wait no!! That beautiful moment where Tuya looks her child in the eye and asks 'Did you hate us all along?' and for just a breathe you can feel actual pain and grief and betrayal and for a split second Moses looks like the lost little boy he was when she found him. And then it gets ripped apart with no time for emotional payout by the Chorus of Body Horror has blocking to do!
That was the one change that I actually loved, since she kinda disappears in the movie. I loooved the physical movement of her standing up + away from Moses and him being "dragged" back into the plagues (metaphor for the family schism, wooo!), but I agree that the dancers jumping in were too much.
@@longdogdot OH I think the dragged away was great. But we needed a beat or two more for it to play out.
Using the chorus to symbolize the suffering people and also things such as the chariots might have worked because to limit it to items the pharohs are using plays into the dehumanization that they're going through, but that gets lost when they're also the nile and all the other nature items
It also gets lost when the chorus isn't emotionally or physically displaying any of their, like, suffering. It'd be one thing if they all look wearied and grim when acting as the chariot, but they don't, they're just sexy ensemble.
Agree with both of you! It's such a shame, as having them perform as everyday Egyptian objects could've really brought home to the audience how they're viewed by the Egyptians. This entire show is just so disappointing: so much potential ruined by some baffling decisions.
Those cast members are not specifically assigned slave characters. They're called an ensemble. It's just how theatre works.
@@laurelcrown9293oh and also they're not portraying slaves at all in the chariot scene.
@@joshygoldiem_j2799 yes, we know the ensemble is not specifically designed as slave characters. We are saying that using the ensemble to represent enslaved characters AND inanimate objects could have been thematically very strong, by making connections to how the enslaved people are treated as property, but the direction framing them as sexy at all times is worse.
The same designer also made the costumes for the Disney Beauty and the Beast musical but these designchoices are SOOO wierd. Why is the pharohs clothe more remenicent of King Uther? And his wifes dress is something out of a cheap pagent??? And the boys? They look like gym bros with a mix of athletic clothes and formal wear, but like, branded, who’s about to come over and hit on or bully you. And DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE CROWNS. They had historical advisors on Alladin, did they not have someone for this??! I think what they should have done was hirering a designer with ties to egypt, and even if you’re not of the culture, if you’re representing historical people you do historic research!!. I’m studying to become a costume designer myself and I can’t defend ANY of the costumes in this production, and I really like the film so I was SO dissapointed.
I assume they used pants because they're easier for dancing. While I didn't hate the choreography as much as the people responsible for this video, I had enough problems with it, especially during the plagues scene, that this doesn't really reconcile me to them.
Yeah, I think she was just executing Scott Schwartz' wishes and can't blame her about the costumes. Ann Hould-Ward is a legend as a costume designer--besides Beauty and the Beast her designs include the original Sunday in the Park With George and Into the Woods.
The westernization of the costumes was low key a little offensive. It’s as if they somehow thought the audience could not relate unless they HAD to be in familiar clothing styles.
@@theadaptationstationmasterI severely doubt that pants are easier to dance in than the short skirt-like shenti loincloths that they wore both historically and in the movie.
@@Zarastro54 Well, I bow to your experience. I don't know much about dancing.
"Why are they voguing to the plagues?” may be the funniest one-off line of the year and it's only January.
Tell me you've never read the bible without telling me you've never read the bible. I watched the filmed stage version with my family and couldn't help but feel like the production team had no clue what the point of the story was. They saw the Dreamworks movie and thought "man, this could be a cute story about two brothers who fight each other then make up--we should really lean into this bromance and nothing else." They wanted to feel clever by making "Prince of Egypt" refer to both Moses and Ramses. At the end, I couldn't help but face palm as Moses and Ramses had a "buddy bow" for the final bows as double protagonists. The sense of wonder and awe from the roots of the story are completely lost, and I think audiences can feel that. The story of Moses is dark but it's also full of wonder and awe at God's power. I feel like that got completely lost in the production team's desire to make the characters more hip and relateable. I think they wanted to take a different angle and see more of the Egyptian side of the story, but the cheesey, early modern european costumes ruined any chance of that happening in my opinion.
What's even worse is that this was written by the same guy who wrote the original movie. Not by some random dude
In that case it doesn't even glorify GOD 😐 what's even the point then?
@@ehuslugiLooks like he tried to “update” and “improve on” his work without realizing it was already excellent to begin with. Sadly not too uncommon with writers.
Honestly the story never really communicated awe of god for me, if anything it's a showcase of how bloody terrifying he is and how brutal he can be for no reason
Tbh I loved how the musical chose to be more historical
I can understand what they were trying to get at with the children dying; in the movie, a few children are shown dying in a similar way - they exhale, their soul slips past their lips, they die - but notably the children you see dying onscreen are asleep so there's no awkward wide mouth inhale and then collapse. The one child you see die who is awake dies off-camera; they pass through a doorway carrying a jug to collect water, then you hear the jug shatter from being dropped and a small hand falls into view. Ultimately in live action, without CGI, there's no way to make dying by exhaling look good.
with the budget the director had, they really could've
Not to mention that the dying by exhaling here suffered from the same overacting that plagued the entire show. The kid goes full bug-eyed open-mouthed, then drops with his legs all splayed out. Like... that's not just a corpse, that's a _comedic_ corpse.
So glad y'all covered this musical. There were SO MANY missed opportunities from a stylistic and director's point of view. I hope this gets a revamp because the potential this has to be a groundbreaking musical (because the music is already amazing).
It has to be a vastly different company than this one to do it.
@@Needler13 I couldn't agree more
If I'd been writing the script, I might have had Nefretari telling Rameses not to pursue the Hebrews by the end and him insisting on it, a complete reversal of their earlier roles, sort of like Lady Macbeth and her husband with one feeling guiltier as the story went on and the other feeling less guilty.
