Wizard of Oz

Ah, it's oh so easy firing you all up - all it takes is a little bit of truth and you all start wriggling about trying to deny that what I say is honest. Mean, yes - I never pretended to be a nice person - but oh so honest. And once again DazzaB leaps to the defence of all you in the southwest and moderates my post down. Awww, can't bear to hear that you're less than perfect? If that's not arrogance I don't know what is! If you keep moderating my comments down though I'll have to think that this site is as pointless and subjective as the Finley awards. And to Mr. Pratt, I'd love to see you in court - your lovely comment "If I have used some words of more than one syllable thus rendering it beyond the comprehension of Sting aka "he/she of little or no intellectual capacity"then so be it." is just the type of thing a judge would love to hear is it not?

It's okay. jmuzz loves you.

everyone is getting off the subject topic. the topic heading was wizard of oz it was about the show stop slagging everyone and everything off will you. come here to commentate about the show, or dont bother at all. NOTHING ELSE, STOP THE SLINGING MATCHES, AND JUST SAY what you want to say good or bad about THE SHOW. and then take it in one ear and out the other.

Saw Wizard of Oz opening night - a few minor technical hitches managed well by the cast and a brilliant show by a very talented bunch - feel very sorry for anyone unable to go away happy. That said - it is very sad to see a webmaster with so little pride in the review forum of this site that they do not immediately remove reviews which contain personal abuse. For all those who have defended a certain sad individuals right to their opinion, remember that those who run this website also have the right not to broadcast that opinion - especially if it is personally abusive. In fact they have that RESPONSIBILITY. To those people that think that these reviews are OK because they generate interest in the shows - you are half right. They certainly do generate interest, however I am aware of two people so reviewed who have chucked theatre because it has knocked their confidence so much. Unfortunately those most affected by this are probably people who swallow deeply before going on stage and do their best despite some self doubt. Sad to think that this probably gives our "friend" some satisfaction. Personally abusing people is NOT an acceptable way to generate interest in a show. Tony - you are not quite right. Opinion expressed with malicious intent IS slander - as a restaurant blogger found to their expense in Sydney last year. I have no doubt that a particular reviewers past comment would fall in that category. Unlikely to result in a financial windfall but if legal action proceeds, then THE IDENTITY OF THIS PERSON WOULD HAVE TO BE REVEALED BY THE WEBSITE HOST - so Malcolm, if you proceed, I will kick in $100 to your costs and would expect there might be a few others happy to contribute. Shame when you think the whole thing could be sorted by a simple email from the moderator of this site to our "friend" informing them that any personal abuse in reviews will not be hosted on their site so find another way to express their views.

The most important topic is: which chick in the play was most shaggable?

