Las Vegas - Blueman Group -- I don't get it.

In an effort to distract me from gambling, my wife sent me in to see Blueman Group after our dinner at Bouchon (our favorite LV restaurant).

I should start by saying that I love theater and live performance, I have a couple of graduate and undergraduate degrees in theater, I've been a professional actor, so my opinion isn't exactly uninformed.

Blueman Group originally started as off-Broadway performance art featuring a unique perspective towards percussive rhythm and music. That core is still present and, at least in my opinion, the best part of the show. However, in making the transition from small-space performance art to Las Vegas spectacular, it would appear that Blueman Group was "tarted up," with lots of high-tech effects, suitably spectacular but, at least to my eye, unrelated to core premise of the show. There were lots of little "bits" interspersed, some funny and inventive, some less so, that seemed designed to maximize audience participation (rarely a good thing, in my book). Some of the bits seemed completely pointless, such as the unraveling of dozens of rolls of crepe paper, like so many toilet paper rolls, that were passed over the heads of the audience until the entire . . . um . . . assemblage made its way to the stage.

Overall, I enjoyed the performance, though I didn't think it was worth the $142 I paid for the ticket (I paid more than that for Ka, but left Ka thinking, "Wow! They should have charged more, that was so good!"). There also seemed to be a lot of Blueman Group-ies -- people who had obviously seen the show many times and anticipated every moment (quite loudly).

Quite frankly, I was reminded a bit of Idiocracy -- it seemed that a fair bit of the entertainment was designed for those who would be entranced by, "Ow, my Balls!").

So what am I missing? I didn't not enjoy the show -- there was much to appreciate and admire -- but it's one of the first times I've left a Las Vegas "spectacular" feeling particularly unsatisfied.

The first time I saw BMG was at Luxor and while it was entertaining, I agree with you, it's didn't knock my socks off and it was basic slapstick humor. I did enjoy the music. The second time I saw it was at Venetian, about a year later. It was actually boring then so thank goodness it was a comp. And I felt like going to the bathroom at the end of the show with all that rolled paper ;).

Although DW and I enjoyed it we agreed we wouldn't want to see it again.

Similar thoughts here.
Saw the BMG with the wife and a friend about 8 years ago at Luxor. It was the first show we went to see in Vegas. I think we paid about $100/ticket.

I thought the show was ok to somewhat entertaining with the "music", visuals, and humour mixed in. The wife hated it and complains about it to this day. (Brings it up every time we talk about seeing a show in Vegas :rolleyes: .) I think the general simplicity of parts of the performance (ie. slapstick humour as described by kingalien) while making the show fairly universally appealing (easy to understand), on the otherhand, may give you a "I paid for that??" feeling at the end. It did for us too.

[We also saw Ka this past December and paid about $75 for some great seats. Really enjoyed it and would pay over hundred for it (which is a compliment since I'm cheap :)). Only minor complaint would be that I found it to be a tad short.]

I can't believe they're still doing that rolled paper routine at the end.

saw it twice in NY yep Off-Off-Bway Id go again but them its like 1/2 the price of LV and a small intimate theather

never saw it in LV no need, I guess they snazed it up for LV a pity

It's about 1000 times better than Danny Gans.

Horses for courses. My other half loved it when it was on in London. I refuse to go to see it and knew I would hate it.

Drumming do not do it for me. Neither does see colours being splashed around as art.

I've never seen it; however, I get mixed reviews on it. To me, it all depends on how old you are. I have a lot of friends in their early to mid-20's who LOVED it. Then I have my aunt and uncle's in their late 40's to mid 50's, who totally don't get it, and thought it was just okay.

Hey, if you want to see a blue dude, you can go see Watchmen for $9.50. Sheeesh, $142. Seems a bit outrageous to me. Or was the ticket $20, and the Ticketmaster "convenience" fee $122? ;)

I saw them in Chi-town and NYC several years ago but never in LV. Lots of percussion and fun in small venues as mentioned above. I doubt that I would be willing to pay anything like the quoted prices for a "LV spectacular"...

I've never seen it; however, I get mixed reviews on it. To me, it all depends on how old you are. I have a lot of friends in their early to mid-20's who LOVED it. Then I have my aunt and uncle's in their late 40's to mid 50's, who totally don't get it, and thought it was just okay.I can only say this: though I'm in my 50s, my objections to Blueman Group really are not based on demographic appeal, but on artistic success or failure. First, there is nothing really ground-breaking or original in this performance art piece -- these kinds of avant garde experiments have been a staple of live theater since, at least, the 1920s. What distinguishes Blueman Group from earlier avant garde performance art is only scale and, as I noted earlier, I thought the "spectacularization" actually detracted from its core artistic value. In my opinion, the most interesting and entertaining "bits" were the ones that didn't involve spectacle -- the "dinner party," the tubulum, etc.

