Talk:Starlight Express

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musical Theatre Portal
Starlight Express is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start Class
WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:


Contents

[edit] Pearl <> Observation car

I thought Pearl was another Pullman like Belle (hence her visual pun in the carriages song) - I'm checking now for citations

chrisboote 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Pearl is a very important charecter in Starlight.

The Quidam 6:19 January 20 2007


While Pearl may be a Pullman(it certainly seems the only likely explanation for the 'PM' on the later designs of skirt, despite the fact that 'Pullman' is one word), she is also brand new and shiny, and one of Control's new favourite toys. Mazz0626 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the name Pearl came from "Parlour Car" (the name for a non-kitchen Pullman car). EdJogg 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's always possible, there's no official explanation for the inspiration for her name. Of the four coaches, it's only Pearl whose name isn't a pun on her description. Mazz0626 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "Pearl" meant to be due to the fact that she is new and shiny? - ElphaPearl

I think you'd have to ask Richard Stilgoe that. There's nothing obvious that connects her to the name. Mazz0626 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe she's called it because it ryhmes with lots of things like "girl" and "twirl"? - ElphaPearl
It's more likely that 'girl' and 'twirl' were chosen because they rhyme with 'Pearl', but you never know. Mazz0626 (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just a pretty name. - ElphaPearl
Pullman named their cars after precious stones. ElphaPearl (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Also myths and goddesses, popular names at the time, birds, flowers... names such Zena, Audrey, Mavis, Cygnus, Minerva, Perseus, Juno, Doris, Lucille, Martha... "Pearl" is a carriage on the The Royal Scotsman but it is not the observation carriage of the train. That's called "Snipe"! Belle pullman (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C.B.

What happened to him? I heard that he got cut out of the show in later editions, but was quite important at first!

JaffaCakeLover 18:28, 17 October 2006 (GMT)

C.B was cut. In 1992 his songs were taken out to reduce the length of the show, but the character was revived for the UK tour. - ElphaPearl

[edit] Control

It seems someone is aruging about the gender of Control. Some random person keeps on saying that it's a girl but in most productions, the part is given to a boy. Could anyone double check this? The Quidam 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I always thought that Control was the little boy in the beginning who was told to put he's trains away and go to bed. I may be wrong!

Well the actor who plays Control can be female but it's meant to be a boy. The Quidam 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Control is generally genderless - it doesn't really matter since toy trains are not a gender specific toy, but some may find the idea of a girl playing with Barbies(clearly the inspiration for the Coaches) more comfortable than a boy. The role has been recorded by women, boys and most recently a girl. Mazz0626 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the revisions to material stated above, the original Control, up until that point an undefined entity, was replaced by the voice of a child, thus bringing this production into line with all other versions. The show's proceedings thus changed from being "real" to taking place within the child's dream.

I'm afraid this just is not accurate - the Original London Control was clearly a child, and while the fact the entire show is a dream sequence was less pantomimed to the audience, was still there. One must remember that the Original London production was a fully staged show, and the cast recording reflects maybe 2/3 of what actually happened onstage - it is also partly studio recorded numbers intended for single release, and therefore not an accurate reflection of what was onstage at all!

Also the "new" London Control was not actually a child, but Tara Wilkinson, an adult actress in the cast, imitating a young american child's voice. --Belle pullman 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To quote Richard Stilgoe on the subject of the quantity of the show recorded -
"Starlight Express in the theatre runs to about two hours twenty minutes. The Cassette of the double album will take about one hour forty minutes before it bursts. So we've had to streamline the show a little, though the story and the dream are the same. Of course, if you come round to the theatre we could tell you some more - who wins the other races, and all about Control, who owns the railroad. But that would all be strictly off the record."
From the inlay of the original cast recording cassette.

Mazz0626 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Productions

Fairfield High School put on the first Amateur production of this show last year, but the information about it keeps getting removed. I have physical evidence to prove that it happened, but (for some reason!?) there's nothing online. What can we do about this?