Proof of "malicious intent" is incredibly difficult. I do not know the case of which you speak but more often than not such an attempt will fail. I have reread the reviews and still do not feel that what either sting or the other review say is personal abuse. It is not aimed at me but I can assure you over the years I have had worse reviews sometimes in the daily papers. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Ok a disclaimer before I start. This is my first ever review so be nice to me! I am not associated with any MPAC performances past or present. I do however know 3 people in the lead cast. This is my opinion only. I do not claim that I could do better than those on stage. I am stating as an audience member. I will be typing in internet grammar not correct letter type formal grammar so don’t bag me out. I forgot to bring the programme with me so I hope that I get actors names correct. Ok that being said – here goes! I saw the performance of Wizard of Oz last night (Thursday 25 Jan 08). I came away feeling uplifted, excited and couldn’t sleep for ages on returning home (thank you! I had to get up at 5am for work). I think this is proof that overall it was a fantastic show. Dorothy was played by Ali Hill (one of the performers I know so Ill try my hardest to be unbias). Ali captured the innocence and frightened form of Dorothy shadowing the performance by the original Judy Garland. Yes I believe she did take her inspiration from the movie – but hey ‘why fix it if it ain’t broke”! My opinion is that the professionals did it that way for a reason. It is because of them that Wiz of Oz is now famous so if you can carry off the same personality and characterisation as they did, you are on the right track. Ali’s voice is so pure and crisp and really is her god given talent. She looked that part, she sounded the part and she played the part. I am so proud to know you. Best Bit: Her accent. It blew me away with accuracy. Scarecrow (Kim Goldeman). His singing voice was right on the mark. The lack of control in his legs (and therefore 100% control!) delighted both me and the children around me. I was disappointed that most of his face was covered by the hat/straw. I’m sure his facial expressions would’ve been equally as impressive as his body language. His interaction with Dorothy was very loving and convincing. There were two little boys infront of me that – at interval – were saying Scarecrow was their favourite. Enough said! Best Bit: Flexibility in his legs. Were you made of straw??? Tinman (Jessie Angus). I have never seen Jessie perform before but I was aware of his reputation before seeing the show last night. Therefore I think I may have viewed his performance more critical than the others – for this I apologise. I had also read the reviews regarding his costume, so was waiting to see that. I think if I hadn’t read the negative reviews regarding the tinmans costume I would’ve been quite ok with it. I cannot find anything bad in Jessies performance. He was obviously a stable/anchor point on stage. This being the person that may not necessarily be the star of the show but is the glue that keeps the show rolling for the audience. Best Bit: His opening scene as tinman. You gave the character the familiarity I was craving. Lion (Darren Bilston DAZZAB!). I only know Dazza through his posts on this forum (and will not change my review just because I know he will read it) and his reputation. Darren was my favourite out of the three males. His portrayal of the Lion made me cry with laughter. His ‘Ruummff Rummmff’ gave me an insane giggle each time. The lion was another character that was in line with the movie version. And for this I thank you. Your interaction with Dorothy was the kindest and most caring out of the three – however this may be due to the character you were playing. Your singing voice could not be faulted. It is unusual in amateur shows for an actor to be able to speak and sing in the same accent. You pulled this off with complete accuracy. Yes your costume did make you look like a man in a lions outfit – exactly the whole point of the story line. King of the Forest is usually the part in the movie that I fastfwd. Because I couldn’t fastfwd you last night I had to watch it – and THANK GOODNESS for that! It was amazing. One of the top 3 songs of the night. My only correction would be to make your moves slightly larger or more pronounced – due to the fact your costume was obviously so large, maybe some of your more subtle movements were lost. Best Bit: every time you Rummffed Wicked Witch (Carole Dhu). (I have worked with Carole before – will try to be unbias). This is the first time I have seen Carole on stage that I didn’t recognise her instantly CONGRATS costuming. I agree with above posts that her character was more funny than scary (I used to be petrified of the witch!) but as also mentioned in above posts this would’ve been