A great idea actually
It’s funny, though, because in The Ten Commandments (I think it was the 50s version) it was Ramses’ wife who gave him that final push to go after the Hebrews and Moses. He was ready to let them go with no problem because the death of his son had been the straw to break the camel’s back and pulled the fight out of him. But then his wife convinced him to keep fighting because how could he also them to leave when his son was dead.
@@joyholmes254 All the more reason to do it differently in a new telling of the story.
but if it aint broke, dont fix it 😅 the film was an animation/storytelling masterpiece, im sure people were looking forward to seeing that translated to the stage 😢
@@lazylei6109 I get that. The 1998 movie is pretty awesome. I meant I might have done that if I were writing the script and had to make similar changes to what Philip LaZebnik made. FWIW, because of the change of medium, the play was never going to be as grand a spectacle as the movie (sorry, all you theatre fans reading this) and the audience wouldn't be able to see the actors' facial expressions, something upon which the film relied a great deal. So I don't think it would have translated perfectly to the stage with no changes. But that doesn't mean I like what this musical did with the plot.
Ahh! Moses or Moishe means little frog or plucked from the river. Deliver my 🤬. It’s annoying enough that poor Aaron, who actually spoke to Pharaoh has his role cut to the bone, but seriously? There’s a reason that Aaron’s descendants were the priestly tribe and not Moses’, Moses refused to speak with Pharaoh due to shame over a speech impediment and Aaron had to act as intermediary.
Well it was also like that in the original movie soo... Yeah
Granted, I’ll accept Aaron losing his place as this was intended for entertainment, not religious edification. But Moishe is a named still used in Modern Israel, Hebrew is a living language, you can’t just invent meanings when there are literal existing definitions. He was pulled from the reeds, hence the Pharaoh’s sister’s choice of moniker.
What? Maybe it’s been a while since I read the Old Testament but Moses still spoke with pharaoh it’s just initially when he spoke with God he was scared and asked why choose him because he couldn’t speak properly due to his speech impediment.
Sapora is such a well defined and expressive character that I literally NEVER noticed that she doesn't even have lines in the second half, and I've seen this movie like a dozen times
I agree. Tzipporah just being present with Moses in Egypt through the second half shows us that she loves him, and just being so far away from her family and back in the land that oppressed her is enough. We already know who she is and what she can do.
Well she does have some lines and a whole song, but that's not much
I was excited when this musical was announced, but every step made me less confident. To hear you break this down confirms my deepest fears.
I will say:
-Miriams talk to the pharaoh's daughter is actually in the bible. (Not the naming though) infact baby Moses is actually raised by his birth mother for a short time after being found then sent back to the palace.
-i think in trying to make the show "more accessible" the kinda gutted it's heart.
The movie is a timeless masterpiece what were they afraid of? Non-believers and believers alike praised this movie
Also, did no one simply google what Moses probably meant?? NOT "Deliverer" lol
@@seraphimc.2231 yeah they dropped the Ball Biblically, and really for no reason. Like if you're telling this story on lean on the 3000+ years of storytelling. Tell the story of the Egyptian rebel doulas or The Angel of the Lord confronting Moses.
The reason Moses’s mother was able to act as wet nurse was because her own child was presumed to have been killed, along with all the other male babies. There would have been many nursing mothers with no babies to feed at that time. I’ve always found it an example of casual cruelty that Pharaoh’s sister think nothing of looking for a wet nurse amongst the population whose babies her brother had slaughtered.
@@Catmom-gl5ntYeesh, I never thought of it like that. That’s so dark
Wow that rewritten ending completely misses the point!
AND it was written by the same writer who wrote the original movie. That's baffling
@@ehuslugiToo much time passed. Maybe he forgot his own message.
The original script of the movie had a way nicer version of Ramses. But they changed it, because it made Moses look like a complete asshole for killing his nephew.
They gasslit Moses. Tell me I'm wrong.
I remember seeing a live performance of the cast do “when you believe” and thought it was so beautiful. I’m so sad to see that this is the final product of that.
I've never seen a West End show with so many obvious mistakes and blunders... Something backstage fell over and the clang rang around the auditorium. I called the ensemble 'wrigglers'.
I have to think that the choice to change the musical theme for god’s miracles into Deliver Us has something to do with not having rights to Hans Zimmer’s score, because WHHHHHYYYYY WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT…!?! Literally, watching your clip of the parting of the red seas from the movie, on my phone with one earbud in, was able to give me a shiver thanks to that fucking score. This watered down, baby-time but also sexy-time musical… major bummer :(
Seti should've been a bass. Like a deep thunderous voice.
He really should have.
This show makes me feel like I’ve entered the mind of someone who hates musical theatre and they’re imagining what it is.
Thank God I thought I was going crazy.
When I saw parts of the play I was like "Wow, this is bullshit" for all the reasons you mentioned.
And I was so unsure when all the commenters were screaming, crying, throwing up because they thought it was SOOOOO bEAuTiFuL.
What a coincidence. I saw the video of the opening number show up on UA-cam a few weeks ago, and having always been a huge fan of the movie, I obviously was excited to see it. You raise all of the exact points I had issues with (the over-choreographed ensemble immediately killed it for me), but the narrative choice to have Myriam, a slave child, showing up uninvited into the palace, speaking unannounced to the Queen, suggesting a name for a baby, and completely fabricating an etymology and meaning for that name that has no basis in anything... and then letting Myriam walk away? Alive? Insane storytelling.
Adding insult to injury, the Egyptian Queen then sings using the slaves' melody - while the entire song is from the slaves' perspective. It feels wrong to hear that melody from the other perspective. Why is this scene here at all? Genuinely, within the first song, the entirety of the story and its themes feels like it has been undermined.