JohnHoldun 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

High school productions are, by definition, not notable, and, therefore, will be deleted without discussion. —  MusicMaker5376 05:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that--but wouldn't the fact that it was the first one constitute some notability? That the show is (well, will eventually be) released to amateur theaters?
JohnHoldun 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No. The fact that the rights are now available for amateur productions is, yes, notable. But it's extremely hard to determine who was actually the first to produce it. The word of your director isn't enough. It also invites things like "ABC High School was the first to produce it in Northeastern Indiana" and the like. The Les Mis page was filled with cruft like that. —  MusicMaker5376 06:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, understandable. However (and it really pains me that this information isn't online anywhere), our director worked closely, and personally, with the Really Useful Group on adapting the show for an amateur audience. Our production has become the model for future shows. I'm almost certain that an actual amateur production available for anyone is still in the works.
JohnHoldun 06:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article

Look. We have one person, JeanColumbia, who wants to have no information on this article except that pertaining to UK productions. We have another, MusicMaker5376, who doesn't want a page for each production. If you both get your way, this article will be misleading in the extreme as it will state that there have only been three productions. I propose that there be separate articles, and this a hub that connects to the lot, with all the messy 'duplicitous'(it is NOT) information that JeanColumbia doesn't like sectioned neatly into its relevant page. Mazz0626 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, new talk posts go at the bottoms of pages.
I have no idea what your beef with Jean is, but I'm sure s/he's right. JeanColumbia is a fine editor with whom I've agreed on just about every edit.
You have about 60 edits -- all in the subject of Starlight. Why don't you do a little work elsewhere in the project and learn a little more about how things work before you begin proposing radical changes to the accepted way of doing things. —  MusicMaker5376 00:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'm an enthusiastic blundering newb who knows a lot about Starlight Express and wants to share my information. Unless you are seriously saying that an encyclopedic entry on a subject should be limited to the barest facts possible, how am I supposed to do it? Mazz0626 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a serious request, by the way. Re-reading it sounds sarcastic. Mazz0626 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read this: What Wikipedia is not. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The idea behind an encyclopedia is not to present every imaginable fact on a subject, but to present things in a clear and concise manner, properly citing things so that someone who wants more information knows where to find it. It's not for the glorification of your personal knowledge. Also, you might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. The differences in productions should be described in prose, not presented in lengthy and ultimately redundant and confusing lists. Wikipedia exists for readers, not for editors, so if we're not presenting things in a non-overwhelming way, our mission is lost.
That being said, I really suggest you read up on WP policies. It may seem that way, but WP is not an experiment in anarchy. —  MusicMaker5376 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there must be a misunderstanding here. Jean is only deleting repeated infomation in the article. All those productions were listed twice. We need to try to consolidate this information into a more readable format, the way Mark E had done. -- Ssilvers 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Additional productions" near the end should be moved up nearer the top under "Productions". -- Ssilvers 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the "Additional productions" up into the "Productions" section. -- Ssilvers 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

With regards to people thinking there have only been 3 productions, they only need to look in the infobox to know this is not the case. Looking alot better now.Mark E 11:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Also... while Dubai never actually got off the ground, it was the biggest and most exciting news heard about the show in recent times. Can it not have a mention in here somewhere, even if not under 'productions'? Perhaps a a 'miscellanea' segment? Mazz0626 23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Please list the references you are using at the bottom of the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers 01:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They're not much use to people, they're on paper Mazz0626 10:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia requires that all references, books, etc. be listed with bibliographic information. See WP:CITE. This way people can go to the library and verify that what we say is true. -- Ssilvers 14:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How does one reference correctly theatre programmes and brochures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.50.21 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You give the name of the theatre, city, date of performance, and page number(s) of the program where the info appears. But there must also be reviews and other stuff to cite that you could get from a google search. There must also be books and other library materials about Lloyd Webber and the show. -- Ssilvers 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... there aren't... it's a mostly fruitless treasure hunt to find out anything about this show, and even when you do find something, often even 'facts' from the official source are just not accurate. The Really Useful group quotes an audience numbers statistic that, if true, would mean that all but one of the productions were seen by nobody at all! Almost everything I know is from talking to people who were there at the time, and theatre programmes(which are of course out of print) gleaned from eBay.Mazz0626 12:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Since almost everything I took from those references has been removed, do I still need to do this?Mazz0626 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. EVERYTHING must be referenced. It's a policy that has had various states of enforcement over the years, but, since part of the current thrust of the project is involved in citing what is uncited, it's much more helpful simply to cite new information. (And if you have references for facts in this article that are unreferenced, feel free to let us know them, too.) —  MusicMaker5376 23:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Right - but what I mean is, since almost all of what I put in has been removed again, should I be putting in references and citations for stuff that isn't there? Mazz0626 01:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. Don't cite what's not there. —  MusicMaker5376 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I feel really thick asking this, but having read the above link I'm still not sure. Should a citation be right next to the section it relates to, or can they all be at the bottom? I've been copying and pasting so far in order to get it right, but since there aren't any specific references on this article I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do. Mazz0626 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't feel thick. Keep in mind that there are almost 2,000,000 articles in the English Wikipedia: if you're not sure how things should be done on this one, check one of the other 1,999,999. The way the references work (depending upon the style -- there are a couple of different ways), if you put the ref directly next to the fact being cited and use </references> (or maybe <references/> -- I forget) at the bottom, the citation will appear as a superscript number next to the fact and the full citation will appear at the bottom. —  MusicMaker5376 13:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Belle