fault in the script not Caroles performance. The role of the wicked witch is made for Carole. She looks exactly the part – hrmmm I don’t know if that is a compliment! Sorry Carole! I preferred her performance as Miss Gultch – she made me angry taking Toto away. Like always Carole pulled off her part with such professionalism. I am disappointed in the way she died. I’m Melting…MELTING….hello??? I think freezing her character was a bad choice by the director. When you have such convincing effects the whole way through the show why in the world did the director decide to have her freeze at the end. Caroles frame is small enough that if she had slid to the ground she would’ve been lost under her cloak and therefore would’ve looked ‘melted’. This really made the show hit an anticlimax for me. Broke the magic. Also the bucket of water thrown on her had no water in it??? So for the children that didn’t know the story – they didn’t know what had happened. I understand the danger of water on stage but surely ½ a litre of water (*cough Singin in the Rain cough*) wouldn’t have caused harm and then be mopped up by a Winkie/Winkie Hat. OR even have Dorothy throw the water (non existence) from downstage facing back toward the witch then you wouldn’t need water at all. I don’t know the answer – but I do know that what was done, didn’t work. Best Bit: Riding around and around as Miss Gultch. Glinda (Karen Godfrey). Glinda is my least favourite character IN THE MOVIE. So Im glad Karen did not play the role as per the movie. I agree with an above post that she mustve taken her inspiration from Glinda in ‘Wicked’. Lovely voice. Good performance. Best Bit: I want that crown! Uncle Henry (Sorry I do not know actors name). Very good portrayal of a character I totally forgot existed! Your interaction with the audience was very welcomed by them. I loved you getting in the face of Miss Gultch. And you played the role of the guard without any fault. Best Bit: “Can’t you read the sign” – but then again this bit always makes me laugh in the movie too…I was an easy audience member! Wizard (Lawrence _____). It is obvious that Lawrence is a very very talented actor. He played the role of the Wizard beautifully. However – he shouldve been aged more. He looked younger than the three male leads. Surely the people/person doing the casting could’ve found an older man to play this role? There is always an abundance of (eekkk im going to get in trouble) very mature men in theatre. But they didn’t – so back to Lawrence. He was both charming and mysterious – not to mention extremely good looking. He gave off warmth and had charisma that all actors wish they were born with. Congratulations on a captivating performance. Best Bit: The intensity in your stare out at the audience spellbinding. Winkies. I disliked the Winkies. I thought it dropped the level of the show and reminded us that it was an amateur show. But is there anything wrong with that? Of course not. Some people just need a little more guidance and im sure under the right direction that lead winkie would flourish – stick with it, you have great comic timing. HOWEVER on saying this – it seemed that the Winkies were LOVED by the rest of the audience. They received the most laughter and applause through the show. I am one person with one view. The laughter and applause should be your reward – not the review of one person. Best Bit: The lead winkies legs swaying sidways The monkey Niko – I will not review as this character as Ben is like a baby brother to me. Other than…yet again I was astounded by your agility and flexibility on stage. You are a pure star. Other points: - I wish we had seen Toto a little more…so did the children around me. I understand the difficulty of this – but I believe it could’ve been achieved a few more times. - Im am 100% a green eyed monster when it comes to the MPAC sets. Grrrr amateur theatre shouldn’t have that much cash to play with…hehehehe I say this in jest and totally jealousy. - I cannot comment on the orchestra as I have zero experience in this field. I did notice how your timing on sound effect was perfect. - I think some of the little bits and pieces worked like the Dragonflys…but some didn’t…the white rabbit? (buoy on a stick) If you can have a roof fly from the house – surely you can buy a toy rabbit? A few of the little bits like this did distract from the actors BUT the kids loved it – so no complaints from me – it just would’ve annoyed me had I been on stage. - The Munchkins were great – kudos to the little boy with the flowers on his shoes…you were exactly munchkin-like. - I make no judgement on the tech side - again i have zero experience in this field. Usual mic probs - which were dealt with quickly and efficiently. Lights although maybe a little boring at times - worked well. All in all…a fantastic night out for $25. Congrats to MPAC for yet another amazing community performance. xxx