The problems I had with the show were, primarily, two: lack of thematic consistency and pacing. Many bits were of the, "look what we can do with stagecraft" variety. Well, I expect polished stagecraft in a Las Vegas spectacular and, though some of that employed by Blueman Group was clever (the living neon sign, for example), most of it just involved loud noises and bright lights. This is a far cry from, for example, the stagecraft employed in a show like Ka. I've had considerable education and professional experience with technical theater and design, but there were moments in Ka where I thought to myself, "How the heck did they do that?" I also though the scenography and stagecraft of Ka was, as should be all theater, a unified and thematic part of the whole performance, rather than simply some creative lighting and set designers saying, "Look what we can do -- I'll bet you never saw THIS before!"

I also found the pacing problematic. Whether performance art, ballet or traditional theater, a live performance piece needs to be carefully paced so that the audience is drawn along without either becoming exhausted or bored. There were, in my opinion, too many pacing problems, particularly with transitions between bits, that resulted in audience members to my right and left checking their watches -- never a good thing.

I would submit that the difference in demographic response that you've noted is more a function of experience with live performance than appeal to a targeted age demographic. There is nothing in Blueman Group that would either specifically appeal to a younger demographic or specifically alienate an older one. I suspect that, if someone has relatively limited exposure to high-end technical theatrical production, Blueman Group will be more engrossing than it would to someone else who is very familiar with Broadway and London staging, Cirque du Soliel, and other production venues that can exploit the talents of top-end designers in the context of large production budgets.

Hey, if you want to see a blue dude, you can go see Watchmen for $9.50. Sheeesh, $142. Seems a bit outrageous to me. Or was the ticket $20, and the Ticketmaster "convenience" fee $122? ;)The tickets were bought at the box office minutes before the show. We were walking back from the Venetian, where we dined, to the Encore. We saw everyone going in for the late show of Blueman Group and I joked to my wife, "we're just in time." She said, "Why don't you see it . . . instead of gambling. No, really. Go see it!" I went up to the box office and just asked for the best seat available, which was row G, dead center. When I signed the credit card receipt, it was for $142. My wife swallowed, I chuckled inwardly, signed, took my ticket and went in. My wife retaliated by shopping (I had no idea those freakin' stores were open until at least 10 pm!).

I'm in my mid 20s. I don't get it. The main problem I have is with their whole color schtick. If they were just performance artists with no face paint I might have less of an issue with it, but being blue just to be blue...you lose me there.

Their show was rather academic I thought. Even though I consider myself intelligent, I wanted to be entertained for the $100/ticket for upper level (but got "upgraded" because there were not enough people to warrant having the balcony open). If I wanted to be educated, I'd just turn on Discovery channel and save the money!

Duplicate - deletec

I'm in my mid 20s. I don't get it. The main problem I have is with their whole color schtick. If they were just performance artists with no face paint I might have less of an issue with it, but being blue just to be blue...you lose me there.

Their show was rather academic I thought. Even though I consider myself intelligent, I wanted to be entertained for the $100/ticket for upper level (but got "upgraded" because there were not enough people to warrant having the balcony open). If I wanted to be educated, I'd just turn on Discovery channel and save the money!Okay, here's my academic take on Blueman Group.

The underlying concept of having blue men is what Bertolt Brecht called "verfremdung," or "to make strange." His belief was that social change through art was best accomplished by taking contemporary social issues and setting them in an alien (in the sense of "strange") environment. That severs the emotional connection that audiences have to specific issues addressed and allows greater objectivity.

Here, the blue men are, literally, aliens -- sentient beings, human-like without being human, who are confronted with a variety of experiences that society takes for granted -- experiencing music (and rock concerts), dinner parties, etc. What is interesting is their attempt to decipher and relate these components -- their take, as people outside our social paradigm, is different, often amusing, and occasionally revealing (the rock concert, for example).

The intent of all of this, as with any art, isn't to educate, per se, but to leave the audience more informed of the human condition.

I regard the effort as partially successful but, as I noted, I think the spectacle elements (which, I assume were added to justify the ticket cost) detracted rather than assisted.

