I think Clive Carter was much better as the wolf than as the Prince, and personally I prefer the OBC in general (especially Robert Westenberg and Chuck Wagner as the Princes :3).... Still it's nice to see something different I suppise :L
@MrPiguFrankfurt This isn't a performance of the show it is a "preview" campaign. I believe this was on WOGAN. Again why there was no laughs as it is a little out of context. It is funny but it is done in a different style to the OBC. It is creepy funny. WE see the real sliminess a little earlier.
@MrPiguFrankfurt The reason they bowed was because this was part of a tv program and they were previewing some of the scenes so since their scene was done they bowed.
The two in the Broadway cast are absolutely hilarious! These two are both creepy, and somehow they've managed to make a hilarious song boring, snobby (British), and dry.
My high school did "Into the Woods" as a musical this weekend.. Sure, the set wasn't too great, but they definitely sang better than these two guys. And the guys singing this part were 10th graders.. Lol.
This doesnt do us Brits justice when it comes to Sondheim. But we arent that bad - promise! Just looks at our recent revival of Into the Woods at Regents Park Open Air, Passion at the Donmar - Original London Passion, Sweeney Tood Revival At the Watermill and OLC, Company OLC, Follies OLC - By far the best production of Follies ever (aside from maybe the Concert Version) because of its new book changes by sondheim, dont judge us! :)
@MrAlltheworldsastage It's funny that you mention the Follies OLC, considering that's what most people refer to as proof Brits can't do Sondheim.
Seriously, apart from the new songs (Which were all good, but apart from "Loveland" and "Ah, But Underneath" were nowhere near the quality of the songs they replaced) and a semi-decent cast, there was pretty much nothing redeemable about that sordid production.
They sing ok...but god, this is the worst performance of this song i've seen! What the hell is with cinderella's prince's hair?! I'll take the original american cast any day!
Jesus Christ, I didn't think it was possible to completely suck the life and humor out of Sondheim. Apparently, I was wrong. Shame you people! What did you do to this masterpiece???
the actors are too old for the parts! They seem like dirty old men compared to the princesses! I was rapunzel in a production of into the woods, and if that guy were my prince i would kick him in horrible places, break out the pepper spray and run away!
I saw this cast in London in 1990. Not having encountered the show before, I thorougly enjoyed the show, although the standout performances for me were Julia McKenzie as the Witch and Nicolas Parsons as the Narrator.
At the time, I thought these two were perfectly fine in their roles as the Princes.
Then a couple of years ago, I spoilt it all by getting the DVD of the original Broadway cast. I had no idea how good this song could be. The Princes stepped up to become my favourite characters.
Oh My Goodness, TERRIBLE! Sorry but one look at those "princes" and I was choking on my own tongue from laughing to hard. The American version is SO much better. No offence to the people who did this performance, I mean their voices aren't terrible, just REALLY REALLY bad acting, costumes, sets....
I get what they were going or. It's just very outlandish and quirky, but the princes weren't desireable. The reason the bway princes were so good was that they've managed to be fools who were STILL charming. That's a talent in itself.
That being said, I enjoyed the different interpretation. I felt like these princes belonged in a caberet brothers Grimm version of Into the Woods.
in its own way.... its good. People shouldnt sompare to the original broadway. From an acting standpoint its actual very good. So they don't ham it up like the original.... so what?
By turning it into complete parody (and not very good parody, at that), they eliminated the heart and passion that the originals had. It's their genuine longing juxtaposed to their vanity and frustration that made the original so funny.
well I don't know what you mean by 'normal' but I prasume you mean 'normal' in the fairytale way (for a prince).......Well I don't even think the physical aspect really comes into it.
The OLC of ITW isn't really great that's the probelem the OBC is fantastic they created the roles the BRC (B'way revival cast) is also good
@StrewthMcGinty1 I think that us Brits are actually very good at Sondheim its just these actors that a bad. Into the Woods at Regents park was outstanding and so was Sondheim 80 The BBC Proms concert.