So a Finley winner, then?

"Disclaimer This website contains many types of public forums where participants are encouraged to publish their own information. The ITA is not responsible for the information provided or the views expressed, nor does it necessarily endorse the information or views by providing public forums where people may publish this information. It is your personal responsibility to independently confirm the details you find on this website. Comments posted in the various forums are wholly the responsibility of the person posting the information. If you post libelous comments you may be sued. If you cause to be published material you are not authorised to publish (e.g. infringement of copyright) you may be subject to court action. If you cause to be published material that is illegal (e.g. child pornography), you may be prosecuted. Participants in message board discussions are asked to respect this free community service and each other. If you believe illegal, unauthorised or defamatory information has been published on this site, please report this via the feedback form." If you believe something posted is defamatory, contact Grant and let him know exactly what you think qualifies and what you want removed. I personally feel that this Sting individual should take a step back and ask themselves why they feel it necessary to be "mean" and "oh so honest"? I have no problem with reviews that offer constructive criticism, but all Sting offers is negativity. I would hope all those reading the reviews written by this person will see them for what they really are. And Sting, I hope you were not suggesting that Mr Pratt defamed you with his comments regarding your intellect? To my knowledge, you can't defame an anonymous person. Melissa Merchant

Hi all, I had to come watch the show after all these posts! Needed to see for myself what all the hype was over. All in all for an amateur performance I found it to be quite entertaining. I don't feel the need to go into the various glitches in the show as everyone already seems to have pointed them out. In my personal opinion, they were very minor in contrast to the fun the audience had watching the show. I loved that the leads stayed true to the movie. I walked in to the theatre with a clear mind of all the characters, and this was mirrored back to me. I would have felt distant from them had they been significantly changed. I am amazed at all the local talent. I am from over east for a holiday and didnt really have many expectations of this show walking in.... but the talent blew me away. I simply want to say well done to all cast members for all your hard work. Despite what some reviewers are trying to imply... the audience have an absolute ball - and thats what theatre is all about isn't it?

Well i have sat here for the last few days, and watched this forum with great interest. and further more, iam not afraid to say who iam my name is Heather I thank those who have given us in the show, a review, and glad that those of you enjoyed it. We are on our last 3 shows, and I can say I feel proud to be a part of such a wonderful cast, it has given us in the local area a chance to do what we love and that is to perform. No we are not professional ( in the fact we dont get paid), but we are professional in the way we attack our performances, love it or hate, ( each to their own ), we are having a ball, and glad we can bring a bit of fun and laughter and entertainment and forget where you are for a short while. to the cast of Wizard of Oz, and all the crew, thanks for a great exp, and its been great meeting you all, LETS GO GET THEM FELLAS, CHOOKAS and hope to work with you again in the future

Thanks to Sean and others that have raised concerns. The subject of moderation and censorship is one that is perhaps too frequently re-visited on a site intended to provide a forum for discussion and debate. I confess I'm less concerned by the occasional dubious post than I am by the eagerness with which some leap to totalitarian tools to silence views they don't like. I do not accept that "Sting's" posts constitute defamation, however as indicated in the site disclaimer and restated by Melissa (thanks!) I will act as soon as practical on specific complaints to remove content. I have done so in response to an email from Malcolm Pratt. I have a healthy, well-informed disregard for simple solutions. Attempts at stifling discussion often serve to fan the flames of discord. Far better to either keep your cool and engage the person in careful debate or simply ignore them altogether and not feed the troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll Reading the entire worthless post from Sting and some of the bickering responses was utterly unedifying, but I can honestly say that I took genuine delight in reading TheatreLover's reasoned response, Craigo's original review and Skybe's comment in their entirety. Bravo! I'm afraid you're quite misguided if you think that, when the opprobrium of this community fails to dissuade negative posters, a cautionary email from me is going to have any impact whatsoever. Finally, it's impractical, if not impossible, to ban anyone from using the website. Regards Grant

Well I am sorry but I suspect that you have lost me as a member. Certainly for a while possibly forever. I do not approve of censorship and the threats of tiny minded people to resort to law for the sake of their own egos should not be succumbed to. Some of you probably think my departure is no great loss. Well to those people I simply bid farewell. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Did I miss something? How does a controversy over a review mean you're going? :jawdrop: Don't go! :( Puppets in Melbourne Sticky Apple Legs

If I keep silent then it might seem unimportant that you're slipping away here Tony. That's not the case. You're amongst the number of well thought out comments that frequently appear in these threads. So I simply have to side with Na and request that we can continue to enjoy your experience. Don't go! :sad:

 

 

... dance lightly my friend, but carry a big stick...