An LV act with a similar premise is Penn & Teller. Their approach, too, is one of alienation (in the Brechtian sense). I'd note, as well, that they don't use spectacle, are far more successful artistically, and have a considerably lower ticket price.

So ends Week 1 of our Introduction to the Theatre syllabus.

So ends Week 1 of our Introduction to the Theatre syllabus.

In Week 2 can we discuss the Vegas-ization of theater that involves stripping about 20 minutes of content and forgoing the intermission? (I'm not necessarily an opponent of that; Spamalot was great, and I usually find the intermission more of an excuse to sell expensive knick-knacks than a required break)

I'm not joking, I find your insight very interesting :)

In Week 2 can we discuss the Vegas-ization of theater that involves stripping about 20 minutes of content and forgoing the intermission? (I'm not necessarily an opponent of that; Spamalot was great, and I usually find the intermission more of an excuse to sell expensive knick-knacks than a required break)

I'm not joking, I find your insight very interesting :)
Thanks. For what it's worth, I refuse to see any Broadway show in Las Vegas precisely because they are all cut to 90 minutes and lack an intermission. I can think of only one Broadway musical that was originally performed without an intermission and that was Man of La Mancha, which was a long, long, long time ago. Musicals usually run 1:00 to 1:15 for the first act and :45 to :60 for the second, thought there's been a recent trend towards shorter productions influenced, primarily, by Disney and its dreck -- apparently, the attention span of young children is too short to permit performances of a traditional length. I suspect the primary motivation for the "edited for time" productions in Las Vegas is so that they can fit in two performances a night. That, in itself, raises a number of issues as it really puts a strain on the performers. Historically, Broadway and London added extra performances by offering matinees -- originally on Wednesday and Sunday, but now on Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday. A matinee, at least, allows the performers a couple of hours to rest and eat something between shows.

At any rate, I'd like to see Spamalot, but I'll wait for the touring production to come to LA or Orange County.

At any rate, I'd like to see Spamalot, but I'll wait for the touring production to come to LA or Orange County.

I haven't been lucky enough to see the same musical both pre-Vegas and in Vegas, although that may change if I see Phantom LV sometime this year.

Spamalot with John O'Hurley is coming to the Orpheum in SF, although I haven't read whether it is the Vegas-length show (which I saw starring John last year) or whether they're using the Broadway-length script.

Edit to add: The sheer number of 40-something women who squealed whenever O'Hurley would start singing was overpowering in Vegas

I haven't been lucky enough to see the same musical both pre-Vegas and in Vegas, although that may change if I see Phantom LV sometime this year.

Spamalot with John O'Hurley is coming to the Orpheum in SF, although I haven't read whether it is the Vegas-length show (which I saw starring John last year) or whether they're using the Broadway-length script.

Edit to add: The sheer number of 40-something women who squealed whenever O'Hurley would start singing was overpowering in VegasTouring productions are always adaptations of the Broadway staging, rather than the Las Vegas staging -- you'll never see a no-intermission/90 minute version on tour (unless the original production was 90 minutes). However, there are other compromises with touring companies that make them less than desirable. The biggest problem I've found is that they use cut-down orchestras (I call them "orchestrettes"). Frequently, they'll replace the string section with a doubled keyboard part on a synthesizer, and sometimes they'll do the same with horns. The result is a "thin" sound that does not duplicate the fullness of the original score. Even resident companies (productions that don't tour but are produced for a specific city) use orchestrettes. I saw Wicked last summer in LA -- this was a resident company, but it reduced the orchestra staffing by 1/3. The difference in sound was dramatic, and I don't mean that in a good way. The other compromise you'll find with bus-and-truck tours are scaled down scenic elements -- because these shows play in a variety of different houses, they are re-staged to fit a generic proscenium and three-dimensional scenic elements are replaced with wing-and-border drops. And, of course, the biggest problem with tours: for some reason, they always cast B-list television actors for lead roles. I suppose they do this to create a draw for the audience, but these actors are rarely very good -- television (and film) requires a completely different set of acting skills than live stage. There are exceptions to this -- Jason Alexander is a brilliant musical theater performer, for example, and there are a number of actors who go back and forth between stage and film. However, as a general rule, don't expect much from a television "personality."

there's been a recent trend towards shorter productions influenced, primarily, by Disney and its dreck

I, too, have enjoyed being educated by this thread and look forward to continued discussion.

And I had to look up "dreck" to make sure it was as perjorative as it sounds. Yup, it is:

dreck (drk)
n. Slang
Trash, especially inferior merchandise.