Immediately I had to look up the opening from the movie, and indeed, it is a mostly silent sequence with perfectly economic storytelling.
To be fair to the play, the set is kind of ambiguous. That scene may have actually been meant to take place some distance from the palace. Or...something.
What’s the most crazy is that’s actually Biblically accurate…Miriam actually went up to the Queen and really did talk to her, specifically about letting their mother being a nanny to the baby, so that their mother could at least raise Moses somewhat…to my knowledge they were actually being more Biblically accurate than the movie was, I love the Bible as a Christian but I can admit when there’s some iffy story telling
It’s unfortunate, because the movie was so incredibly, I thought it would’ve been a perfect candidate for a musical adaptation, but sadly, that didn’t seem to be the case. So disappointing
Oh it's still a perfect candidate, that's not the issue. The issue is adapting from one medium to another has become a lost art and nobody seems to want to do it right. I noticed a while ago that a trend of trying to "make the adaptation different and new, blah blah blah" pervaded the theatre industry. But in trying too hard to do this, it ends up being a failure. The movie is the perfect example a film that really needs no adapting to the story and script itself, just the production design. The musical would have been a masterpiece of Julie Taymor's hands but ya know...nepotism.
Huh, changing the naming of Moses is certainly a choice! What happens in the Bible is that Pharoah’s daughter (changed to his wife in PoE, but it gives us the rival brother relationship with Ramses so it’s fine) finds the baby and says she’ll name him Moses because it means “drawn out” and she drew him out of the Nile. Also the family thing is there in the original story - Miriam pops out of the bushes and tells Pharoah’s daughter that she happens to know a good wet nurse, so Moses is actually raised by his own mother until he’s weaned. Adaptions always drop that, but I think there could be interesting tension in Moses’ mother living in a palace for a year or so and then having to walk away from her own child and possibly never see him again.
The thing that really strikes me is that PoE is strongly based off of The Ten Commandments, which was one of those insane old Hollywood epics where they built literal palaces in the desert and hired entire villages including livestock just to be extras. Very verrrrry few movies if any are made on that scale these days, but animation allowed PoE to keep that grand scope. Bizarrely, the creative team to the stage show decided to go in the complete opposite direction and try to tell a stripped-down version of the story. Which sure, seems like they have the foundation of a really fantastic Moses ballet here, but nothing about this staging matches the epic scope of the music or the movies that came before.
Here’s hoping that somewhere out there is a team with the vision (and financial backing) to really do this show right.
I don't think it's needed to show Moses's mother raising him in the palace, even to show her having to abandon her child. I mean... Because it already happens in the beginning of the movie. Why do the same thing twice?
I would love to see that song instead of all the backstory about Ramses wife.
I need the choreographer to know that SPLITS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GO THAT FAR YOU WILL DAMAGE YOUR DANCERS’ BODIES IN THE LONG RUN
Tell that to Novak Djokovic
"And lo, the Lord said unto Moses, "And I shall bring one more plague upon Pharoah and Egypt and on the entire world. And it shall be called the Prince of Egypt musical. Thus the 11th plague shall be greater and more terrible than all the other devilries unleashed upon humanity..."
Wtf are these costumes? I can’t get past them.
It’s like a grade school play where they sent the kids home with a vague costume request and the parents tried while having no idea what was going on.
I can kind of understand the musical wanting to redeem Rameses at the end. They presumably thought it would be more interesting than just having him maintain the same bitter, stubborn attitude throughout the whole second act. But they'd already shown so little of him being really bitter beforehand and scapegoated the other characters for his bad choices so much that it didn't really register as an interesting contrast. And why on earth didn't they actually show Nefretari and Hotep manipulating him instead of having it all be offstage? It just makes him seem pathetic. I guess that was supposed to be the contrast. He was finally thinking for himself in the last scene. But having some of his problems be the result of his own pride and stubbornness and not just him being easily influenced really made the 1998 animated character more compelling.
“Never in a million years.” 🤣
I saw this on tour in San Jose. You know something went terribly wrong in pre-production when you end up feeling sadder for Rameses, who just wanted his brother to hang out with him again, than anybody else in the show.
They gasslit Moses.
Miriam in the movie could be firm but she had such a soft sweetness to her, you felt for her and it made her believing in Moses so much more
Impactful. I don’t know if it’s the acting choices but the clips you showed took all the softness out of her and made her seem manipulative and egotistical of getting the others to see her side. Worst character derailment I’ve seen from film to musical. YIKES.
Miriam's actor in this production delivers her lines very strangely sometimes. I don't understand it. I think a lot of the female actresses in this production are doing that.
@@meggypeggy9142 Except Christina Allado she can never do no wrong. Also Mercedez, who playeed the mom
I feel like with Miriam, the creative team wanted to positively portray an ardent theist but were so out of sympathy with such people that they could only make her come across as a dangerous lunatic. I know that suggestion is kind of wild and provocative, but it really would explain a lot about the actress's performance, wouldn't it? LOL.
A friend of mine went and saw early production version of this show and was deeply upset at one decision they later removed. She is Jewish and in earlier version the had decided to include more of the Jewish Passover traditional phrases and story elements. Great that actual not a terrible idea to include Passover elements in a story which is important to all the Abrahamic faiths, except they fucked this up. She said if she hadn't been in middle of a row she would have walk out when a line in Hebrew was said by Ramses. We both think that at some point in production someone put this line in most likely given to one of the principle Hebrew characters but later it was changed but the original meaning of the line was forgotten and instead they just thought it be a cool nod to Passover like a reference? This wasn't some random line either it is according to her something that is recited during a Passover dinner sort of as a prayer. So to give this to the enslaver character was very offensive. I am not Jewish and so this story isn't as important and I dont know the traditions I just know my friend was deeply upset because she had loved Prince of Egypt growing up and had really REALLY wanted to see this version and love it as well.
