Talk:Restoration spectacular

Untitled

Congratulations. If you want any pictures, I've added some to Augustan drama that might be useful. (I also uncovered a very interesting bit of evidence that suggests a whole story. Rich's Covent Garden opens in 1732, and its first play is The Way of the World. Hogarth does a print satirizing Cibber, Wilks, etc. in their attempt to out-do Rich, in A Just View of the Modern Stage, and the toilet paper being used in that rehearsal is the script of The Way of the World. A mini-sermon suggesting that the Drury Lane folks are so obsessed with beating Rich that they've forgotten what Rich hasn't -- to put on real plays when you can and trash when you can't? The other plays being used for toilet paper are probably references to other Lincoln's Inn Fields/Covent Garden performances, too. While the patent theaters observed the patent system, all of those plays would "belong" to somebody, and this belonging (e.g. Hamlet belonging to Duke's, then onward to Drury Lane), and perhaps there is a suggestion there, too?) Geogre 04:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Disregard conspiracy theory

It's impossible. They're a decade apart. Geogre 22:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Quodlibet

The numbers of performers used, mainly dancers, is staggering, ...

How much? A ballpark figure is fine, too. I have no idea what numbers would be considered normal for such a performance.

Its twelve-foot-high working fountain and six dancing real live monkeys have become notorious in theatre history.

I can't help but think some of these Restoration folks would've made a smash in Vegas. JRM · Talk 17:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, JRM. The thing is, I don't really know any more about the actual performances than what I say, which is usually what I see from the stage directions. My secondary sources are just that vague: they say "large numbers". Milhous: "The Dorset Garden spectacular is really defined by the number of sets required and their elaborateness; the number of people called for, both performers and support personnel; the amount of money invested; and the length of time needed to prepare such a show." Then she goes on to discuss the sets, the money, and the rehearsal time; but she never does get any more specific about the number of people. She doesn't commit herself even to a ballpark figure, she says "many" and changes the subject. Hume is the same, even though both of them are generally pretty willing to share speculations and guesswork.

I do get a sense of numbers from the stage directions, but I guess it would be original research to share it. Look at the first scene I quote in the context: no numbers are specified for the cupids and cyclops, and I assume the lack of them is itself a reference to a mass effect. Several little cupids flying round each pillar..? Very young actors, perhaps children. Say 15 little cupids, 6 bigger cupids on the pillars, 6 cyclops, all of them professional-level dancers. And then "vast numbers" of townspeople in the next scene. Hmmmm. If it was possible to get the gold paint off the cupids in a hurry for the next scene, and have a lot of smooth quick changes of clothes between scenes throughout, maybe 30-35 highly skilled dancers and another 20 extras would do for the whole performance. Besides the salaried 6 or 7 actual actors of the main parts (who didn't sing) plus some trained solo singers, like Vulcan. I was hoping the quotes would give the reader a general impression of a lot of people. Maybe that'll come across better if I quote more stage directions, and they're fun anyway, IMO. The over the top-ness of the stage directions was the big reason I wrote the page. When you say "normal", do you mean in ordinary legit comedy and tragedy? That I can easily estimate, and I wouldn't call it any kind of research, because anybody could who has read a few of the plays. Maybe 10—12 real actors and 3—4 walk-on parts, and in the most elaborate heroic plays a few more extras for battle scenes. But is that useful to know? Hmm. OK, I've put in something vague, see what you think. You reckon the dancing monkeys are Vegas, you should see what Geogre's impresarios get up to in the 18th century! Bishonen | talk 22:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It may be vague, but it meets the basic demand of explaining why "staggering" was used, which is a rather POV evaluation if you have no context. The new edit supplies the context, so the objection vanishes. (Of course we're not required to make up or extrapolate actual numbers in the article, but then we should explain why we can't give them.)

Also, that's the only thing that struck me reading through the entire article, so that should mean something. (Probably that featured articles are generally pretty good—gee!)