So I'm very, VERY surprised to see someone like PTravel, who clearly both knows and admires the performance art, to dismiss Disney so casually. Disney, the company that almost single-handedly revived the very concept of live theater in this country. That employs so many artists worldwide (and I don't just mean performers, but all the talented individuals whose labors of love go into shows of various sorts). And that most definitely does not produce inferior merchandise, as hgih-quality merchandise is one of their more profitable revenue streams... ;)

I, too, have enjoyed being educated by this thread and look forward to continued discussion.

And I had to look up "dreck" to make sure it was as perjorative as it sounds. Yup, it is:

dreck (drk)
n. Slang
Trash, especially inferior merchandise.

So I'm very, VERY surprised to see someone like PTravel, who clearly both knows and admires the performance art, to dismiss Disney so casually. Disney, the company that almost single-handedly revived the very concept of live theater in this country. That employs so many artists worldwide (and I don't just mean performers, but all the talented individuals whose labors of love go into shows of various sorts). And that most definitely does not produce inferior merchandise, as hgih-quality merchandise is one of their more profitable revenue streams... ;)Please, please, please tell me you're kidding. Please!

Wow, this is a great thread. Thanks PTravel!
I have seen BMG 2x. Once in NY about 10 years ago, then at the Luxor about 4 years ago. While I enjoyed the production in both places, the viewpoints of my companions could not have been more different. One liked the show, the other was checking her watch after 15 minutes and absolutely could not wait for it to end.
In speaking with friends that have seen the show (either in NY or LV) the reaction is solidly in the "I liked the show, or the I hated the show" camp. There seems to be no middle ground.
I'm happy that you enjoyed Ka, I will be seeing it this weekend in LV.

Wow, this is a great thread. Thanks PTravel!
I have seen BMG 2x. Once in NY about 10 years ago, then at the Luxor about 4 years ago. While I enjoyed the production in both places, the viewpoints of my companions could not have been more different. One liked the show, the other was checking her watch after 15 minutes and absolutely could not wait for it to end.
In speaking with friends that have seen the show (either in NY or LV) the reaction is solidly in the "I liked the show, or the I hated the show" camp. There seems to be no middle ground.
I'm happy that you enjoyed Ka, I will be seeing it this weekend in LV.I'm curious -- did your friends say why they liked it or, conversely, why they didn't?

Enjoy Ka. Let us know what you think of the idea of maintaining a traditional proscenium, but eliminating a fixed and two-dimensional stage. I believe Dragone referred to his staging of Ka as treating the performance space as a "void." From a dramaturgical standpoint, I thought this was one of the more exciting staging choices, and one that is possible only in the context of a high-tech and expensive LV show -- you won't see "voids" being used in the local community theater production of Hello, Dolly. Ka is also the first (and possibly only) Cirque show that has an actual plot, as opposed to only a thematic through-line, which I thought was a major, but logical, step for Cirque du Soliel.

Ka is also the first (and possibly only) Cirque show that has an actual plot, as opposed to only a thematic through-line, which I thought was a major, but logical, step for Cirque du Soliel.

Very interesting discussion of theater. Ka is by far my most favorite Cirque show just because it has a plot. I've seen it 3 times and would pay to see it again tomorrow.

I do disagree (a tiny bit) with an earlier point you made regarding B'way shows in Vegas. I don't like the cutting of the material to 90 minutes any more than you do but it made a positive difference in Phantom. It is better in Las Vegas. In fact, it is spectacular. ;) The theater, having been built specifically for this production, is a character in itself. I agree with you regarding other shows such as The Producers (but still Loved It) but I would tell you not to hesitate to see Phantom if you like musical theater.

B'way is number one in my book, though. I still go back every year and see 4 or 5 shows in 4 or 5 days.

Very interesting discussion of theater. Ka is by far my most favorite Cirque show just because it has a plot. I've seen it 3 times and would pay to see it again tomorrow.