Luke

I have been doing a bit of searching on the subject of defamation as it is defined in law. Lot's of interesting stuff out there but I am not a lawyer. I found the following website absolutely fascinating, it talks about reviewers, theatre and otherwise. http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile17.htm That said I don't recall anything in Sting's unpleasant review that might be defined as defamatory (my opinion). May I humbly suggest that Grant ask someone who is a lawyer be asked for their "I won't hold you to this but do you think it is..." opinion? Just a thought...you've probably already had! The issue of censorship is another hot potatoe ... if the review is defamatory then yes, it should be removed, if not, well... I'll be interested to note the progress of Mr Pratt's law suit. How will Sting be served with papers if he/she is anonymous?? The mind boggles... "Life is too short to stuff a mushroom"

Thanks Rapunzel. We have been through this before and Grant IS following the advice of lawyers. Also a reminder. Grant is a volunteer. Ki

I spit chips at your hot potato!

You've been stung!

Went to the show again last night - still a belter of a show second time around and still a credit to all involved. Comments taken on board Grant, Tony et al. Good points. Just a bit frustrating to see people with so much to offer having to put up with comments from those with so little - but it reminds me of a story that might be worth considering. I was just out of high school, doing a vacation job and sitting under a tree on lunch break when a girl from a year below me came up and asked to hang around for an hour or two. This was strange because this particular girl was far from a friend of mine, and in fact was quite a spiteful and viscious person at times, and generally avoided because of it. Still, she sat. She was a bit shaken and explained that she and her younger sister had to get out of the house because her dad had come home unexpectedly. He had been abusing her for some years and when he had started to look like starting the same with her younger sister she had "spilled the beans" to her mother to stop her sister also being affected. Pretty brave,I thought. Talking to her, I realized that she expected that I should already know this, because in her eyes, the effect on her was so obvious that everyone should have been able to see that something was wrong - but no-one did anything. I remember thinking that she probably had every right to feel angry with the world and that the least I could do was to put up with it and understand. Of course, the sad truth is that victims tend to victimize and create more victims. The other truth is that people who are well balanced and happy don't feel the need to be cruel and vindictive. Perhaps we are all just part of a particular reviewers "therapy" and should consider that he/she is just not a very happy person. Perhaps he/she needs to look to reviewing his/herself, make some changes to the scenery, direction, sound and lighting and start again. Most of the time when people don't seem sympathetic to your plight or feelings, its because they dont know. ps if I didn't have the flu, I would go again to Wizard of Oz today - just to watch Carole stretch her dying scene right through to the bows!! Well done to all.

I hope my post was clear that I honestly do not believe that the posts concerned constitute libel. Needlessly harsh and negative comment in search of attention, toilet graffiti-like but hardly the stuff of libel. However, when I receive an accusation of libel the only responsible course of action left open to me in the current legal climate is to act as soon as practical on the complaint. Whatever my own opinions, the legal advice I have from four independent sources is that failure to act on complaints means that I, the ITA committee, the web hosts.... may be held accountable for someone else's comments as we have continued to publish them after someone has informed us that they regard them as libelous. Whatever the outcome, it would be irresponsible for me to drag the organisation and its office-bearers into a law suit that would expose all and sundry to stress and risk. Tony, I sincerely hope you'll take some time to consider the small space between the proverbial rock and hard place that I find myself in and will continue to participate. Cheers Grant

I'll send this as a Feedback too but I'm wondering about the timing of posts appearing here? When I typed and posted my comment above about obtaining legal advice the message from Grant was not showing on the forum...and of course he talks about having obtained advice, so now I look like more of an idiot than usual! Bound to be something technical. Ah well. The ugly question of costs crossed my mind too. I'm stony broke but if came down to it I could unearth some dollars to help. I keep forgetting you are a volunteer Grant, sorry. There must be times you almost regret starting the site. So sad that you have "been through this before" as Ki says and that it has come up again. So sad that sting hides behinds anonymity and obviously has more than one problem. Interesting perspective from Sean above too. Rapunzel "Life is too short to stuff a mushroom"

