To be-head, or not to be-head

[wastedyuthe]

I love the live show, but cannot help wonder what it would have been like with Richard Burtons head visible on-screen only, with all the cg stuff. Watching the show on dvd, there are times when the giant head is clearly in the way of what ever is displayed on the screen behind it, including camera views of on-stage singers. I am pretty sure they will stick with the giant head for the 2007 shows, as it is an original prop. But still, couldn't they move it to the side or something? Or like I said, just include his head with the on-screen visuals. Opinions people.

[jeffwaynefan]

From a personal POV, I would have preferred to have seen the head as a CGI on the screen, either side, that would appear in a circle/window, to then vanished when not needed.

The 3D head is a good idea, but for many it caused a problem if you were sitting alongside stage or directly beneath the head.

Im sure they will use the head again in Dec as they have it to use and already have the successful hardwear to use it.

[EvilNerfherder]

I think probably that the head idea was used to make Burton more of a presence onstage, an important part of the show, rather than as part of the CGI, and therefore, the background. I suppose they could have had an actor on stage miming to the narration but I don't think that was an option. The head seems to work best to, quite rightly, push Burton 'up front', despite his death. Maybe they could work on the positioning of it for the next shows, though.

[Killraven]

jeffwaynefan said:

already have the successful hardwear to use it.

Or should that be 'headwear'?

KR

[Reppu]

I just don't like the 3D head, it looks completely out of place when it interacts with an actor on stage. Isn't it absurd to have a giant head above speaking with the artillery man on stage? For me it just does not work. Not that a CG head would have done better, though.

You know, i'm used to the spanish narration (which, in my opinion, is miles better than Burton's own, which just sound plain and unscary to me). So i wouldn't mind if Wayne had decided to replace Burton's narration for a new one made by an actor on stage.

[Killraven]

reppu said:

I just don't like the 3D head, it looks completely out of place when it interacts with an actor on stage. Isn't it absurd to have a giant head above speaking with the artillery man on stage?

Then again, how would a CGI head interact any better with the actors on stage?

KR

[Reppu]

jazzyjeff said:

reppu said:

I just don't like the 3D head, it looks completely out of place when it interacts with an actor on stage. Isn't it absurd to have a giant head above speaking with the artillery man on stage?

Then again, how would a CGI head interact any better with the actors on stage?

KR

I also wrote this in my post: "Not that a CG head would have done better, though."

[wastedyuthe]

"So i wouldn't mind if Wayne had decided to replace Burton's narration for a new one made by an actor on stage"

Replace Burtons narration? Sacrilege!!!

[the Donal]

! ;D

I agree- though I liked the head and a CG narrator on the screen wouldn't have changed the interaction in my opinion- would be just the same, but from a different place on the stage (unless both parts were CG/composited live action- but that would detract from impact of the cast).

Nope- I'm happy with it as it is.

[Reppu]

wastedyuthe said:

"So i wouldn't mind if Wayne had decided to replace Burton's narration for a new one made by an actor on stage"

Replace Burtons narration? Sacrilege!!!

Honestly, i think Burton's narration is good but not THAT good. Have you heard any other version, the spanish one for example? That one is much more dramatic and tense, i can tell you. That said, i also think that Burton's voice is very attractive. Of course this is only my own very personal opinion.

[Killraven]

reppu said:

wastedyuthe said:

"So i wouldn't mind if Wayne had decided to replace Burton's narration for a new one made by an actor on stage"

Replace Burtons narration? Sacrilege!!!

Honestly, i think Burton's narration is good but not THAT good. Have you heard any other version, the spanish one for example? That one is much more dramatic and tense, i can tell you. That said, i also think that Burton's voice is very attractive. Of course this is only my own very personal opinion.

What Burton gives is gravitas - a presence beyond the spoken word which I feel has the ability to immerse you in the proceedings.

Personally I think Spanish narration might detract from the enjoyment of the film for any of the audience non-fluent in Spanish! On a more serious note, however, I was quite impressed by Anthony Quinn's Mexican version... shame he passed away as well a few years back

KR

[Reppu]

jazzyjeff said:

reppu said:

Honestly, i think Burton's narration is good but not THAT good. Have you heard any other version, the spanish one for example? That one is much more dramatic and tense, i can tell you. That said, i also think that Burton's voice is very attractive. Of course this is only my own very personal opinion.

What Burton gives is gravitas - a presence beyond the spoken word which I feel has the ability to immerse you in the proceedings.

Personally I think Spanish narration might detract from the enjoyment of the film for any of the audience non-fluent in Spanish! On a more serious note, however, I was quite impressed by Anthony Quinn's Mexican version... shame he passed away as well a few years back

KR

Yeah of course. But for me, with spanish being my mother language and also being fluent in english, i find that the spanish version has all the good from Burton's work, but with more drama, more tension, more despair....yet not getting to the point of being too much...you get the point.

Anyway this is already offtopic, maybe a thread on the different versions of the musical would be worth.

[wastedyuthe]

thedonal said:

! ;D

I agree- though I liked the head and a CG narrator on the screen wouldn't have changed the interaction in my opinion- would be just the same, but from a different place on the stage (unless both parts were CG/composited live action- but that would detract from impact of the cast).

Nope- I'm happy with it as it is.

With the cg head image on screen, of course there will be no difference with the lack of interaction with the actors/singers compared to having the giant head in front of the screen. But what is slightly annoying is when the giant head gets in the way of the images on the screen behind it. So the real advantage to having the head on the screen with the cg, would be that they could decide where to place the head each time it appears so that it never gets in the way of any images at all. Let's face it, the giant head is a great effect, but a little non-practical when it's blocking your view.