I think the closest thing I can think of is if you were doing a nativity and gave the line "He is the way the light and the truth" to king Herod.
You ask why they are dancing the plagues and making the slaves sexy. The answer is simple; they do not understand or believe the basic premise of The Exodus. The Holy One, Blesses Be He, did not rescue the Hebrews because He loved them more than the Egyptians. Midrash (oral teachings) tells us that when the sea closes over the Egyptians the angels began to celebrate and the Lord said to them, “How can you celebrate? Do you not see my children the Egyptians are dying?” The plagues were a necessary evil, one we regret to this day. At the Pesach Seder, a drop of wine is removed from our cups in remembrance of each plague, our joy is lessened by their pain. While the animated movie had its flaws, not least of all changing the role of pharaoh’s sister to his wife, however the film did convey that this was a miracle with a very high cost. Much like the ancient Pharaoh was blinded by pride, the director of the musical was unable to see that the story was enough and did not need embellishing. Jesus Christ Superstar actually worked because it was fairly stripped down and raw. Yes the costumes were a definite choice, but the director allowed the music and the story to shine. You don’t have to be Christian to recognize that under the mad 70’s clothing, that musical was faithful to the message of the source material. Prince of Egypt the Musical neither respected nor understood the source material and this was the result.
This is what happens when you treat the Bible as mythology instead of fact. They gave it the Thousand and One Nights to Aladdin treatment.
Jesus Christ Superstar might have worked as a musical, but boy if you think this misunderstood the Bible story JCS gleefully and openly contradicts it on many, many points. I like the music but let's not pretend otherwise.
This is excellently put. Well said
Jesus Christ Superstar might have taken biblical liberties, but they respected the characters. They didn’t turn them into wh*res and go-go dancers. Despite the fantastical costumes, Jesus Christ Superstar gave gravitas to the characters. You can’t claim that of the musical for The Prince of Egypt.
@@Catmom-gl5nt I agree they respected the new characters they created for the musical, but they were not the biblical originals.
To be fair in the original story, Miriam suggests her mother as Moses’ wet nurse to the queen, when she wasn’t sure how to care for her adopted child. However, it’s the queen, who chooses the name Moses because it meant “drawn up” symbolizing how the gods sent her a child. I’m not saying this to excuse the play’s writing, because it's not good.
When the Egyptians dehumanized the slaves as non-humans and the show.... ALSO dehumanizes the slaves by having act as inanimate objects. Seriously, where is the logic in that creative decision??
Guys, I’m an atheist and what they did to this story is a travesty. The Prince of Egypt is the best religious movie out there. Sharing the emotions and humanity of the message. And even if you aren’t a believer you can still be moved to tears, joy, and wonder by it. I certainly was. It deserved better.
This is really interesting - I saw a performance back in 2018, in America, Utah, Tuacahn Amphitheatre, and got a very different experience.
The costumes were much better in general, where it wasn't like sexified outfits, but rather actual clothes and robes.
They had plenty of set pieces so the cast members didn't have to do it all themselves.
While there was a little bit of *Dance as Water/Sand* it wasn't nearely as bad and as often as your clips suggest the London performance had, so it felt more fitting, especially since those dancers were in the separate costumes than the slaves, thus creating that separation between them. And there wasn't a heavy abundance of choreography. They knew how to use it well.
With there actually being other Hebrews, I didn't get that more intense/fanatic Miriam portrayal. It was more tame, which is probably a more directorial choice for many of the actors and how to portray their characters. The Utah Performance was being handled by a different director, I believe.
Because the theatre was up in the canyons outside, and is literally split in three sections with rocks and alcoves all around, it definitely helped the grand sense that the animated film had and make it so locations could be easily setup while another scene was going. The stage doesn't have a back, but instead, leads out into a slight slope up the mountains.
The theatre could do heavy effects, thus actually had fireworks/fireballs raining down in the background, as well as flood part of the stage for the Parting of the Sea, lighting the mountains behind and creating such a great image as the cast walked away from the audience, rather than into it.
So yeah... From what you've said, it sounds like the stage itself limited what they could do (sets being non-existent and using people) as well as not splitting the cast into their own roles (Hebrews vs 'set pieces' and 'Environment'), and overall just having a different director setting the stage.
It's a shame to hear about it like this, since I really enjoyed it before, and was happy to see it being brought to wider audiences.
In general, the Tuacahn theater is fantastic. I'm always impressed by their productions. I wish I had seen that version instead of the filmed version referenced in this review
I also saw the Tuacahn production and I agree the directorial choices were better, but I still didn't like the show due to the poor writing choices. Steven Schwartz deserves more of the blame in my opinion. He's called Prince of Egypt "Wicked with boys" before and that is just a HORRIBLE way to approach an Exodus adaptation
Tuacahn is a different animal than pretty much any other theater. That scale isn't really viable most other places.
That sounds incredible, I’ll have to look that theater up.
@@toosolidcuuj I've never heard that before but the comparison to Wicked really puts things into perspective. The musical twists so hard to give Moses and Rameses their "For Good" reconciliation at the end of act 2 instead of trusting that the original movie was better off for not doing that
To say nothing of the unforgivable sin that is what they did to the song, “The Plagues.”
I couldn't forgive them for removing the original burning bush score. It's my favorite piece of music of all time
The burning bush score is great, but it really needs the fantastic visual to really be powerful. Since it is a musical, I actually think making it a reprise of deliver us actually worked out. Tho they definitely overused the deliver us theme.
I saw the title of this video and said out loud "oh boy, I gotta see this."
Love how you mentioned Hunchback! Was in an amateur production of it a few years ago and I loved it! It had the songs and storyline of the film, but the tone and characters of the book, it was really well done
In the scene when he knocks the soldier off the set I burst out laughing it looked ridiculous. I felt they lost a lot during the burning bush scene cos it feels more impactful hearing mose's voice.