I do disagree (a tiny bit) with an earlier point you made regarding B'way shows in Vegas. I don't like the cutting of the material to 90 minutes any more than you do but it made a positive difference in Phantom. It is better in Las Vegas. In fact, it is spectacular. ;) The theater, having been built specifically for this production, is a character in itself. I agree with you regarding other shows such as The Producers (but still Loved It) but I would tell you not to hesitate to see Phantom if you like musical theater. I saw the original production of Phantom in London shortly after it opened, and have also seen it with a resident company in San Francisco (and an orchestrette). In London (I think it was at Her Majesty's Theatre, if I remember correctly), I thought it worked well (within the limits of Andre Lloyd Weber's capabilities -- I think he's good, but not great, though Phantom was his best to date). The theater's decor matched the period of the show perfectly, and the theater's chandelier had been replaced with a functional prop -- no one knew until it literally came crashing down onto the stage, mere feet above the heads of the audience. The problem with Las Vegas houses is the same as with the newer "office building" theaters built after the '70s on Broadway -- they're simply too big, and isolate the audience from the performers. In ancient Greek times, the problem of large "houses" (the theaters then were, of course, open-air) was solved by putting the actors on platform shoes and in masks with built-in megaphones so that they could be seen and heard better. Contemporary theater uses mikes on the actors -- a practice I despise since you're not hearing them, you're hearing the sound system. Broadway never used mikes until the late '60s, when PZM mikes were put at the edge of the apron and used for "sound reinforcement." Before that, actors were just expected to project, and could do so with no difficulty at all. The apron mikes were replaced with individual wireless mikes in the '70s. These early experiments with artificial amplification sometimes had unexpected and funny results -- soundmen would forget to turn off an actor's mike and you'd hear his or her off-stage comments, or forget to turn them on, rendering an actor completely mute, when actors got too close together their mikes would interact and screech and, fairly often, the sound system in one theater would pick up the mikes from another and the audience would find themselves listening to an entirely different play. Sound technology has improved substantially since then, but I still don't think it's "real" theater unless I can hear the actor's voice coming out of his or her mouth, as opposed to monstrous speakers on either side of the proscenium.

Anyway, I digress (again). I was okay with The Producers, though I thought, musically, it was very weak and I am definitely NOT a fan of Matthew Broderick, at least on stage. For me, the original film with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, is the definitive interpretation and far, far, funnier. However, the price of admission to the musical was worth it just to finally see the show-within-the-show, "Springtime for Hitler," performed live in full Busby Berkely style.

B'way is number one in my book, though. I still go back every year and see 4 or 5 shows in 4 or 5 days.Same here. Why don't we start a Broadway Musicals thread? I'm trying to figure out where it should be -- probably not in "Destinations - New York" because it should also include London theater, which produces some of the finest English-speaking theater in the world. I use the term "Broadway Musicals" only because the genre was invented and perfected here in the U.S.

Please, please, please tell me you're kidding. Please!

Nope, and I'm wondering why you think I would be!

Nope, and I'm wondering why you think I would be!Okay:

Disney, the company that almost single-handedly revived the very concept of live theater in this country.Disney did not "revive" the concept of live theater and, for that matter, what it does is irrelevant to live theater except for one thing: too many people think Beauty and the Beast is theater, rather than what it really is, namely a commercialized cartoon. Disney has created an appetite for spectacle and the belief that musical theater is some light piece of froth with an intended demographic of 10 year olds. Disney has brought nothing new to the stage, nothing remotely inventive with, perhaps, the exception of the Lion King, which was an interpretation of the cartoon, rather than a literal staging of it. However, even that interpretation wasn't original -- many shows before it used similar techniques for realizing animals, e.g. the horses in Equus, and succeeded as theater in spite of the music. Music works in a very specific way in a musical -- the score is not a collection of songs, but a participant in the plot, advancing the story, rather than merely interrupting it. 19th century burlesque adapted popular music to the stage, too, but it wasn't musical theater, at least not in the sense that the term is used to define that particular art form which evolved in the U.S. in the 20th century. Disney's other Broadway efforts aren't theater -- they're theme park entertainments, no different than "On Ice" diversions.

That employs so many artists worldwide (and I don't just mean performers, but all the talented individuals whose labors of love go into shows of various sorts).Disney doesn't employ theater people world-wide. Quality English-speaking professional theater is found in just a few venues: Broadway and London, regional theaters, touring companies and a few resident productions in major cities.

And that most definitely does not produce inferior merchandise, as hgih-quality merchandise is one of their more profitable revenue streams... Not theater. I have no interest in Disney theme parks or related undertakings as I don't have children. I do, however, have a passion for theater, and have had it all my life. Disney's contribution to live performance merits little more than a footnote in theater history.

...Overall, I enjoyed the performance, though I didn't think it was worth the $142 I paid for the ticket ...There also seemed to be a lot of Blueman Group-ies -- people who had obviously seen the show many times and anticipated every moment (quite loudly).

Quite frankly, I was reminded a bit of Idiocracy -- it seemed that a fair bit of the entertainment was designed for those who would be entranced by, "Ow, my Balls!").