@StrewthMcGinty1 I disagree, nationality doesnt decide if we can or cant perform somthing well and I think that although this number doesnt work well, I really liked this production as a whole and much perfered it to the Original Broadway one. But (in my opinion) by far the best production of this show was actually staged here in the UK last summer at Regents Park Open Air Theatre - it was sublime, and even Sondheim himself loved it and came back twice more after opening night to see the show!
I don't have a problem with the acting or singing, they're pretty good for a different interpretation of this musical. But the costumes not so much. But then, that's their interpretation.
a :"Bloody" "Blimey" "Bugger" of a British Version!! I know "less is more" in English Acting but this is Less of LESS. Voices are weak...looks ugly and acting frightening. Where's the Hook!! get em off stage. Take away their union cards!!!
Sure, they weren't going for comedy, but thats what I respect here. I like this duet and its pretty annoying that every other pair that sings it does so as a joke and its all over-ridden with audience laughter.
It's a comical song. The princes are fatuous and self-aggrandizing, unlike the princes of fairy tales, as is evidenced by the reprise of the song in the second act, when they're coveting different maidens. This version is dull, dull, dull. The song is *supposed* to be funny.
TOTALY! So disapointing. Plus they have better voices. I mean it was written to be a comedy song to make fun of the princes. But maybe it is something about them being in England where they actualy have two princes?
The main problem I see with this is that the two main love interests are so obviously homosexual. But then, this is England. I guess it's to be expected.
...just kidding people. Take a breath. But, yeah, they're both gay. I just can't see either of them chasing girls. A good manicurist, maybe. Nice artisan wine, certainly. The centerfold of Play girl, well duh.
They really aren't bad singers, but these are NOT the roles for them. I have nothing against homosexuals at all (yay gay marriage, woot!) but they are FAR too campy and flamboyant to be the Princes.
Surely a prince would have an air of flamboyance about him?
Princes would probably be raised as mummy's boys, pampered head to foot, and waited on by many servants.
And I would say these princes would need a touch of femininity in them, they are after all being extremely romantic in their lament of love just out of their reach.
I agree that they are slightly effeminate, but only in movement and posture. This could be attributed to a prince being "well-raised" and having gone to prep school etc.
Their accent is merely british, not gay.
But i agree that a stereotypical 'man's man' is more effective in this role, much like the strong baritones of the Original Broadway production.
I adore the British Baker and Jack, but the Princes are honestly and obviously atrocious. And obviously no one can beat Bernadette. I have nothing against British theatre. I just think this was terribly boring and badly sung and acted.
I can't speak for the show as a whole, but this about bored me to tears. They were cheesy and awful in both versions, but at least in the OBC they were extremely funny about it. The fact that these actors seem like they don't even want to be there isn't helping their case, either.
the set is not the best quality but its the tv version, u don't get the atmosphere you would from the stage. ppl shld stop hating on british productions of stuff!!
We are not hating on all British productions, only on this one. I adore Into the Woods to death, but frankly, this staging completely ruins it. The set is actually a perfect match for the acting here-flat, repetitive, and nonsensical in its setting.
Who did the musical arrangement?! Way too mellow of an orchestration. Alan Menken would be rolling in his grave if he were dead... And why, why, WHY did the director let the princes go into head voice for the high bits? That MUST be pushed in chest voice! AAAAHHHHHHHHH!
american production lays out characters that are believable when you look at them... the comedy comes across in dialogue delivery and acting and not through costumes.... it is less effective if you try to do it with costumes and makeup like this cast.. wonderful voices in any case
This production tried to approach the fairytales from a completely serious direction in the first act, where as in the American production it was done in satirical form which was much more effective in opening the audience's minds to the more serious tones of the second act. I couldn't imagine sitting through three hours of this, performance by performance maybe but not all the way through.
On the contrary Javaisreve, I think the American production focussed too much on the humour and not enough on the content, having the effect of creating a second act that seemed like a completely different show. I believe the English version is more consistent all the way through. But that's ok, there will always be different perspectives.
Actually, I liked the feel of it almost being two different shows, since the first act is a fairy tale and the second is that fairy tale being crushed by reality. But, as you said, to each their own. Both productions have their strong points. While I liked the American production as a whole better, I absolutely adore the British baker.