Also in the scene when the Egyptians are running to catch them. Miriam starts singing "there can be mircles" I burst out laughing saying "Not bow Miriam"
It’s interesting, because I had similar feelings of being underwhelmed after leaving the Hunchback musical (though it’s definitely a more successful adaptation than POE). Even though these animated musicals often follow the structure and musical style of Broadway shows, there’s still a huge hurdle when it comes to adapting them for the stage. The original films feel HUGE, and a lot of the songs are built to support grand montages and action sequences to ramp up the drama. Unfortunately I don’t think some of the epic highs of the movie musical work as well on a small stage with limited sets and ensembles.
Sometimes it can work well as The Lion King musical and Beauty and the Beast presented.
Oh really??? I thought Hunchback took all the best parts of the movie and expanded on it. I was so happy they got rid of the gargoyles and replaced them with the saint statues
@@elizabethlevesque6978 Seconding this!! I loved the Hunchback musical, and especially how they expanded on Phoebus' character
Man, I thought I was the only one who didn’t love the Hunchback musical. The tragedy at the end feels like it comes out of nowhere, and many characters are less likable but not more compelling. I dislike how Frollo’s motivation for bigotry is that a Romani woman indirectly killed his brother-it’s an unneeded “justification” (the whole musical has a problem with removing Frollo’s agency and accidentally justifying his “not my fault”ing) and the whole dead brother affair is really soap-opera-esque.
It loses the sense of grandeur that the film has because it forgets to have any levity. When every other scene is trying to be important or serious or dramatic, the grandeur just feels like more of the same. Not that I want the gargoyles back, but would it have killed the guy who wrote the English libretto to briefly let someone experience joy?
I still do like the musical, but not as much as the film it’s based on.
@@花乃きのこ more of that is book accurate tho??? That's how the novel ends. It follows the plot of the book more accurately
I lost it at the anthropomorphic sand. What is this show even
16:55 "this show fell and hit every single branch of a burning bush on its way" is the best and most clever and fitting way to describe this.
Aaaahh!! So excited to see more videos from you guys!
This musical is one of the musicals of all time. The one word that kept popping into my head was: Bewildered. Just... at everything. Choices were definitely made for this show. Not good choices exactly, but choices. Props to the ensemble for literally carrying this show on their backs! They may not have gotten good direction, but by god, they were giving it their all!
I will also say... wasn't there another Prince of Egypt musical that existed many years ago? I can't remember where I first heard about it-- it might've been sometime in the 2000s, maybe early 2010s... and I don't think it was a Dreamworks funded musical, but the big thing I remember about it was that it starred Val Kilmer - the voice of Moses from the '97 Prince of Egypt movie, as Moses... or it might've been Joseph but *not* Joseph and The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, and the big talking point around this musical was that it was "like Prince of Egypt" because it starred Val Kilmer and was a musical set in biblical times. I really hope this jogs someone else's memory and they have an "OMG I remember that/know what you're talking about" moment, because while it feels like a fever dream, I swear I'm not making it up! 🤣
The musical starring Val Kilmer you're thinking of is "The Ten Commandments" which is a (very butchered) english adaptation of a french musical called "Les Dix Commandements".
@@minako10 Ohmigod thank you!! I knew that musical existed, but when I only heard someone mention it once, I began questioning my memory! 😆
They really changed Rameses from being a villan stuck in the traditions of his father and ancestors and refusing to see logic right in his face to a guy who has no agency besides listening to his wife or his priest(advisor?). I think people can sympathize with movie rameses even though he's done worse because at least he had agency but it's harder to sympathize with a someone whose a leader that can't make his mind.
Their rendition of Deliver Us was... almost impressively tone deaf.
i'm actually so glad to see someone discussing it because when i saw a clip of Deliver Us on YT all i could think was 😬😬😬
"who needs sets when you have an ensemble of twenty people?????" -the production team for this mess, obviously
the almost empty set for a show based on such a detailed and beautiful animation is a just tragic choice. the "parted sea" physically hurt me
When you said “walked through the audience”, I audibly gasped. I really didn’t think it could get worse.
I feel like everything about it (costumes, set, direction, etc.) was terrible EXCEPT for the soundtrack. Sure it wasn't as good as the original, but I actually like that we got some of the variations. The new beginning of "The Plagues" was great.
I saw the play in the West End when it first opened. It started about 20mins late IIRC and then we had to listen for what felt like an age from the director or whoever about "the journey" bringing the production from screen to stage. Someone towards the back ended up heckling "Get on with it!" which set the tone for the whole thing, as I don't think anyone was particularly impressed after the play concluded, given it was a pale imitation of the film.
The disappointment of watching this musical stuck with me for a week afterward. It's like the writer was like "Let's try to see the story from the poor, genocidal aristocrat's perspective." The film did an amazing job of helping us feel for Ramses, we WERE all rooting for him to wake up and change, but it would have been out of character and left us feeling the same way the musical felt: pointless.
Thank you...the amount of people commenting on various social media thinking it's good astounds me to no end. As a singer/actor, and as someone who adores the film beyond measurable emotion, so much that it's arguably my favorite of all time, seeing the production was...a let down to say the least. I went to see the world premiere production in California back in 2017 and it just irks me that absolutely nothing change from world premiere to the damn WEST END. And people want this on Broadway? It would get torn apart from limb to limb by critics. I'm not saying critics are the end all, be all, but there's no way this would last there due to the awful reviews it would get and the word of mouth that would follow. I do know when it opened in London, the word of mouth was atrocious and rightfully so. It just kills me that one of the most stellar films of all time that totally deserves an equally stellar and epic stage proaction, ended up being this mess.