Since it is mainly the original production that is documented here, and all of the other main characters have articles, may I put an article up summarising this very important character? Mazz0626 22:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's my own personal opinion that all of those articles are unnecessary, but as she is the only one without an article, you might as well add one. —  MusicMaker5376 23:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree most of those articles are unnecessary. If they all had the content that the Pearl and Dinah articles had then they would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... since I've added most of the new stuff to Pearl and Dinah, may I continue to amend and expand the others to a similar state without fear that someone will deem accurate information 'unnecessary' and delete them? ETA: Full cast lists are at the very least respectful to the performers over the years, and a good resource for anyone looking someone up. Mazz0626 23:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] National Engines

Compared to all the other characters in the show, the Nationals have virtually no information on them. As they are striking characters often used in advertising, therefore high in the public conscience, they need more info. I can see two alternatives. Either a group photo to illustrate the Nationals on this page, or a new page dedicated to all six of them. As characters they are marginally smaller than say, Flat-top, so if he has a separate page I think a page dedicated to the six ensemble roles would be justified?

Belle pullman 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So... I got bored and went ahead with The National Engines. I hope it's obvious I've not yet finished!

Belle pullman 23:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Trolling

I'm a noob here on wikipedia, so I know not what can be done... but this one person keeps trolling the Starlight character pages. Why do people bother? It's reverted immediately and in exposing their IP address, their home address and name is easily found.. Why is this Lisa Bailey so dumb?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belle pullman (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link with Elgar??

An anon editor posted this link, asking if the musical was 'borrowed' from the incidental music, written by Edward Elgar, for the largely unsuccessful play "The Starlight Express" of 1915. This play has nothing to do with trains, and the website listed makes no mention of Andrew Lloyd Webber nor the musical.

EdJogg 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the two pieces have nothing in common beyond the title. Mazz0626 15:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Plot

The plot for Starlight Express has altered significantly over the years. Would it be more appropriate to try to make some conglomerate description that tries to cover all the alterations within one storyline? Or have separate sections detailing, say, Original London, Bochum, and UK tour? Or, similar to the song numbers, have the Original London plot followed by the alterations in later productions?

This page has been criticised elsewhere for information being inaccurate, when the information was actually right but being applied to the wrong production - information about Bochum does not mesh with the UK tour, so more detail is needed! But how?

Belle pullman (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is confusing to have a plot synopsis that doesn't agree with the running order. It looks like someone put up the UK Tour 'plot' details, and someone else altered bits of it to reflect the Bochum production, but not entirely. Putting up the original plot and then a section for revisions - as the running order - would be easier to read and more informative. Mazz0626 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling stock and Freight

Why does Greaseball sing Rolling Stock if he is an engine? And why do the Nationals appear in freight? - ElphaPearl


Well, the term "Rolling Stock" applies to all forms of stock in the railways, engines and wagons. And the Nationals in Freight - well, they just wander in... that'd be a question only Arlene Phillips could answer.