"Dragons, whirlwinds, thunder, ocean waves, and even actual elephants were on stage." I see what you mean. Interesting how the taste for bombastic stages remains pretty much constant in time: from the naval battles staged in the Colosseum all the way to contemporary times. JRM · Talk 08:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this sentence correct? "The public stage ban 1642–1660 imposed by the Puritan regime represents a long and sharp break in dramatic tradition, but was still never completely successful in suppressing the ideologically hateful make-believe of play-acting." Is "ideologically hateful" what is really meant here? --Xyzzyplugh 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shyster Sons

From the section titled 1690's - Opera. "While the monopoly United Company's takings were being bled off by Davenant's shyster sons"

That's hardly a NPOV term. Care to fix it?

--Capnned 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a descriptive term for the way they acted. I've added an inline reference. Bishonen | talk 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Bravo

This is a very enjoyable article with plenty of encyclopedia-appropriate humour. House of Scandal 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

4 years on

Whilst i don't really know anything about this subject there are areas in the general critera that to me are of concern:

• there are not enough citations, some paragraphs are wholly without sources

• refs 11, 12 and 13. Reference 11 does not appear to be a proper reference, there is no text reference and it appears to be based on digrams, although which ones are unclear. Ref 12 does not seem to make sense, Ref 13 is shown as a deadlink.

• Maybe some more information on possible revivals as a separate, if small, section to balance things.

Could someone check to see if i haven't missed anything? Simply south (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could you identify passages which you particularly feel are likely to be challenged?
• The link in #13 was easily updated. I am not sure what you mean about #12 not making sense, although I don't have access to the actual journal article mentioned. #11 appears to be more a way of directing readers to an external resource than a reference.
• If you feel the article is not comprehensive in this sense, it would be useful to list some sources that support the sort of material you would like to see added. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen and Giano, who wrote this, are still very much with us; you should probably notify them of this if you haven't already. – iridescent 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Where

• Theatrical things were trade secrets etc, quotes from Samuel Pepys diary and about the Duke's Company, multiple quotes through the Changeable scenery section, how more grand and expensive the Dorset garden plays were and where they were located. Also the last 2 paragraphs. Especially examples of revivals that have tried to happen. For ref 12, it would be good if there were page numbers showing where which particular information was said. If 11 could point out the specific models it is referring to othterwise this could be considered (and does to me otherwise) as WP:OR. Simply south (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For ref #11, the 24 pages indicated may cover the span of the paragraph above. That doesn't seem unreasonable if the paragraph is a brief summary of a much more detailed journal article. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Later

I'm busy IRL. I'll respond in a day or a few. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC).

Featured article concerns

This article is no longer meeting the Featured article criteria in a couple of areas. The overall lack of citations is the largest issue. There are sources listed that have not been used for the notes section. Most of the image files need further information and correct license tags. MOS:Images is also a problem. Brad (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this a personal opinion piece? The style is like an op-ed page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenGreenPond (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unneutral language

This article uses very flowery language at times, I'm suprised this is still a featured article. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ugly Ketchup: can you provide specific examples? Particularly ones that differ from the FA version? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Phrases like "hit the London public stage" and "enthralling audiences" and "never ashamed" and "unprecedented numbers" and "dazzled and delighted" all sound inappropriately casual or breathless for an encyclopedia, more like an over-enthusiastic reviewer in a newspaper column. -- Beland (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Given these problems, this article should probably go to WP:FAR, unless someone wants to take a stab at cleaning it up. -- Beland (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

FTR, major contributors: User:Bishonen, User:Geogre, User:Bunchofgrapes. -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"neutral" is misused here. In Wikipedia it means neutral between rival interpretations, and I think it is neutral. It's talking about special theatrical effects that ALL RS say were indeed awesome for audiences, so they are appropriate for the topic. Rjensen (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like some of this has been dealt with since, but skimming the article there are still some florid idioms ("prying loose" an actor, a play "stuffed" with special effects), inappropriate statements of "clearly" and "of course", and lines like How were such effects produced, and how did they look? The crocodile etc. obviously used the floor trap... are inappropriately WP:RHETORICAL. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)