I came across the soundtrack when trying to find a copy of the original movie soundtrack. I already didn’t care for it but wow I didn’t know about the rest. Turning the advisor character who has little screen time into the real villain was…a choice. This honestly goes to show you that you can’t go half-hearted in creative things, especially not when the stakes are supposed to be high
I was so psyched when I heard Prince of Egypt got a stage adaptation....Then I watched their version of Deliver Us. Lost all hope in that moment.
Everything about the musical is just so goofy
“The crucifix is also made of chorus members,” …. I’m done u are hilarious
As soon as I saw the trailer for this show I was immediately turned off. I saw the slaves smiling and dancing happily in “Deliver Us” and I said nope. Because clearly, they don’t want to be delivered- they like slavery. I’m reminded of a Veggietales quote: “We WeRe iN sLaVeRy”
Miriam's depiction in this is horrible and borderline offensive. She is such an amazing figure in the Bible and this aristic license has made her an inappropriate punchline. In the Bible, she watched over her brother Moses to ensure his safety, when the Phaoroh's daughter (the movie has the wife finding Moses but in the actual story its his daughter) finds Moses, Miriam convinces the daughter to hire Jochebed, Moses mother, to be his wet nurse and raise him to weaning age. Without her, there wouldn't have been an Exodus, she is such an important catalyst to the story and the Bible describes her as a prophetess. The movie downplayed her role a little bit, but what this stage production did is at a whole different level of disrespect to the character
Speaking of costuming, why are Rameses and Seti dressed like a 19th century Disney princes? Of all the weird costume choices, THAT one sticks out to me as the most out of place. It’s like they were trying to be “subversive” by dressing him in a way that you wouldn’t expect, but ended up being incredibly bland and uninspired because he looks like virtually every other monarch and prince we’ve come to be familiar with.
Narrator:The music is great except one song
Most people: take it back.
literally the best song
The fact that the animated soundtrack isn’t on Spotify or Apple Music (in my country) but this diluted version is, is so infuriating
as someone who grew up with the dreamworks movie (it was one of the "approved" rainy day recess movies at my catholic school) this is such a let down. I know fuckall about choreography or stage direction or anything so I can't speak to any of that but I do have a lot of opinions on the narrative choices the musical made (and also the costume design because yikes). I mean, I didn't do an english major back in college just to not rant obnoxiously long like the pedantic asshole I am about why I thought certain narrative choices were shit choices and leave a wall of text no one will read
I hate the narrative choice to weaken Ramses in an effort to make him "redeemable." like, the whole point is to set him and Moses up as foil characters. the narrative begins with their similarities. they start out as brothers, united in belief and purpose even if Moses is the "softer" one and are shown to have a strong fraternal relationship that survives the entire time Moses spent out in the desert, Ramses welcoming him back with a hug and everything. the relationship only breaks apart when it turns out Moses is no longer pro-egypt. they are alike both in their shared history and in how they have strong convictions from which they refuse to waiver, steadfast in their beliefs and purpose, not to mention both are acting under the auspices of a power higher than themselves (their god(s) and the sheer power of tradition and cultural norms within their communities)
however, beginning just in that reunion scene, the narrative then holds up these two characters and looks at their similarities, highlighting how under different circumstances either one might actually agree with the other, but then immediately juxtaposes how they hold to their convictions and how they go about achieving their purposes, throwing into sharp relief how far they've diverged from each other. each expects the other to agree with and support him, just as they did before, but as their paths and lives separated and their ideologies changed their goals and convictions became irreconcilable. the conflict between the brothers serves as a microcosm of the larger conflict between two communities both fighting for survival (albeit metaphorically on the part of the egyptians trying to preserve the status quo). however, as the conflict escalates and neither man yields, the struggle can no longer be solved by two brothers agreeing to come to the table and something has to give-and something does. it takes the death of his son to finally push Ramses past the breaking point so that he acquiesces, not because he's willing to understand Moses and recognize the Hebrew's humanity but because he and his people have suffered and lost so much under the brutality of Moses and his god. it takes the massacre of countless children (a parallel to the movie's opening scenes) to force his hand. and even then, with the corpse of his child before him, Ramses still can't let his convictions go
with freedom in hand, Moses leads the people away from their enslavement in hopes of finally seeing an end to their suffering. for the first time in who knows how long the Hebrews have genuine hope because there's finally a light at the end of the tunnel and freedom is actually happening. then Ramses and his soldiers come tearing after them, almost extinguishing that hope before it can truly grow, bringing to a head why the brothers would never be able to reconcile. everything Moses did, all of his strength and determination, came from hope, whereas Ramses had nothing but anger and he cannot let that anger go anymore than he can the Hebrews. his grief-induced "moment of weakness" once again gets subsumed by rage and he resolves to stop Moses and the Hebrews, whether that means dragging them back or killing them outright. I know the whole story is about god saving Moses and the Hebrew people because, you know, scripture and all, but from a narrative perspective the deus ex machina of the sea parting could just as easily be seen as a metaphor for the strength of hope as a product of divine intervention. I think what truly supports this is, at the end, we see Moses surrounded by his people, the whole group celebrating their freedom together. meanwhile, all the egyptians but Ramses get washed away and he finds himself struggling for breath on a rock all alone. hope lead to community and a brighter future. anger left Ramses with nothing. if you change Ramses into nothing but a pawn of others so much of the story loses depth and meaning not to mention what I think is a crucial theme and, when you remove that piece, how much does the narrative have left to say?