Belle pullman (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belle

Is she Rusty's mum? And is Poppa his dad? - ElphaPearl

Rusty has never met Belle before the scene in the show, so no, she is not his mum. Poppa and Rusty's relationship is less easy to describe. They are both Steam Engines so some people think they are related. But there's nothing to say for sure. Belle pullman (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Are they both the the same type of steam engine? - ElphaPearl
I don't think so. The costume details aren't the same between Poppa and Rusty. I don't know enough about Steam Engines but I don't think the costume details are specific enough to identify to one design of engine. Belle pullman (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty

Rusty is an older design of engine, and he is falling to peices, but Electra and Greaseball are newer designs yet they come across older than him. Why is this? - ElphaPearl

Underdogs are easier to sympathise with if they're younger. If we go down this road, we'll start being squicked out at how dilapidated old Rusty is romantically involved with 'brand new girl' Pearl. Mazz0626 (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - do you know why they called him Rusty when he was new, when technically he wouldn't have been back then? - ElphaPearl

Who's 'they'? Maybe when he was new he didn't have a name. Maybe none of them do, but choose their own. Maybe 'Rusty' is a nickname that has stuck for so long that there's no point trying to call him anything else. Or maybe 'Rusty' is a little used but real name that actual people occasionally get called, and Stilgoe(who, as we know, loves his puns) wanted to use it for the rusted old steam train. Mazz0626 (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Translations

Can we please reach an agreement with the German lyrics - One person is putting in the equivalent English song titles, another is putting in a direct translation of the German titles. Which is actually more helpful? Knowing what the German words mean, or knowing which song that is in English?

I personally think it's more useful to know which English song that title refers to, rather than translating the German. We've got Babelfish etc for a direct translation, but the equivalent songs is knowledge directly relevant to this article. Belle pullman (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the English equivilent is important. But some people might prefer to see the translation? - ElphaPearl

Two song lists are wholly unnecessary. The German titles of the songs should be kept to the German WP; they are of no interest to the casual reader. —  MusicMaker5376 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I quite disagree - there is considerable interest in the English-speaking community about the German production. There are few sources of English-language information about the German production, so the list here is very useful in giving the English language equivalent. Belle pullman (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there is considerable interest in the English-speaking community of followers of this show. There is quite adifference. We're not here to dissiminate every possible granule of information on Starlight -- that's why websites like your own exist. We're here to write an encyclopedia. The foreign-language titles of songs in a German production in a city that, theatrically speaking, isn't even on the map is not encyclopedic by any stretch of the imagination. —  MusicMaker5376 23:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The city that hosts the production may be small, but the German production of Starlight Express is actually the single most successful production of ANY musical worldwide, with well over 11 million having seen it. German theatre has no one geographical centre, so the production's location makes no impact on its importance. That 11 million is not exclusively German speaking, and therefore having some basic song/track information here is worthwhile. Also a point of interest in detailing the song list is comparison to the English equivalent. Therefore the article should make this simpler, by including the English title/scene equivalents rather than an exact translation.
the argument of what you consider of interest to a casual reader is very subjective - I suspect many people will believe that a "casual reader" will have no interest in musical theatre at all, or if they do, no interest in a musical about trains. Does this mean anything more than the initial summary should be scrapped? No! the casual reader is here to read more about the subject they've looked up. If the German songlist is not of interest to an individual, it is not hard to scroll further down. However I think it is important information in a unique context here. Belle pullman (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just about every musical is at some point translated to another language. We don't put the translated song lists on the English Wikipedia. Period. Per WikiProject Musical Theatre's Article Structure "Multiple song lists (i.e. in the case of a musical which had several re-writes between productions) should be avoided." —  MusicMaker5376 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is no need at all for a second song list in German, should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark E (talk • contribs) 09:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The German production isn't a little offshoot here, it's the main one. It is as important as, if not more important than, any other recent or current production of the show. It would be absurd to ignore it. Nonetheless I do wonder if the running order is necessary on this page - a prominent link to the German article would lead people to the same information, if they want to go chasing around after it and would understand what they were looking at once they got there. I did think though that the idea of these articles was to contain information in one place, so people didn't have to.Mazz0626 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is too much information here but, playing the Devil's advocate for a second, the Bochum production and its translations are particularly important in the context of the musical. Equally, there are plenty of musicals that list translated songs - I can't help but notice, in fact, that Les Misérables only lists the translations... All the same, it is perhaps too much for this article on this language Wikipedia. I don;t know if it is possible, but might we perhaps replace the German song list with a "see also" link to German Wikipedia? - Dafyd (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that this is not German language information posted here for German speakers. This is information about the German production for an English speaking audience. The German wikipedia is of little use if you do not speak German (nor is it quite accurate, from what I can follow). There is nowhere else to obtain the information about the German songlist, plot, running order - all intrinsically linked - in English. Belle pullman (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
They're on the German Wikipedia! It doesn't take much to realize that your best source on something German would be a source IN GERMAN. If there are language barriers, that's one more reason not to have the list on the English Wikipedia. —  MusicMaker5376 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The German-language songlist does not give notable information to the readers of English Wikipedia. Describe the production and how it is notable in the context of the show's entire history, but the German-language songlist adds nothing and just clutters up the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There are people who might find the German songlist quite useful. There are no other webpages which include such a detailed list. If it clutters up the page then maybe to a seperate page could be made for each individual production? - ElphaPearl
No, I tried suggesting that once and got thoroughly squashed for it. Apparently that isn't how the musical theatre clique like things things done around here.Mazz0626 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No. —  MusicMaker5376 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What about a second page for Bochum? - ElphaPearl