Grant I do appreciate your position, that does not mean that I feel any less angry that someones ego and the threat of legal opinion allows them to have a post censored in this way. Does the sheer fact that someone believes they have been libelled now mean they can win a case for libel? I would seriously hope not. I would like to stress that I am not angry with you personally but with the situation. Anyone who has read my posts over the close to two years I have been a member here will realise just how passionate I am about free speech and civil liberties. When we allow (as a community) censorship of opinion to take place once it can happen again. I felt differently about the Black Box debate because frankly most of those posts were ridiculous and repetetive. Perhaps the next problem will arise when someone believes that say "The Vagina Monologues" or "Kafka's Dick" or "Deep Throat - The Musical" must not be advertised on this thread because of their title or subject matter. "After all, we have minor's on this site." To Sting: You're an idiot, that is soley my opinion. I don't for one minute beleive that you are posting all the little inane one liners that are popping up and therein lies your problem. You are anonymous and anyone can use your byline. Do you really feel the way you write? If so I am sorry for you. I suspect you actually feel the way you do about The Wizard. I hate it myself along with Little Shop and now Chicage because it is impossible to do anything truly original with any of them because the audience will say "It's not like the film". So don't go and see it. I am not criticising your review and I certainly defend your right to review what you want and say what you want but doing what you are is unwise. I suspect that many people have actually worked out who you are and that your anonymity may have harmed you more than identifying yourself from the start may have done. Mr Pratt (and this is the bit that may get this post censored) I hope that you will at some time recover your temper and your sense of humour. You cannot go through life threatening to sue everyone who says something about you or your endeavours that you don't like. I can now only rely on my memory but while stings post was unpleasant it was not in my opinion libellous and what you have done in my opinion is schoolyard bullying. Any way Grant. I've had my say and I may stay as a member of the site and may not. I will see if I get my temper back. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

seriously, a law suit??? this can't be for real because reading the reviews etc. it's just some guy/girl being rude not defaming anyone! look when it comes down to it this site is a fun and useful place to see what's going on and who's doing what, surely a mess like this could be helped by just ignoring the troll... right? hang on? did i just add to the problem!

I'm all for freedom of speech and all that, but I think the thing to remember is that I don't think it was so much the opinion that has been censored as the rude malicious way it was delivered. The whole point of this site is to review and give constructive criticism. Sting did not do this. I personally think a law suit is too far, and I don't think it will succeed (however if it does, you sure won't see me complaining about it). But Grant's decision in removing the malicious material Sting posted is a wise decision. If I were to see opinions like Stings that were delivered in a less obviously malicious way censored, THEN I would be concerned about freedom of speech and the like. But as it is, no problem.

I'm not concerned about censorship, unless it is censoring tactful comments? That's like saying I'm a vegetarian, but don't care that I eat meat. The issue here is not the tactfulness of the post, but the fact that that lack of tactfulness was used as an excuse to moderate down the post. The issue is the ease of which people can censor other people's opinions based on their like/dislike of the content. I have moderated down a number of posts over the years, but because they were either in really poor taste (ie. a comment on the Vagina's Monologues which was rather vulgar and had nothing to do with the performance... you get my meaning), or was more to do with spam than with theatre. I have moderated much fewer posts up, for their level of insight, interesting content, or downright important issues. But if I think a post is tactless, I ignore it. Freedom of speech isn't about censorship. It's about realising that you can choose to read/hear/watch certain things. I don't agree or disagree with Sting's comments. But for those of you who didn't like the post: choose not to read it, not to come back to this site, or to read other threads not related to this one. Puppets in Melbourne Sticky Apple Legs

I respectfully disagree... I don't think its a case of just being tactless, I think its a case of deliberate malicious intent. THAT is what I agree with being censored. We obviously disagree on this topic, but thats the great thing about this sight - we all have different opinions... but you and me aren't gonna start personally attacking each other over it. Just my 2 cents.

