Wednesday, March 01, 2006

The Ken & Nicole Incredible Shrinking Show


This is the ad appearing currently in the New York Times, playing it safe and saying nothing. This was obviously designed when they didn't have a clue what the finished product would be.
I would think Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey would be more appropriate, particularly since Soliel presents a show in every major city on the planet.

Posted by Buckles at 3/01/2006 02:23:00 PM

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not only breaking glass, breaking hearts as well. It Shattering alright. This looks like an H G Wells ad for war of the worlds.

01 March, 2006 15:39
Anonymous said...

How much money did they say they spent on promotion? The public is not the only ones who got gyped. What are these people thinking?

01 March, 2006 15:46
B.E.Trumble said...

The vexing thing about the mixed reviews to date for the Blue Unit isn't the lack of a ring so much as it's the lack of a performance. Wonderful though they may be, I'm getting tired of reading about those house cats. Can house cats carry a show in the Meadowlands when you're watching the act on a video screen? I'd like to think that if the show itself was outstanding we wouldn't care about the rings. It's like not missing street parades. I mean what's a 62' oval on the floor? It's a two ring show without curbs. I'd love to see a great two ring show. What fails to interest me much is a mediocre show with or without rings. Metro New York may be the acid test. Big crowds and rave reviews and Nicole Feld is the next great circus genius. Poor reviews, poor attendance and this is one of those things that didn't work out.

01 March, 2006 15:51
Anonymous said...

Thank you Buckles for posting the clip of the Ringling Show when your herd stormed into Greatest Show on Earth. I showed it to my crew chief who probably took his kids to the Ken and Nicole show circus because of my unbelievable stories about the circus, after looking at what I had on my computer he said that’s not at all what we saw. Your clip helped me to convey my enthusiasm for what was, unfortunately many people who see RBBB now think that what they see is what has always been. Thank you Buckles for setting the record straight.

01 March, 2006 20:21
Pat Cashin said...

A Shrine producer that I work with explained to me that a circus poster HAS to have clowns and/or elephants or else:

1) Adults who don't have time to really look at it don't know that it's a circus poster.

2) Kids who can't yet read it don't know that it's a circus poster.

3) Those who can't read English don't know that it's a circus poster.

Coupled with the fact that this ad campaign tells me that the Greatest Show on Earth is a little, blue Jai-Alai ball that breaks glass means that it really, essentially appeals to no one.

Whatever.

I'm tired of the Ken & Nicole disaster. Let's talk about the new Cole show.

~P

02 March, 2006 00:04
Pat Cashin said...

Am I alone in thinking that this MIGHT have been a good ad campaign for NY in, oh say 1977 !?!

Where is the "punk" or "in your face" point of this going to get you in a post-9/11 NYC?

Nowhere.

02 March, 2006 00:10
Anonymous said...

Paying for nothing is a waste of money no matter the price.

03 March, 2006 08:06
Anonymous said...

The last couple times that I'll gone to a RBBB show my feeling has been that it's a pretty good value if you take kids and buy nosebleed seats. I could read a book through about 3/4 of the show itself BUT the children's pre-show was well worth the price if you were twelve or under. The pre-show has always been done well and really has captured the attention of its target audience when I've seen it.

Whenever Cirque du Soleil trots out a new show I wonder if "this will be the one" that wakes the crowd from the dream and leaves 'em asking, "Why did I pay for THAT?"

03 March, 2006 10:06
Anonymous said...

I thought the new Cirque arena show was definitely worth the money and I bought the $110 ticket, since the $69 and $89 tickets were way off on the side of the upper bowl. I saw it just a few weeks ago. There isn't anything like it touring right now in an arena setting with a set/stage like they one they have.

03 March, 2006 12:22
Buckles said...

I'm sure that in an aesthetic sense Soleil Indoors is outstanding but I wouldn't pay $110 to see the Lords Last Supper with the original cast.

03 March, 2006 12:32
B.E.Trumble said...

I've always reckoned that the only people who genuinely appreciate the Cirque shows are people who have worked in technical theater, lights, and sound. For everybody else its one of those cultural experiences we "endure." If anything, the new arena show, showcasing music that can only be charitibly described as "interesting" is even more like root canal that the Vegas shows. $70 and at the very least I want the Rolling Stones, at least Keith Richard plays a mean guitar.

03 March, 2006 14:51

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)