I understand how the interpreted the book and lyrics in this production. But to the person who said that this staging focused more on the intelligence of the book and the broadway more on humor I couldn't disagree more.
they hit all the notes but gah this performance is missing a soul theres sooo much u can do with this scene im in shock that they have managed not to make it funnier then a mangled slug
Yes, the American version is MUCH funnier...and the reason why it is funnier is because the actors take the characters more seriously. These two actors just do not have "it", at least for these roles. Usually, I find British productions superior in interpretation (except a horrific production I saw on the West End about 10 years ago of SWEET CHARITY.) Perhaps the American version IS better because it is an American show, just as British productions of Shakespeare are always superior to ours.
This Is A Rubbish version, They Are Supposed To Be Brothers Yet One Is Foreign And One Is Very English, Rupunzels Prince Acts Retarded For Some Reason And Cinderellas Prince Seems Thogh He Has Alot Better Stuff To Be Doing As Isnt Putting Any Effort In Atall. Crap
I've seen the production of this and it was great. I know it's different from the Broadway one, but it's meant to be. A different style. The Broadway one focussed more on the humour, the London one more on the intelligence of the script.
The singing and acting were wonderful in this production. The witch was amazing.
bad bad lighting design.......
petethetinker 3 months ago in playlist Sondheim
Ugh I hate this set...all that green is making me sick.
DisneylandLover99 4 months ago
I think Clive Carter was much better as the wolf than as the Prince, and personally I prefer the OBC in general (especially Robert Westenberg and Chuck Wagner as the Princes :3).... Still it's nice to see something different I suppise :L
LoonieDubber 5 months ago
I like this interpretation
123arry321 7 months ago
1. Why does cinderella's prince look like mickey mouse?
2. They actually made it not funny!
3. Boring.
4. Since when are chairs in the middle of the woods?
5. The mustaches are creeping me out.
6. So are the costumes.
7. This is painful to watch.
8. Notice-no laughs at all. There are supposed to be laughs!
9. You're supposed to bow at the end of the show-not in the middle of it!
MrPiguFrankfurt 8 months ago 9
@MrPiguFrankfurt This isn't a performance of the show it is a "preview" campaign. I believe this was on WOGAN. Again why there was no laughs as it is a little out of context. It is funny but it is done in a different style to the OBC. It is creepy funny. WE see the real sliminess a little earlier.
tazykat1 7 months ago
@MrPiguFrankfurt It was recorded for television ;) thee don't bow in the show ;)
fflorol 6 months ago
@MrPiguFrankfurt The reason they bowed was because this was part of a tv program and they were previewing some of the scenes so since their scene was done they bowed.
skybreaker09 2 months ago
britain makes everything creepy
Taters72888 8 months ago
...Why does Cinderella's Prince look like Mickey Mouse?
MeowBitchDubs 8 months ago 3
omg did they seriously play this straight................ LOL
yourestillmycaesar 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone should come to my channel and see my performance of "Giants in The Sky" :) Feel free to comment!
EliasMedranoMusic 9 months ago
After seeing this i am considering whether to murder these men or not.
Araclain 9 months ago
ugghhhh... no words to express what I saw just then...
ProcessedFood 9 months ago
The two in the Broadway cast are absolutely hilarious! These two are both creepy, and somehow they've managed to make a hilarious song boring, snobby (British), and dry.
MsBryce93 9 months ago
58 people could probably sing Agony better than those actors.
houseofgaunt 9 months ago
"Why does she run from me?"
Look in a mirror, then ask yourself that again.
Hethrin 9 months ago 8
im having trouble deciding which one is gayer...
Superpig123272 9 months ago
My high school did "Into the Woods" as a musical this weekend.. Sure, the set wasn't too great, but they definitely sang better than these two guys. And the guys singing this part were 10th graders.. Lol.
nothingmore4295 9 months ago
Rapunzel's prince is...........A definite creeper
Hotaruzuki 10 months ago 4
I feel like I'm watching a Maurice Sendak book.
ng1493 10 months ago
rapunzel's prince looks like a white carlton....oh, wait
RUSHman95 11 months ago
The latest revival of "Into to the Woods" in London was amazing.It was open air and was really brilliant x
xjellymixx 1 year ago
@xjellymixx I saw it! It honestly was fantastic and the princes were hilarious!