But that's exactly my point: just because it's malicious doesn't give people the right to censor it. I don't agree with racist propaganda and certainly don't want to see it anywhere; but censoring it just hides the issues and doesn't resolve the core problems. Most propaganda exists not because of the ideas behind it, but because the people behind it do not feel as though they're being listened to: and try to shove their ideas in our faces. In this case the core issue is one person's ideas of how a review should be written. The answer: teaching other people to better respect each other's opinions, as well as how to tactfully criticise a show. Has censoring the post done anything to do that? No, in fact, it's just encouraged more nonsense about law suits, defamation, and kept the focus on 'Sting', rather than on the idea of fostering better communication between the people involved. Again, it's about choosing whether or not to take part in the debate. But yes... let's agree to disagree. And now I shall practice what I preach and leave you all to enjoy the rest of the thread to yourselves. Puppets in Melbourne Sticky Apple Legs

Hi Everyone, Wow, I promised myself I would not read these threads until Wizard Of OZ was done and dusted. As you may have gathered I was apart of the cast and had an excellent time with them all. Thank you to everyone who came and saw the show. I have read quite a lot of mixed comments about the show and I am happy that we have got such a mixed reaction from you all. It is a shame that there has been a lot of talk on here with no relivance to the show, and it seems to have taken away from it a bit, however I do know a few people who came to see it because of some of these reviews. Acting on stage and putting yourself out there you are bound to get negative and postive things said about you, and a lot of the time these negative things can no longer become about the performance but about the performer personally themselves. Unfortunatley we have to expect it no matter how unprofessional it can seem. I take all comments on board good and bad, it no longer effects or offends me but I try to get as much out of them as possible to make my next performance that bit better. I know there has been some talk about the youth of the Wizard, and the truth is I did have a choice with this role. I took it for the challenge and to push some boundaries. I won't justify it as I had fun doing it. As for the cast probably the best I have ever done a show with, and I am not talking about the stage work, but the hard work and dedication really showed from you all. I will not jump up and defend you from negative comments on here but to me, they could not have chosen a better cast. Once again thanks to everyone who has reviewed the show for your good and or bad feed back. And hope you are all there at the next show what ever that may be.

I hope to produce another Sting...! sorry lorry, don't worry

Like Lawrence (hey babe luv ya work!!) I have refrained from reading these boards during the run of the show, but heard all the fuss backstage! I'd just like to say that this was my first show at MPAC and I had an absolute BALL!! The entire cast and crew became like a second family to me, and I'm really gonna miss spending three nights a week with you all!! And to remind everyone - we are normal people like you, most of us have "lives" outside theatre, family, friends, jobs....but we give up our time and energy to do something like this because we LOVE it....and we love entertaining people. There was not an audience this entire run that did not clap loudly whenever Dorothy and her new pals were "off to see the Wizard", and the cast was ALWAYS rewarded with rapturous applause at the end. So for those few of you who did not enjoy the show, you have my deepest sympathy. Constructive criticism and helpful suggestions are great, but please do not personally attack these people for doing what they love! Anyhoo - looking forward to the next show!! Shel xxx

I went away for 8 days and this is what I see when I return? Frankly, I'm horrified at this and other recent postings. If only (and I know it's against the site's principles etc.) we could insist that only logged in and identifiable people could post. I know I have written rather uncomfortable and even downright nasty stuff through my years as a member. There are some things I have said that I am not proud of now. However, I've never hidden myself from the retribution, and you know what? I don't get a lot, I suspect for this reason. This site has the potential to be something wonderful. It's a shame a bunch of human beings got involved. I understand Grant's position entirely, and knowing what I do of him, I suspect it is not something he is particularly happy to do (deleting posts) at any time. However, sometimes we have wider responsibilities. Some people need to chill, some people need to get out of the reviewing business or grow some balls and post under their real name, some people just need to but out. (prob me included...) People- Get a life, get a sense of humour, and get some perspective. you'd think we're dealing with world hunger or poverty in the third world with the way most of you take yourselves so seriously. There's a reason it's called a 'play', or why you 'play' music... How about we get back to the show now (btw, I hate WOZ, and prob couldn't be paid to go...sorry! but congrats to all who I am sure busted their guts doing their best. Don't allow an anonymous guttersnipe to take that away from you) Nev It's the simple things stupid...

Oh, look, Neville the concrete Aboriginal is back. You've been STUNG! OK, shall I say sorry now on February 13 in an act of complete tokenism?

