<p>I cancelled other plans in order to see it with my D because we both love SOM. I looked at the youtube of her singing The Hills are Alive, and while I’m no fan of her pop/country singing, she was able to mimic a legit soprano better than I thought so I figured she could pull it off vocally. However, I was shocked at her complete inability to act. She was in a movie about the surfer who lost her arm. I didn’t see it but I guess I assumed that she had some acting talent. Her singing style didn’t mix at all with the other cast members and that still would have been a problem for me, but I’d get past that.</p>
<p>I finally watched it. As I said before I was saving to watch it for Christmas week when I would be less critical and truly in a holiday cheerful mood to watch the new version. At first, with all the criticisms, I didnt want to watch it but curiosity won me over and I took the time. I watched it on our huge flat screen complete with the home audio system turned on. And .it wasnt spectacular but is was okay.</p>
<p>Carries singing voice soared beautifully! I prefer her singing style to some of the Broadway singers with a screeching, nasal tone. My favorite is probably The Lonely Goatherd. It would have been better if it wasnt live so she had time to rest her voice in between songs. Was it just one take with Julie Andrews for the entire movie? Carrie displayed some acting talent when she was pleading to the Captain to stop turning his kids into marching machines. Reminded me of daytime soap acting. So her acting was not as flat as the actor who played Anakin Skywalker and probably at par with the actors in the Twilight movies except for Anna Kendrick who is a few notches higher.</p>
<p>I have a confession to make. I would rather watch Carries underacting and splendid singing again rather than Hathaways over-acting and speak-sighing-singing Fantine. In fact, when I watched the movie Les Mis again on TV I fast forward it to Eponines On My Own and Mariuss Empty Chair scenes because I also cant take the Wolverine version of Jean Valjean. Im just used to Colm Wilkinson. Im in the minority because AH won an Oscar for that over-the-top Fantine acting and CU would never be nominated for her Maria role. Just a matter of preference. As someone said upthread, I didnt have to shell out hundreds of dollars for a Broadway orchestra seat or ten bucks for a movie theater ticket. Best of all Im sitting leisurely in my big, comfy sofa. </p>
<p>Im thinking you cant cast someone like Katherine McPhee or Christina Aguilera as Maria. CU posseses an innocent nun aura that both dont have. If Hathaway played Maria, a certain segment too would be out in force complaining about how her exaggerated gestures ruined everything. </p>
<p>As for the von Trapp kids, aside from Liesl, the little girl who played Brigitta was probably the one who displayed some acting talent. She had the most spoken lines and danced gracefully. NBC should have casted a younger looking Rolf and applied some gray highlights on Moyers (Capt. Von Trapp) hair to make him look older. </p>
<p>I also enjoyed the stage transitions. I thought it was well done.</p>
<p>So, enjoy the show and be glad youre not watching Snooki-JWoww or Kardashian Holiday Special.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bookworm - how did you like Book of Mormon??? Talk about two entirely different genres of musical theater!!!</p>
<p>I posted above about the TV movie of the London revival of Oklahoma with Hugh Jackman. This was recorded live at the National Theatre with a live audience.
There is a cut version of it–without the black out between scenes, etc.–which is aired on PBS.</p>
<p>This same show is on you tube. The first minutes is just the intro–it’s fun if you want to get a feel of what going to the theatre is like. Anyway, other than the video quality, look at this and tell me that the NBC production of SOM remotely compares with it. </p>
<p>[Oklahoma</a>! The Original London Cast - Part 1/18 - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube)</p>
<p>Again, this isn’t a great film quality…but the singing and acting is 1,000 per cent better than SOM.</p>
<p>Again, remember this was also live–but with a live audience. And it too was and is a TV movie you can watch for free.</p>
<p>Well, there are probably people who won’t care for the Wolverine version of Curly, either. And I bet the Kardashian Holiday Special would draw big ratings.</p>
<p>I didn’t expect CU to be great but I did think she would be passable. She wasn’t. And there were other weird problems with the whole production. But there are some very, very good parts, as well. Comparing it to the movie doesn’t make much sense to me, but I guess it’s inevitable.</p>
<p>
Lol. That’s quite true. I wouldn’t even watch a Western-themed musical. Just give me Tombstone, Unforgiven or True Grit. Why do I have to watch singing cowboys for one hour?</p>
<p>The Les Mis anniversary concerts are a googolplex better than the Les Mis movie musical too. You get what you pay for. The CU SOM TV version is free. And as I said before, it’s a better TV Show for the kids rather than those Honey Boo Boo and Real Housewives of Whatever. I think this type of show should be encouraged and it’s a learning experience for NBC.</p>
<p>What I find fascinating about this thread is all the talk about the acting in SOM. When I go to see a musical, for me it’s always all about the music, which is what the story is told through - I barely think about the acting or the competency of the cast in that regard. I go to plays to see great stage acting.</p>
<p>teriwtt, House of Momons had excellent casting, tho no names that I knew. I did not walk out humming any tunes, and cannot imagine myself learning the lyrics the way I have with other MT shows. Interesting storyline.</p>
<p>Personally, I’ve never seen Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, so my mind is unpolluted.