asmileisspecial 11 months ago
this is bad.... really bad... the only thing funny about this scene is their moustaches
helencheddar 1 year ago
This doesnt do us Brits justice when it comes to Sondheim. But we arent that bad - promise! Just looks at our recent revival of Into the Woods at Regents Park Open Air, Passion at the Donmar - Original London Passion, Sweeney Tood Revival At the Watermill and OLC, Company OLC, Follies OLC - By far the best production of Follies ever (aside from maybe the Concert Version) because of its new book changes by sondheim, dont judge us! :)
MrAlltheworldsastage 1 year ago
@MrAlltheworldsastage It's funny that you mention the Follies OLC, considering that's what most people refer to as proof Brits can't do Sondheim.
Seriously, apart from the new songs (Which were all good, but apart from "Loveland" and "Ah, But Underneath" were nowhere near the quality of the songs they replaced) and a semi-decent cast, there was pretty much nothing redeemable about that sordid production.
VRNProductions 1 year ago
They sing ok...but god, this is the worst performance of this song i've seen! What the hell is with cinderella's prince's hair?! I'll take the original american cast any day!
Kronos856 1 year ago
rupunzels prince is either gay or is on ecstasy.
Kirbotron 1 year ago
And amazingly Sondheim loved this production ! His tastes are very suspect. I saw it three times and was quite puzzled by some of it.
penti77 1 year ago
Jesus Christ, I didn't think it was possible to completely suck the life and humor out of Sondheim. Apparently, I was wrong. Shame you people! What did you do to this masterpiece???
Splurge24 1 year ago
This puts me in AAAAGGGGOOOONNNYYYYYYYY!!!!
dahuterschuter 1 year ago
Rapunzel's prince reminds me of detective Jaques Clouseau.
SuperTeamcanada 1 year ago 2
@SuperTeamcanada Do you mean Steve Martin?
avakdlove 1 year ago
@SuperTeamcanada Oh man, he does look like and sound like him..... he's just not funny.
performingfreak11 1 year ago
1:00
ErgoAntonio 1 year ago
Um...why are there random chairs in the middle of the woods???
propgirl16 1 year ago
Holy crap, this stinks.
VirgoStage 1 year ago
Anyone else enjoying Dolph Lundgren's flat-top haircut?
ng1493 1 year ago
OMG. So bad. "Agony" is most definitely the word.
LenOval 1 year ago
Huh..I'm not certain these two are straight.....
Hethrin 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
idhrahil 1 year ago 2
Rapunzel's prince sounds spanish
pixanie 1 year ago
the actors are too old for the parts! They seem like dirty old men compared to the princesses! I was rapunzel in a production of into the woods, and if that guy were my prince i would kick him in horrible places, break out the pepper spray and run away!
helencheddar 1 year ago 2
I became tired while watching this.
redpantherbabe 1 year ago
I saw this cast in London in 1990. Not having encountered the show before, I thorougly enjoyed the show, although the standout performances for me were Julia McKenzie as the Witch and Nicolas Parsons as the Narrator.
At the time, I thought these two were perfectly fine in their roles as the Princes.
Then a couple of years ago, I spoilt it all by getting the DVD of the original Broadway cast. I had no idea how good this song could be. The Princes stepped up to become my favourite characters.
Filklore 1 year ago
I thought this was British?!?!?! They look French!
RKOservant001 1 year ago
Oh My Goodness, TERRIBLE! Sorry but one look at those "princes" and I was choking on my own tongue from laughing to hard. The American version is SO much better. No offence to the people who did this performance, I mean their voices aren't terrible, just REALLY REALLY bad acting, costumes, sets....
katie123222 1 year ago
ugh the broadway version is so much better
kugz45 1 year ago
Wow. listening to this version was Agony...
Bowtron 1 year ago
awful... not remotely funny!
lumpker 1 year ago
1:20
ninjakkk 1 year ago
I think youve got to remember it looks like it was quite quite a while ago as well
the singing is good but it is not as funny as others
agvmilly 1 year ago
I dig this :) nice stache.