[edit] What is next

Does anyone know what is happening with Starlight after the tour? I hope it remains in england. Is it going back to london? Someone PEARL-EASE tell me because i really really would like to know! - ElphaPearl

The tour set is heading out to Australia.

Belle pullman (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what is happening in England? I heard there is plans for a TV show... - ElphaPearl
There are always plans for a TV show. There are always plans for a a TV show of Cats, too(though they got as far as designing the cartoons, I have a set of them as fridge magnets). It will most likely never happen, and that's probably just as well, in this age of Fimbles and In the Night Garden and other Brightly Coloured Blobs. It would undoubtedly be relegated to shoestring budget kid's show. Given how little regard anyone in any kind of authority has for this show, it's probably best that they don't get another opportunity to do a weak ham-fisted attempt at portraying it. Mazz0626 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the show will go back to London? - ElphaPearl

[edit] Original London

If anyone has any information on this production, please could they post it? I have an interest in this one and would like to know more! - ElphaPearl

Take a look at my website, http://www.bellesdomain.co.uk

Belle pullman (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! - ElphaPearl

How do you make those costumes? They're great! Can you get patterns? - ElphaPearl

Why not join the forum on the website and ask there, rather than here where it's a bit off-topic? If you have a unitard(say, for a dance class) it's not hard to copy and work out patterns on your own. Mazz0626 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
ElphaPearl, please read WP:FORUM. Talk pages are meant to discuss the article, not its subject. —  MusicMaker5376 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Audition

I am singing "make up my heart" in character for an audition at my stage school next week. I am completely stuck on how to make the character new and different but still Pearl. If any Starlight knowitalls could enlighten me it would be great! I was thinking of playing her younger than she is normally, almost child-like, like a confused little girl, but would this work? Please, someone help me, because I'm really stuck! - ElphaPearl

Pearl is usually played as a very young, ditzy girl, who is not very bright, easily confused. She doesn't realise the consequences of her actions. Belle pullman (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Would it work if I played her as a profound, deep-thinking character? - ElphaPearl
You don't need to ask this in multiple places, the same people tend to look at the same clutch of articles. Mazz0626 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom/cats

I can't help noticing that starlight is a compromise of cats and phantom! For instance,Pearl and Christine both have to "make up their hearts" and Poppa is Old Deuteronomy, Electra is Tugger and Carlotta, and Rusty is a male Grizabella. -ElphaPearl

You're really stretching the analogy there... there's many similarities between many stories.

Belle pullman (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They're all basic character types, you mean? Mazz0626 (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The songs also bear simularities, (apart form the fact its ALW) like the choreogrphy in Tugger's number, right at the end, is simular to Pumping Iron. Also, we meet Electra's componants before Electra comes on. We meet Mungojerrie and Rumpleteaser before Macavity. Also, the spectacle content of phantom is simular to starlight. Think of the chandelier, and the bridge. The chandelier crashes above the audience and the racers skate around the audience. Also, the cats go into the audience at somepoint. - ElphaPearl
Can you imagen a compramise? Masked moggys in roller-racing action! - ElphaPearl

[edit] Re: Pearl Audition

Hi! My Audition went really well - thank you so much Belle pullman and Mazz0626. - ElphaPearl