Can I clarify that I was not referring to the individual posting immediately before mine, but rather generally around the direction much of this entire forum was heading. sorry for the lack of clarity in my initial post. nev It's the simple things stupid...

boring It's the simple things stupid...

Hey Sting You of all people should know the bees die once they've stung something or someone........so why the hell are you still going. You should have been dead a long time ago. Plus i have 2 words for you.......TACTLESS & GUTLESS! No one cares for you pitiful words of so called wisdom. BUZZ OFF!

Suck my cock Neville

This play was shit. You can't polish a turd.

I'm sorry for all the cruel and nasty things I have said. Please ignore me - I'm not worth listening to. To everyone I've offended, my apologies. I have nothing better to do than abuse people and the privilege of an open forum. I'm ashamed of myself and I need treatment. My catchphrase is a joke and I am desperately ashamed of it.

"ouch"

I suspect that someone, other than the original 'Sting', is now posting using that name. Either way: this is no longer interesting. It's simply being annoying for the sake of being annoying. Even if you (either in the singular sense or the plural) don't care, the continuing posting of nonsensical comments will only continue to be moderated down - proof of the pudding that no one likes insensitive speech, no matter how 'free' it is. Don't you all have more interesting things to do? I know I do. Puppets in Melbourne Sticky Apple Legs

That this thread has been reduced to this.... On one hand it looks like it will become a requirement that someone is a registered user to make any posts or reviews - if only to prevent silly and un needed posts like those on this thread. But on the other hand - with the reactions of some to negative reviews, it makes it hard for people to feel confident of reviewing a show truthfully or even expressing their opinion on a subject without being hounded and abused! How are any of you any better than the person you are attacking, if you have to resort to these measures to prove your point? WWS!!

Hi Meercat I agree with you that anyone and everyone is entitled to their opinion on this site. The problem doesnt underly with people giving their opinions, the problem is the way they have gone about doing it. Its becoming a joke now and its disprupting the site altogether. This website i believe is for people to give the opinions and thoughts "good and bad" of shows in the metropolitan area. And many people have done that as they are entitled. However, some people have gone a little too far past the boundary of constructive criticism. I can assure you i have read a lot of reveiws that werent that nice to read but the bad was taken away with good intention to work on that area gladly. Its when a reviewer continues to deliberately be stupid and isnt really caring so much about the show anymore and just wants to see how much he can rile people, thats when it hits the fair point of moderation. Hope you understand my point and dont assume the most of us here have sour grapes... please accept thats not the case.... Regards Theatre Lover's Lover

On your point Meercat - why post a review at all? You would think that people would review a show to give an HONEST opinion of the show which others can use as a guide in deciding whether to go along to the show, or to provide constructive and HONEST feedback to the director, cast and crew which will help them to improve the way they do things. Some excellent reviews have been posted on this thread which were complementary and critical - a good review usually is. When reviews are posted PURELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFENDING AND DENIGRATING PEOPLE, they are not honest and they are not reviews. WIth that in mind, riddle me this riddle. Our friend Sting professes to be a regular theatre goer, and a performer who has never performed in Mandurah, and a person who - he/she says hates theatre from the southwest, why does he/she ONLY EVER REVIEW SHOWS FROM MANDURAH AND PINJARRA? Sounds like and axe to grind and unlikely to produce and honest review. It does no-one any good to have posts like that on this site, especially not Sting. And it is the right of the host to decide not to include it - that is not censorship in any way shape or form. If this person wants to have their own site and put their own reviews on - no one is stopping them. If someone did try to stop them, that would certainly be censorship, but they do not have some divine right to editorial on this site. If they push the boundaries and act contrary to the aims and expectations of the hosts, then their comments should be removed with no apology. Any review that is personally abusive - for example telling people to get out of theatre because they are rubbish - should be removed. Both this persons reviews have done exactly that. I wonder if the Walter Plunge comment of 30/1 adds greatly to the value of the site?