Joshua4564 1 year ago
this is really awful....i'm sorry.
musicdrew24 1 year ago
I get what they were going or. It's just very outlandish and quirky, but the princes weren't desireable. The reason the bway princes were so good was that they've managed to be fools who were STILL charming. That's a talent in itself.
That being said, I enjoyed the different interpretation. I felt like these princes belonged in a caberet brothers Grimm version of Into the Woods.
stitchgrl777 1 year ago
And then, there were chairs in the forest clearing ~
Frostmourne79 1 year ago
in its own way.... its good. People shouldnt sompare to the original broadway. From an acting standpoint its actual very good. So they don't ham it up like the original.... so what?
Melensko 1 year ago
*compare lol
Melensko 1 year ago
I'm positive someone's already said it, but both of their hair is quite distracting...
snorlax42 1 year ago
I'm afraid this has nothing on the american version
Rkcoily 1 year ago 2
I LOVE this guy's hair......Lmao.
katsaur 1 year ago
I run around my house singing this song when i want to melodramatic :P
Sunnynotbun 1 year ago
@Sunnynotbun hell ya i do that to
123killerbee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By turning it into complete parody (and not very good parody, at that), they eliminated the heart and passion that the originals had. It's their genuine longing juxtaposed to their vanity and frustration that made the original so funny.
klumbt 2 years ago
lol i like their hair
abguard515 2 years ago
Mossy knoll, not nossy noll. Means basically a mossy hill.
ChoniclesBailey 2 years ago
what is he saying in 0:37-0:38?
"two leagues from here, to east. just beyond the...?"
ScorpionsandBells 2 years ago
just beyond the nossy noll
Zilthier 2 years ago
im translating this musical and i got stuck on this little sentence... so thanks(:
ScorpionsandBells 2 years ago
mossy knoll. : )
prismacolored 2 years ago
damm the B'way version used to be on youtube (full DVD) now thanks to copyright issues it's not available to watch from my country anyway:(
and i'm stuck with clips from the London cast who really aren't that good.
Peadarisback 2 years ago
You could buy the DVD, that is where all the clips came from.
comvic20 2 years ago
What dvd? Please explain. Is there a dvd of the London Version? I would love to have it, or whatever dvd this came from! Thanks :D
Mattie506 1 year ago
seriously @Peadarisback at least the broadway princes were actually normal looking these are so old and ugly
viceversusxX 2 years ago
well I don't know what you mean by 'normal' but I prasume you mean 'normal' in the fairytale way (for a prince).......Well I don't even think the physical aspect really comes into it.
The OLC of ITW isn't really great that's the probelem the OBC is fantastic they created the roles the BRC (B'way revival cast) is also good
Peadarisback 2 years ago 2
WOW! They actually managed to make it not funny!
Munkfish20 2 years ago 82
agreed
greggolf 2 years ago
Comment removed
klumbt 2 years ago
@Munkfish20 I beg to differ. /tose costumes had me laughing through the whole thing. Especially the yellow guy's hair.
Ayrhnd 1 year ago
@Munkfish20 of you have no sense of humour!
idparkinson 5 months ago
man, kamiak high school pulled this part off so much better XD but it's still nice :3
dracofangxxx 2 years ago
Us brits really aren't that good at Sondheim... don't blame us, just pity us!
StrewthMcGinty1 2 years ago 69
This has been flagged as spam show
@StrewthMcGinty1
Check out the version by Michael Xavier and Simon Thomas from the recent London production. Does that redeem us Brits?
(youtube. com/watch?v=9k-xCqghjpA)
idhrahil 1 year ago
@StrewthMcGinty1 yeah but you destroy us at Webber, so you get a poin there
sixstringhero20 1 year ago
@StrewthMcGinty1 yeah but you destroy us at Webber, so you get a point there
sixstringhero20 1 year ago
@StrewthMcGinty1 I think that us Brits are actually very good at Sondheim its just these actors that a bad. Into the Woods at Regents park was outstanding and so was Sondheim 80 The BBC Proms concert.
