Talk:Gone with the Wind (musical)

Critical Response

Just out of interest... Mixed reviews? I've read just about every one and they were all fairly scathing. The Independent (listed here as a good review) said "the show is neither as bad as one feared nor as good as one has a right to expect" - Not what I'd call praise? Mixed, I suppose can mean mixed between Not Good and Really Awful? Light Defender (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote that they are "generally negative", and my language was reverted. Feel free to try to reflect the reviews more accurately. Use quotes and add references if you think the quotes and references are representative of the majority of the reviews. The better referenced an argument is on Wikipedia, the more convincing it is to other editors. I certainly agree that "mixed" is an unduly positive spin here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, can anyone add more meat to the synopsis? Perhaps the reviews give more plot details? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it so it reflects the reviews a little better. I used 'mixed' originally to try and show that although the musical hasn't been received well the actual performances have come in for quite a lot of praise, but I agree 'generally negative' is more accurate when relating to the show. Transferred (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems more representative of the reviews. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Role and cast list

The cast list for this musical is too long. First of all, we do not list understudies, swings or ensemble for musicals on Wikipedia, per the consensus of the editors at WP:MUSICALS. Most musicals' cast lists just list the most important 10 or 12 roles. Are all of the roles listed singing or major speaking roles? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that about not listing understudies, swings etc, I was following what was included on this link - List of Mary Poppins (musical) cast members which seems to have everyone listed. For Gone with the Wind most cast members seem to play more than one role with the first character they play on stage listed even if it's not their main role (as listed on the official website), and then second character listed if known. They are all singing and speaking roles so I'm not sure which, if any, should be omitted. Transferred (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, the reason that the full cast list for Mary Poppins is in the "List" article is because we don't allow them in the musicals articles themselves. LOL. The way the cast list is shown now is OK, although the smallest roles really don't need to be mentioned if they don't really influence the plot. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now edited the cast list and removed what I would consider to be smaller roles that don't seem to influence the story, but I don't know if any of those actors play other 'bigger' roles later in the musical; as far as I can tell all the main characters are listed though. I'll see what I can add to the synopsis. Transferred (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

By the way, the only thing that is holding this article back from promotion from "stub" to "start" is that it needs a little more meat in the Synopsis section. Do you have any idea what happens in the musical, and how it differs from the plot of the novel? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the synopsis. It's a bit too long, though (Usually, we shoot for 900 words or so). Can you think of a way to slim it down a bit? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Super job. I made a few edits, but feel free to change them if you disagree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There's still more to add to Act II so I think it will be difficult to reduce it to just 900 words but we'll see what it's like when it's finished. Transferred (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

900 is just a target. Some of our Synopses run longer. This is in the right ballpark. As long as Act 2 doesn't turn out to be much longer than Act 1, I think you're OK. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you don't need to mention all the reprises in the synopsis unless they are important to the summary. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

The article is looking good. One of the things that the article could use now is a section describing the major differences between the novel and the musical. If the musical is very faithful to the novel, you could just add a note at the end of the synopsis, but if there are a number of differences, it could be its own section. Also, what is the music like? Is it traditional show tunes? rock musical? Jazz-inspired? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. I'm going to "unwatch" this page, because I think you've taken this about as far as it needs to go for now (although new info about the production and any future productions will be added as information develops). But if you make major changes and want me to take a look, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cuts

I removed this from the "Critical response" section: "Many of the issues raised by the critics have since been successfully addressed by Trevor Nunn. The show running time has been shortened, a lot of the narration has been cut, with scenes changed and several songs and reprises no longer included. Melly's baby is now born off-stage and she no longer sings on her deathbed, both scenes which reviews were critical of." This is entirely WP:OR and WP:POV. You need to quote a new review or new box office figures. Otherwise, it is only your opinion that the cuts are successful. In fact, you need to cite a reference to show what cuts have been made. Thanks, and happy researching! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gone with the Wind (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829131207/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/117013.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/117013.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830011415/http://playbill.com/news/article/116527.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/116527.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506095333/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23480296-details/Can%2C%20my%20dear%2C%20Gone%20With%20The%20Wind%20survive/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/theatre/article-23480296-details/Can%2C%20my%20dear%2C%20Gone%20With%20The%20Wind%20survive/article.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917095453/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/108464.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/108464.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)