So what am I missing? I didn't not enjoy the show -- there was much to appreciate and admire -- but it's one of the first times I've left a Las Vegas "spectacular" feeling particularly unsatisfied.

I've passed on several opportunities to see BMG. I have no idea what the show is about, other than what I've seen on the hotel channel in the room. Not appealing to me. All that drum banging, for example. If I need drum banging, I'll take in a gaucho show. $142 is a ridiculous price. Part and parcel of the new, improved, and over-priced Vegas scene. I take a Venetian/Palazzo comp (my money) for Phantom, or something else, over BMG.

Not theater. I have no interest in Disney theme parks or related undertakings as I don't have children. I do, however, have a passion for theater, and have had it all my life. Disney's contribution to live performance merits little more than a footnote in theater history.

You clearly are both intelligent and educated, so please don't be offended when I say you come across like an ignorant, closed-minded snob. You have bought into an extreme (and incorrect) negative view without so much as a fair and unbiased personal opinion. Dismissing anything Disney does as uninteresting because you don't have children demonstrates an absurd degree of bigotry.

Anyway, it's clear that your mind is made up on the matter, and nothing I say on an internet message board is going to change that. I'll simply say that it is sad that someone so clearly passionate about both the art and science of performance can be so willingly blind.

You clearly are both intelligent and educated, so please don't be offended when I say you come across like an ignorant, closed-minded snob. You have bought into an extreme (and incorrect) negative view without so much as a fair and unbiased personal opinion. Dismissing anything Disney does as uninteresting because you don't have children demonstrates an absurd degree of bigotry.

Anyway, it's clear that your mind is made up on the matter, and nothing I say on an internet message board is going to change that. I'll simply say that it is sad that someone so clearly passionate about both the art and science of performance can be so willingly blind.

DJ, I agree with you - sadly the world is big and mean and does not. I recently was touring graduate schools to further my theatrical design education and I can't even begin to depict how quickly doors were slammed in my face once they discovered I wanted to work for Disney in design, possibly even doing theme park/attractions.

The real irony being that I'm not a hack and my work is not dreck - I was invited with open arms and even courted and pursued by places until they discovered my "secret."

"Sometimes a person we love, through no fault of his own, can't see past the end of his nose." - Mary Poppins

Saw BMG many years ago off-off-Broadway. Can't imagine seeing them in a big Vegas theater. Anyway, you can get tix cheap right now for BMG on travelzoo. Quite a bit less then $142

The economy is in the toilet and everything's on sale, yipee:D

You clearly are both intelligent and educated, so please don't be offended when I say you come across like an ignorant, closed-minded snob. You have bought into an extreme (and incorrect) negative view without so much as a fair and unbiased personal opinion. Dismissing anything Disney does as uninteresting because you don't have children demonstrates an absurd degree of bigotry.

Anyway, it's clear that your mind is made up on the matter, and nothing I say on an internet message board is going to change that. I'll simply say that it is sad that someone so clearly passionate about both the art and science of performance can be so willingly blind.

DJ, I agree with you - sadly the world is big and mean and does not. I recently was touring graduate schools to further my theatrical design education and I can't even begin to depict how quickly doors were slammed in my face once they discovered I wanted to work for Disney in design, possibly even doing theme park/attractions.

The real irony being that I'm not a hack and my work is not dreck - I was invited with open arms and even courted and pursued by places until they discovered my "secret."

"Sometimes a person we love, through no fault of his own, can't see past the end of his nose." - Mary PoppinsWe're taking about theater, here, not theme parks. If you want to discuss Disney's other projects, start your own thread. If you want to talk about Disney and Broadway, I've explained at some length why Disney is dreck. And if you want to talk about coming across as ignorant, you might review the assertion that "Disney revived live stage in America."

Completely concur regarding BMG. Saw it a number of years ago in Chicago and thought: what is all the fuss about? I didn't find the "performance art" aspect of it compelling at all. Have never recommended it in LAS to visitors; there are so many better and more interesting shows, especially at that price point. I think any of the Cirque shows (I've only missed Zumanity) are more entertaining.

BTW, Bouchon is not only one of our favorite restaurants in LAS, but really anywhere(and I have the good fortune to get to eat in Chicago very regularly). I'm happy to be going there this weekend :), and glad to hear others enjoy it as well.

I believe many of the shops in the Forum Shops, the Palazzo/Venetian, and the Wynn are actually open to 11!