HairsprayUK 1 year ago 2
@StrewthMcGinty1
you really do have my pity
winterssmith 1 year ago
@StrewthMcGinty1 I disagree, nationality doesnt decide if we can or cant perform somthing well and I think that although this number doesnt work well, I really liked this production as a whole and much perfered it to the Original Broadway one. But (in my opinion) by far the best production of this show was actually staged here in the UK last summer at Regents Park Open Air Theatre - it was sublime, and even Sondheim himself loved it and came back twice more after opening night to see the show!
MrAlltheworldsastage 1 year ago
@StrewthMcGinty1 You are absolutely phenomenal at Shakespeare though :)
ejhchap22 1 year ago 2
@StrewthMcGinty1
LOL! I don't think that's true! Lol
Akinola1646 11 months ago
@StrewthMcGinty1 we are excellent, remember this was in a TV studio and out of context, they just did excerpts.
idparkinson 5 months ago
I don't have a problem with the acting or singing, they're pretty good for a different interpretation of this musical. But the costumes not so much. But then, that's their interpretation.
JunoMacguff2012 2 years ago
Their hair makes me horny.
JunoMacguff2012 2 years ago 2
:O lololol
gogo245 2 years ago
that was horrible.
gpedraza93 2 years ago
HA! omg. cinderella's prince looks AWESOME.
emisqui 2 years ago 4
God, the London cast is so not my fave!!! The wolf looks weird, these two look retarded, and little red riding hood looks like Danial Radcliffe!!!
krazykittymatt 2 years ago
it's done with a sense with humour :)
renetastoimenova 2 years ago
What IS on his head. o_O
MrsLonChaney 2 years ago 5
hair. lol
cutieallyp 2 years ago 2
A deceased doormat!
Joeleole 2 years ago 3
this is a bad combination of awful costumes, singing, and acting. It's horrible!
BlueberryBlast13 2 years ago 6
LmAo, check the hair on Cinderella's prince ~
Frostmourne79 2 years ago 2
awful
klitty06 2 years ago 4
true dat
crazychic2011 2 years ago
these guys are so gay.
murgatroid 2 years ago 2
I love the costumes. They look hysterical!
Joolaay 2 years ago
a :"Bloody" "Blimey" "Bugger" of a British Version!! I know "less is more" in English Acting but this is Less of LESS. Voices are weak...looks ugly and acting frightening. Where's the Hook!! get em off stage. Take away their union cards!!!
Pisces31660 2 years ago 4
HA! I didn't realize to the end of the song how very much rapunzel's prince reminds me of detective Closeau from pink panther. LOL
mrshackztor 2 years ago
What incredible writing. What a sense of taste Sondheim has. A special place
oddoledder 2 years ago
D: Oh gah. I've seen high school versions a hell of a lot better than this.
jeishiikanzaki 2 years ago
this version is so much more weird and creepy than the american one...
actaboii 2 years ago
Sure, they weren't going for comedy, but thats what I respect here. I like this duet and its pretty annoying that every other pair that sings it does so as a joke and its all over-ridden with audience laughter.
TaylorPeppers74 2 years ago
It's a comical song. The princes are fatuous and self-aggrandizing, unlike the princes of fairy tales, as is evidenced by the reprise of the song in the second act, when they're coveting different maidens. This version is dull, dull, dull. The song is *supposed* to be funny.
bridgestm 2 years ago 5
These Princes are pussies. The original Broadway ones are 10 times better.
Boonedaba 2 years ago
TOTALY! So disapointing. Plus they have better voices. I mean it was written to be a comedy song to make fun of the princes. But maybe it is something about them being in England where they actualy have two princes?
NoLifeButTheater 2 years ago
this is truly terrible
Stratocaster07 2 years ago
Truly...terrible... :(
Not only the actors didnt catch the punchline to sing to make the humor out, their look just so much like Borat...geez...
jor1220 2 years ago 3
The hair...priceless.
Frostmourne79 2 years ago
Hahaha!
crazysquirrel7 2 years ago
I like the costumes i guess
Melensko 2 years ago
The main problem I see with this is that the two main love interests are so obviously homosexual. But then, this is England. I guess it's to be expected.