That's great, but this really isn't the place to talk about it.Mazz0626 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I know, but I really want to thank you for helping me. - ElphaPearl

[edit] Revisions to the German Production

'Revisions to the German Production While compared to the other long-running production, London, the Bochum production has had fewer updates, there still have been significant alterations, particularly in the recent past. Often songs have been reduced rather than removed, to allow running time for new songs to be included.' - is there really any point in this section? Can I delete it? - ElphaPearl


How about registering for a Wikipedia account and learning how to use the site? Then read through the archives of the article before you start deleting stuff.
That section makes little sense at the moment since those on high, who don't actually have anything to ADD here, decided to remove the German song list. This will be re-written in prose form, since the table was so offensive to their design aesthetic. The German production is of interest beyond the German speaking audience, and the information needs to be added here. Belle pullman (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'those on high'? ElphaPearl (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a musical theatre clique on Wikipedia, who, like most musical theatre cliques, consider Starlight Express to be rather tacky and below them. But they have their way of doing things around here, and will delete anything that is done differently. Mazz0626 (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How is Starlight 'tacky'? Isn't it meant to be a bit of fun? ElphaPearl (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Some people are snobs who won't accept anything that ordinary people like as having any artistic merit, others can't stand Lloyd Webber, others don't look beyond the 'gimmick' of rollerskates and decide that if a show has a gimmick it must be relying on that rather than the plot or music, some people saw it but didn't get it, some won't do any work to understand what's in front of them to get full enjoyment from it, some people tried but just don't like it. And some people have only seen one of the two recent tours, so they are perfectly justified in this opinion. Mazz0626 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Control

I have added a page for him. Could help me with the casts? ElphaPearl (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC

Never mind. It's been deleted. ElphaPearl (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...

This article would be significantly less confusing to people unfamiliar with the material, if, at some point in the intro, it mentioned that the play is about trains. mkehrt (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. I have sorted it. ElphaPearl (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
VERY good point, Mkehrt - as in fact the show is not about trains, but a child's dream about TOY trains. Intro edited to clarify this. Belle pullman (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dancing

Seeing as Starlight is a dance show, perhaps a little more information on the choreography and how the skates are worked into the show may be in order? I have started with a few characters but have a little while to go. Should I discontinue with this or is it relevant enough? ElphaPearl (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally class Starlight Express as a Dance show - dance is secondary to the skating and singing. Also most of what you're describing is known as "Tick Overs". Each character has their own unique set of movements they run through when they're idling. What you've put so far is quite hard to make sense of, unless you're familiar with the show. Describing choreography in normal language is very difficult. I think rather than a section for each character, it would be better to include a section about the choreography, skating and dance on this central page, and include a couple of examples of tick overs and moves.
I believe it was an article with Mykal Rand, in his capacity as resident director on tour, that had a fair bit of useful information about the choreography and training. I'm pretty sure it was online, if you can find it it would be an ideal reference for a section about the dancing and skating aspect of the show. Belle pullman (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. First of all, thanks for mentioning that Mykal Rand article. Secondly: I always believed tick-overs to be something that the actor does when they are not in the main focus more than something in the choreography. And thirdly: How could it be summed up into one paragraph on the main page? I agree that this is how it should be done, but there are so many individual characters to be mentioned that I'm not so sure how to go about it. And fourth, was the sweeping gesture in 'He'll Whistle' used in 'He whistled'? I don't think it was used in Engine of Love. ElphaPearl (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia tour 08

Hi. I was searching for more information on this one. I can't find anything to prove it even exists! If someone knows a site where it can be proved, please let me know or I suggest the information be removed. ElphaPearl (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All that is known is that the UK Tour set was shipped to Australia at the end of its UK run. This was mentioned in interview with Jamie Capewell towards the end of the UK tour run. Unfortunately I think this interview might no longer be online... The tour might be 08 or 09, it's in early planning, not yet cast or tour dates announced, but it is definitely in planning therefore is relevant and valid information here. Belle pullman (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Thanks! ElphaPearl (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference now added. Starting in New Zealand. Belle pullman (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The race marshals

"The race marshals - unofficially dubbed 'Derek' and 'Angus',"

How is this proved? ElphaPearl (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the reference as it is 'unofficial'. ElphaPearl (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)