also, because I can't let it go, the costumes are fucking trash-the materials look cheap, the inconsistent anachronistic elements don't look like a creative decision so much as a result of cutting corners, the construction of the garments leaves some to be desired, even the accessories and detail work that's supposed to signify the wealth of the pharaoh and his court looks garish in a "I grabbed these beads and shit from the embellishments section at walmart" way. also, does no one working on this show own a fucking iron??? like, I get that it's a play and they're moving around but even the sleeve cuffs have wrinkles!! idk anything about shit behind the scenes but it looks like the costumers had a budget of $10 and I can tell you exactly which sections of a joann those fabrics would come from (spoilers: it's the cheap ones like glitterbug and witching hour). ok, now I'll shut up
On the topic of the naming of Moses, it's a topic of discourse among scholars but Moses is generally assumed to have been named by the Pharaoh's daughter (his adopted mother; the Queen in both adaptations). It is possible that 'Moses' was a Hebrew name and she just happened to know Hebrew, although it is speculated that that explanation was an attempt to distance Moses from Egypt. Most likely, however, 'Moses' has an Egyptian origin! (Again, highly debated, and I'm just a UA-cam comment. Take this with a heavy pinch of salt.) Either way, it's messed up that they got Miriam involved in the naming process (realistically she probably would have gotten murdered on sight /hj).
(I would also recommend the Wikipedia article on Moses! It provides a few different explanations for etymology that other sites I found weren't able to do as concisely)
Edit: Forgot to mention this, but (even ignoring the discourse around the origin of the name) the meaning of 'Moses' is even more controversial. There are so many better translations than 'deliverance' that it actively makes me angry that they chose that route. Why would the Queen pick that name???? It is implying that her kingdom's slaves will be delivered out of Egypt- correct me if I'm wrong (I don't think I am), but that is very much treason???
FWIW, in the show the queen interprets the name suggestion to refer to Moses being delivered to her by the Nile similar to Pharoah's daughter choosing the name because he was drawn out of the Nile.
I remember listening to the cast recording back when it came out and being whelmed. Them not being able to use Hans Zimmer’s original orchestrations hurts so much. The one song that I thought showed some potential was The Plagues, and that was only in the beginning when the chanting of the Egyptian priests gets overwhelmed by the chanting of the Israelites, that's a clever transition into the song (a decent nod towards Playing With the Big Boys without having that song *being* in the show imo.) And then the song gets ruined by the changes made to the lyrics (outside of the Egyptian Queen verse, that's fine). I would love for someone with editing skills to take that beginning transition from the musical and add it to the beginning of the movie version of the song. So yeah, in general, I agree with your opinions in this video. Great job.
I feel like even the Queen's added verse doesn't really work for me. Her previous use of that melody is so strong and so compassionate ("When the gods send you a blessing, you don't ask why it was sent"), while this one doesn't echo it in any meaningful sense other than the use of the word "home" ("this is your home" vs "I gave you a home"). "Did you hate us all along?" feels like a stupid question. Obviously not. Which isn't to say that character couldn't ask that question. But she shows such empathy and love that first time ("Here the river brought you, and it's here the river meant to be your home"), that you'd want this second, more desperate use of the melody to echo those thoughts in a very meaningful and clear way. It feels selfish now and full of reproach ("we loved you! not me, so many people! and you hate us now!") without that feeling intentional (because it doesn't go far enough with her disbelief at "what he's become"). I dunno. Just fell a bit flat.
Also wtf with the lighthearted melody they used to replace the original one in the Plagues? I hated it so much
@@beneddiected Moses' verses in the film version are so powerful and really hammer home how Moses didn't want the Plagues to come to pass and how he just wants peace with Ramses. "And even now, I wish that God had chose another. Serving as your foe on his behalf is the last thing that I wanted"
Meanwhile his verse in the musical adds nothing to his character and has no emotional weight.
Seeing the scenes side by side is staggering. The pathos and power of the original... all gone. Wow. It takes talent to butcher such great material.
Oh my god this saved me so much time, I tried to watch it and couldn't make it past Deliver Us and the relentless use of the sexy dancers. Of all stage adaptations, The Prince of Egypt is the last one you should cheap out on and sanitize. Though I can see why they'd go this route, if it's anything like the La Jolla Hunchback (a budget-conscious scaled down version of the hit German run) they're probably eyeing licensing opportunities more than an actual proper Broadway blockbuster.
You put more thought and effort into this review / breakdown of the play than the writers and team of people responsible for the live adaptation.
While criticizing this does feel a bit like shooting fish out of a barrel, you made it interesting and thought provoking for over 20 minutes.
In fact, your review might be the best thing that came from this mess!
the decision to stage this as a dance show is so deranged and also totally absent in the original california production, which had an enormous set with running water and everything. what the hell happened between workshops
I was so honored when the movie came out I was invited by the Jewish Community to go see the Premier. I am not Jewish but had done volunteer work for their Bethsaida Excavation. I have never been more honored in my life.
Oh, that's really great. What did they think of the movie?
I only watched the opening and the plagues. I thought it was really weird how the sister just came up to the queen to tell her what Moses's name was. And the Plagues - which is an awesome song from the movie - was accompanied by new bits of song not in the original that just felt like an interruption than anything else.
And the "Moses" doesn't mean "deliverance" bruh 💀
At least from listening to the soundtrack, it feels like they tried to make moses and ramses like elphabs and glinda
Literally one of my favorite movies of all time. Watch it all the time, listen to the music all the time…I was SO disappointed listening to the cast album
I saw this production in Denmark where it was first set up. I'll admit it's been so long that I can not remember a lot of the details. I am almost 100% certain though that the last plague was kept fully to the unravelling of scarves, without the actor in the end - it was extremly effective, as well with the sound design of the sighs of the spirit leaving everytime a bundle unfurled to reveal nothing. A small defence of the parting of the Red Sea too: the audience *actually* parted in that production. They had the seats mounted on movable/rotatable platforms, so the audience was physically pushed in their seats to each side. I was watching from the balcony, so I don't know how it was experienced from the ground floor, but again, the effect was impressive in my oppinion. This is not a defence of the entire musical though, there were strange choices of which songs they keot in (I believe The Plagues was actually not included at all), and the new songs were bland in my opinion. And the ending of making Rmses step down from the pursuit removed a lot of the emotional impact. Also, it's a fair point with the ensemble, though it didn't strike me at the time of watching.