...just kidding people. Take a breath. But, yeah, they're both gay. I just can't see either of them chasing girls. A good manicurist, maybe. Nice artisan wine, certainly. The centerfold of Play girl, well duh.
elvenlove 2 years ago
Why are there chairs in the woods???
maxxmax 2 years ago 2
I think they're deer >.>
Which makes it even more confusing to why they sit on them.
rockstarbryce 2 years ago
good god/
london knows how to ruin a show
MCRmyINO 2 years ago 4
lmao
blueberrypoptarts311 2 years ago
Im ashamed......the London 2007 revival... was so much better.....there costumes wer amazin un like these......The Shame, The Horror
2morro4me 2 years ago 3
Bahahahaha! Crayon moustaches!
airbear320 2 years ago
:[
this is so sad...
i like the broadway one better.
sarcasticalot 2 years ago 3
i know!!
joseahued 2 years ago
They really aren't bad singers, but these are NOT the roles for them. I have nothing against homosexuals at all (yay gay marriage, woot!) but they are FAR too campy and flamboyant to be the Princes.
AtLastOnTheGround 2 years ago 4
Surely a prince would have an air of flamboyance about him?
Princes would probably be raised as mummy's boys, pampered head to foot, and waited on by many servants.
And I would say these princes would need a touch of femininity in them, they are after all being extremely romantic in their lament of love just out of their reach.
cmcguigan470 2 years ago
I agree that they are slightly effeminate, but only in movement and posture. This could be attributed to a prince being "well-raised" and having gone to prep school etc.
Their accent is merely british, not gay.
But i agree that a stereotypical 'man's man' is more effective in this role, much like the strong baritones of the Original Broadway production.
cmcguigan470 2 years ago
i can sing this better then them and im a girl! but i couldn't watch it their hair styles bugged me to death. =[
mewmewpuddin207 2 years ago
I adore the British Baker and Jack, but the Princes are honestly and obviously atrocious. And obviously no one can beat Bernadette. I have nothing against British theatre. I just think this was terribly boring and badly sung and acted.
KaeChanel 2 years ago 2
These Princes look like they just got back from a weekened getaway in San Francisco.
sweetxtasy4life 2 years ago 4
This sucks!!!
sergio160869 2 years ago
I can't speak for the show as a whole, but this about bored me to tears. They were cheesy and awful in both versions, but at least in the OBC they were extremely funny about it. The fact that these actors seem like they don't even want to be there isn't helping their case, either.
aviva0017 2 years ago 2
Agony! Painful for any ear,
We're not the OBC,
but we can't sing on key
Agony! Like nails on a chalkboard
Make it stop!
Please!
Oh, this is the version i heard
Choirgeek136 2 years ago 4
In-Joke- Cinderella's Prince is modeled after King George IV
WillScarlet16 3 years ago
The movie version is so much better !
So funnier. This is quite boring...
But they still sing well xD
BENJADAMONBROADWAY 3 years ago
They managed to take the humour out of Agony. It's actually an amazing feat!
asmileisspecial 3 years ago 2
the set is not the best quality but its the tv version, u don't get the atmosphere you would from the stage. ppl shld stop hating on british productions of stuff!!
fatbob666 3 years ago
We are not hating on all British productions, only on this one. I adore Into the Woods to death, but frankly, this staging completely ruins it. The set is actually a perfect match for the acting here-flat, repetitive, and nonsensical in its setting.
mechamop 2 years ago
I'm as bored as they look.
OBCBW 3 years ago 4
I thought cinderella's prince was absolutely terrible... at singing at least.
it sounded like he didnt even want to sing the song, and was he even hitting the right notes?
don't get me wrong though, i love England and the English, and there were times when this version was good.
But this version as a whole was just a disappointment to me.
MarijuanaPaint 3 years ago 4
Who did the musical arrangement?! Way too mellow of an orchestration. Alan Menken would be rolling in his grave if he were dead... And why, why, WHY did the director let the princes go into head voice for the high bits? That MUST be pushed in chest voice! AAAAHHHHHHHHH!
6x9equals42 3 years ago 3
Ooops. I meant Stephen Sondheim; no idea why I said Menken.
6x9equals42 3 years ago
Wow, this sucks compared to the american version!