He was very good in the production to which Jonri refers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t assume that musical theatre actors are not accomplished actors. Those who study MT all are trained in how to act-the-song. This is where Carrie Underwood was lacking. She isn’t a trained actor and simply being able to sing well, isn’t enough when it comes to musical theatre.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t compare CU to Hugh Jackman when it comes to their theatre abilities and talents. HJ has done a lot of theatre and is a charismatic and successful theatre actor. His performance in Oklahoma is testament to that, but even better was his role as Peter Allen in The Boy from Oz, for which he won the Tony. No way that CU would be in that position.</p>
<p>“Don’t assume that musical theatre actors are not accomplished actors.”</p>
<p>I don’t assume that. I just don’t go to musicals to see great acting. I go to hear great singing and the music.</p>
<p>Ahh…then you’re missing out on an aspect that could take your experience a step further. </p>
<p>A good musical has good sings and good acting.</p>
<p>I’m perfectly content enjoying musicals the way I like to do. Others are certainly free to care more about the acting than I do. </p>
<p>I’m much more of a play person. Have tickets next week for Bad Jew, which I am really looking forward to.</p>
<p>And now this message from Audra McDonald, to remind you what you liked about the broadcast:</p>
<p><a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube;
<p>(Climb Ev’ry Mountain)</p>
<p>If all I wanted to do was hear great music, I would buy the CD and not bother seeing the musical. The musical is a play…with music. Acting is important. </p>
<p>That said…I’m getting a little tired of hearing how awful the acting was in this SOM production. I happen to agree, but I do think this show was a LOT better for family entertainment than the usual crap that is on TV. Even with the lackluster acting, and lackluster casting.</p>
<p>Can we stop bashing this show and move on?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…which is fine but you are enjoying the acting talents of those actors, even if it’s unconsciously, unless you’re closing your eyes throughout the show. ;)</p>
<p>I happen to agree with thumper. There were, and are, many positives about having such a show produced for a tv audience. Interestingly, of the close to a hundred actor friends on my FB page, every single one who commented about this show, commented favorably about it being done.</p>
<p>OK… this bothers me tremendously. An article about CU regarding her ‘critics’:
[Carrie</a> Underwood slams ‘Sound of Music Live!’ critics: Mean people need Jesus | Story | Wonderwall](<a href=“http://wonderwall.msn.com/tv/carrie-underwood-slams-sound-of-music-live-critics-mean-people-need-jesus-1786522.story]Carrie”>http://wonderwall.msn.com/tv/carrie-underwood-slams-sound-of-music-live-critics-mean-people-need-jesus-1786522.story)</p>
<p>What? People can’t critique her performance? I certainly hope the critics aren’t the ones she’s referring to, and maybe there are just a few people who took it beyond a critique to bash her character that she’s referring to.</p>
<p>“If all I wanted to do was hear great music, I would buy the CD and not bother seeing the musical. The musical is a play…with music. Acting is important.”</p>
<p>Why bother going to a concert if you can just buy the CD? </p>
<p>I enjoyed SOM the other night. I found it delightful. I was not bothered in the least by any of the “bad” acting. Now, if I go to a play and the acting stinks, that, imo, is a whole 'nother ballgame. But, that is just me and I would never presume to tell anyone else what they should find important.</p>
<p>Thanks, Consolation. Like you, I’ve never seen Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. I thought he was amazing in Oklahoma and, if anything, more amazing in Les Mis. The man can act and sing, IMO. Obviously, some people disagree :)! The point I was trying to make is the fact that this production of SOM was “free” on TV doesn’t justify the use of someone who can’t act in a lead role. EVERYTHING about the Oklahoma! production I linked is superior to SOM, IMO…and it was shown a couple of weeks ago for free on PBS. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just honestly don’t “get” people who say “Well, it’s better than the usual crap” or “Well, it’s not only free, but it’s LIVE, so OMG, that’s amazing” and shut up with your criticisms. </p>
<p>50-60 years ago, LOTS of musicals AND dramas were LIVE on TV. So, fast forward 60 years and with all the technological advances, NBC can’t create a broadcast of SOM that is one-third as good (IMO) as Peter Pan LIVE without an audience ? Fast forward 55+ years and it can’t create anything half as good as Cinderella in 1957? (Yep, IMO, Peter Pan was much better than Cinderella.)</p>
<p>We’re all supposed to be grateful that NBC spent $9 million and THIS is what they came up with !!! Personally, I’d like to know how much of that $9 million CU pocketed.</p>
<p>Oh, yes, I’m supposed to feel “OH SO GRATEFUL” to Carrie Underwood because she did this! What a philanthropist! </p>
<p>If a young surgeon operated on a patient doing surgery he really did NOT have the experience to do and the result was the patient was brain damaged would all of you be standing on the side lines and saying “He tried. It’s really so admirable he tried!” or “It’s not his fault; it’s the hospital’s fault for letting him do the operation?” I doubt it.</p>
<p>If one of you had a child whose teacher was in “Teach for America” and she was a genuinely abysmal teacher who could not control the class and couldn’t explain ANYTHING clearly, would you be saying “But she went to Harvard and she’s from a wealthy family and she could probably have gotten a 6 figure job, so it’s not fair to criticize her for the fact that she can’t teach?” </p>
<p>Carrie Underwood cannot act…at all…She was AWFUL. And there is NO excuse for the fact that NBC gave her this role…none.</p>
<p>I am not blinded by visions of Julie Andrews. I turned on the show with very low expectations…and they were not met.</p>
<p>I don’t know where your kids went to high school. I can tell you that there is NO WAY at all that CU would have gotten the part at my offspring’s alma mater and/or the teenage company of our neighborhood community theatre.</p>
<p>And I’m not feeling all so warm and fuzzy towards CU for earning a lot of money to do something she must have known she was completely inept at doing.</p>
<p>YMMV.</p>
<p>I never saw Wolverine either but Hugh Jackman will always be The Boy From Oz.</p>