This video articulated it pretty well. And like some of the other comments said: what is happening with the costumes!!?? A lot of bad decisions were made to what could’ve been an amazing show. 😢
The new version of The Plagues was a tragedy
The pacing was also so off as well. I.E. Heavens Eyes going great great dance then just stops for a long beat to rush finish the number. UGH
thank you for sharing your honest feedback about this adaptation. I had wondered why it seemed this production came and went while the movie musical is so beloved. it’s crazy seeing how well they hit the mark with hunchback but how they totally missed it with this show. and it’s crazy to see them utilize the ensemble SO WELL in hunchback and yet seem to have no thought or intention behind anything they do with them here. it all seems to be cheap and quickly thrown together. I really hope someone else tries to adapt this show to the stage again and improve upon the mistakes you’ve mentioned.
I’m sorry but the MOST egregious thing they did was not using the Zimmer score for AT LEAST the parting of the Red Sea. It was the most breathtaking scene in the movie and I was so looking forward to what they were gonna do for the stage adaptation. So disappointing.
The burning bush scene too
In Deliver Us when one of the slave dancers gets her clothes torn off artistically to turn into the Nile, I laughed and facepalmed at the same time.
I rememebr watching this for my Bday with my sister and just thinking "god, this is poor". Went home, watched the movie, and noticed theyd mucked up the music themes so so much.
Its just a whole shambles of a production.
I listen to this rendition of The Plagues whenever I need a laugh. In the official soundtrack, Rameses sounds like an overacting anime villain and Moses sounds like he would rather be anywhere else. The angels/voice of God sounds like a sadist, gleeful singing about the destruction of Egypt. It's a beautiful trainwreck.
I'm glad I dodged this bullet.
Everything you've said is correct and how I thought. I saw it a filmed cinema screening and I'm so glad I didn't take a trip down to London to watch it in theatre. It just felt soulless in comparison and I was shocked to find out that the original song writers had been involved.
The biggest sin was removing the Moses and Rameses harmony in the plagues. That and changing the meaning of Moses' name. You can't just ignore etymology!
The set and costumes should have been more opera in scope and the whole thing should have been more like Les mis with very little dancing and comedic relief…this is a tragic story
Dance and movement CAN be used to portray real emotions…..but you need an appropriate choreographer who is adept at choreographic emotive narrative dance, to competitive jazz/lyrical. Why are they voguing? Why are they tilting? Movement is powerful, but has to be appropriate.
I was so confused during the Plagues song and, to a lesser extent, the sandstorm scene trying to figure out what the dance movements were supposed to symbolize.
12:51 Well, I think Playing with the Big Boys holds up much better if you consider the fact it's the comic relief song of the movie. It's certainly a lot more badass than the comic relief songs in other animated movies.
So this musical about slaves decided the slaves would be too busy dancing to be slaving? So...Moses is really liberating the ensemble from a big dance party? Also, the clips from this musical give me Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat vibes. Not in a good way. Also, Nefretiri id from the 1950s epic The 10 Commandments, only there the reason she goaded Ramses to kill Moses was because she was a broken and manipulated princess who finally fell into line after Moses left and then lost her son. So again, they zapped away any interesting qualities there
I’m not kidding that I’ve watched this review 4 times now, your commentary is hilarious even if the show is infuriating in its execution. Would love to watch more musical reviews from you.
I almost feel like they got the idea of using the enemble as set pieces from deaf west end's spring awakening, but it actually worked when they did it for a few reasons. One, they weren't trying to do that in the same scenes they were also acting in, the technique was used sparingly. And two, the entire show was signed along with being spoken/sung, and the signs were incopereated into the choreography so they would match the artistry of the performance while still being readable. So using one's body to communicate thoughts and ideas was already a huge underlying theme of the show.
Thank you for this. I felt incredibly bewildered when i watched clips of this on YT, and you have encapsulated how i felt based on those minutes perfectly. It seems like there must have been some behind the scenes pre-staging stuff that led to all this. Like - did they not have the rights to Hans Zimmer's score or didn't want to pay him?? And also, it seemed like they went "hmmm, what's another beloved animated movie super successful musical adaptation that's set in a hot place? Let's take our cue from The Lion King!" in terms of making the people play all the nature elements of the story. One thing that seems like they really missed the mark was capturing the SCOPE of the movie as well as the TONE. I'd be very interested to know who it was that missed the mark on these two so badly.
I was so excited when I heard PoE was getting a Broadway adaptation, and then I see the previews and I hadn't felt pure disgust like that in a long long time. The costumes are horrendous, the singing is lifeless and rushed, the choreography is uninspired and dull. The change to the source material are baffling Just an abject failure of a show.
Thank you. For me it’s not just bad… it’s straight up an abomination. I was so pumped when I first heard, and then I SAW IT and was confused, thought maybe I came across a high school production from the thumbnail, the costumes were so BAD! But I realized, nope that’s it, okay well it has a lot of people talking positively about it, so the acting and music must make up for it… and I was furious at how much they had diluted it and removed any sense of true hardship. I don’t know how they managed to make it overly dramatic and bland at the same time, but somehow they did. I feel like Veggie Tales made a darker version than whatever the hell this was. Beautiful voices and talent wasted on a set and costume design that looks like a theater kid could throw it together over the weekend with his pocket money and a trip to Spirit Halloween and Michaels.
Awwww. I wish this had gone better for everyone, but especially the cast. I'm sure they put in a lot of hard work, but it feels like cruise ship entertainment.