Rkcoily 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
americans are horrible english are the best
pheobedog 3 years ago
in the beginning, the blue prince like he's in love with his brother. kinda awkward.
lilred758 3 years ago
I must say that this version is pretty good. They sing well and both are good actors. It's just not as good as the original.
shelly31066 3 years ago
They look like those creepy mustache twirling villans you see in cartoons lol
Sageoia 3 years ago
Yes the American version is much better, except for "Hello Little Girl"
cheesemank44le 3 years ago 2
I have a fealing that the actors, set designers and directors are very very bland and UN imaginative people
overmyheadcrazy 3 years ago
why are London productions always just a bit lower in quality?
babbagecabb 3 years ago
american version way better
wowroxsocks 3 years ago 7
american production lays out characters that are believable when you look at them... the comedy comes across in dialogue delivery and acting and not through costumes.... it is less effective if you try to do it with costumes and makeup like this cast.. wonderful voices in any case
shubhra101 3 years ago 6
This production tried to approach the fairytales from a completely serious direction in the first act, where as in the American production it was done in satirical form which was much more effective in opening the audience's minds to the more serious tones of the second act. I couldn't imagine sitting through three hours of this, performance by performance maybe but not all the way through.
Javaisreve 3 years ago
On the contrary Javaisreve, I think the American production focussed too much on the humour and not enough on the content, having the effect of creating a second act that seemed like a completely different show. I believe the English version is more consistent all the way through. But that's ok, there will always be different perspectives.
arry789 3 years ago
Actually, I liked the feel of it almost being two different shows, since the first act is a fairy tale and the second is that fairy tale being crushed by reality. But, as you said, to each their own. Both productions have their strong points. While I liked the American production as a whole better, I absolutely adore the British baker.
coots89 3 years ago
I understand how the interpreted the book and lyrics in this production. But to the person who said that this staging focused more on the intelligence of the book and the broadway more on humor I couldn't disagree more.
Javaisreve 3 years ago
they hit all the notes but gah this performance is missing a soul theres sooo much u can do with this scene im in shock that they have managed not to make it funnier then a mangled slug
themodking 3 years ago
they're dressed wierd! lol wat year is this? ( please respond )
theatresofty 3 years ago
lol that hit to the shoulder was pretty funny lol
ThatRicanGuy4 3 years ago
Clive Carter is a great actor, but Rob Westerburg is pretty hard to compete with. The hair is certainly regrettable.
opheliaawake 3 years ago
I prefer the American Actors.
These guys are trying too hard.
Ashburyproductions 3 years ago 7
Yes, the American version is MUCH funnier...and the reason why it is funnier is because the actors take the characters more seriously. These two actors just do not have "it", at least for these roles. Usually, I find British productions superior in interpretation (except a horrific production I saw on the West End about 10 years ago of SWEET CHARITY.) Perhaps the American version IS better because it is an American show, just as British productions of Shakespeare are always superior to ours.
moorewjr 3 years ago 7
Eh.... I'm one for humor so I perfer Wagner and Westenberg. And I also think their costumes are ridiculous.
BongoWW 3 years ago 6
They look like they're drawn on with sharpee XD
clownrus 3 years ago 5
This Is A Rubbish version, They Are Supposed To Be Brothers Yet One Is Foreign And One Is Very English, Rupunzels Prince Acts Retarded For Some Reason And Cinderellas Prince Seems Thogh He Has Alot Better Stuff To Be Doing As Isnt Putting Any Effort In Atall. Crap
TaddyInc 3 years ago 3
as into the woods made in USA or london
Randumocity 3 years ago
the audience didnt laugh once
american version is much much better
keaunani0 3 years ago 2
*By the way it's not just me who thinks so, it won just about every British musical award in existence.
arry789 3 years ago
Good for them, it still pales in comparison to the original...and also scares the pants off of little children
ZalaSama 3 years ago 2
I think you all are to quick to judge.
I've seen the production of this and it was great. I know it's different from the Broadway one, but it's meant to be. A different style. The Broadway one focussed more on the humour, the London one more on the intelligence of the script.
The singing and acting were wonderful in this production. The witch was amazing.
arry789 3 years ago
sin comparacion cn el original...
sarelphie 3 years ago