Why Wasn't LB A Hit?- Page 3

[James885]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:11am

It's a nice, cute show but half the score is catchy and the other half is very forgettable. And the terrible book does nothing to elevate the score.

After seeing both the movie and the musical, I have to say that I still like the movie better. In the musical most of the secondary characters come off like caricatures. There only characters who get developed are Elle and Emmett. Elle accomplishes nothing by herself; Emmett is always there poking and prodding her. I HATED that Heather Hach included Emmett in the trailer scene with Dewey, Paulette and Elle.

[Broadway Baby 2]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:19am

I am sick of fluffy kiddie and tween movie musicals filling up Broadway houses. We need revivals and new original stage shows on Broadway.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:25am

Emmett's barely in the movie because Elle is on her own. He's only there as someone who sees potential in her. He's not supposed to be that fleshed out of a character. I disagree that he has no personality in the movie. Like I said, it's a very subtle relationship. Also, the role they gave musical!Emmett makes no sense. If he's such a brilliant lawyer, why is he playing lapdog to Callahan and, if he's already graduated, why is he TAing classes? How does he have all of this time to help Elle, anyway?

How is Enid fleshed out more in the musical? She's given more lesbian jokes. I disagree that Warner is fleshed out in the movie; the only time I felt he was a truly "real" character was in the novel. But Warner's even less likeable in the musical than in the movie, IMO.

The message is changed because in the musical Emmett is holding Elle's hand every step of the way. It's easy to study when you have someone showing up at your door everyday making you memorize things and quizzing you. When you're on your own and can either write your paper or surf Google, it's pretty different. And in the musical, she didn't even get into Harvard on her own. She had the entire UCLA cheer squad help her and basically had to rely on appealing to the adcomm's emotions. Though, like I said, that was a ridiculous scene anyway because she had the numbers to get accepted.

Updated On: 10/23/08 at 12:25 AM

[zamedy]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:33am

I totally agree SporkGoddess. OMG like I totally do.

And I forgot about the awkward bathroom scene at the end. I was like "what?" We're in the bathroom now?? That's believable! And the Enid/lesbian/wig stuff falls terribly flat. The courtroom scene in the movie gave us that climax... that payoff that we were waiting for. It's one of my favorite parts of the whole movie. The changes to it in the musical fail miserably. And again I bring up Vivienne's sudden transformation. Where the hell did that come from? And we as the audience are all of a sudden supposed to like the bitch enough to want HER to deliver this glowing commencement speech? At least when the Von Tussle's have their 11th hour transformation, it's in the context of an undeniably infectious closing number.

[James885]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:37am

One of my major issues with the book is how Vivienne's transformation is handled. She literally hates Elle's guts until the moment that she doesn't anymore. There's no gradual change in Vivienne's character. In the movie, we got to see Elle and Vivienne bond as friends; nothing like that happens in the musical. We're asked to believe that in the span of 20-40 seconds, Elle and Vivienne go from enemies to best buddies. Elle and Vivienne should have had a scene or a song where they to bond.

Updated On: 10/23/08 at 12:37 AM

[geekgirl06]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:40am

I always thought it was weird that Emmett always talked about how busy he was, yet he's always hanging with Elle. Forget her leaning on him, it almost seems the other way around!

And the whole getting into Harvard because of love is the most ridiculous. Seriously, the first time I heard that on the recording, I realized how bad this musical actually was. Still, though, the musical does have a little bit of heart. In the end, you still understand that it's okay to be yourself and to get past stereotypes. And on Broadway, there's definitely been shows that didn't even have that.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:43am

Personally, I think MargoChanning had it right long ago...


"Mind you, I'm not telling anyone else not to go see this show. If you watched the clips and loved them, well, good for you. I hope you have a great time. But, personally, I want and expect more than this for my hard earned dollar. I don't expect every new musical to be stamped with the genius of a Robbins or a Bennett or a Fosse, but I do expect ambition and drive and professionalism. What ever happened to true inventiveness? Or originality? Or passion? Or wit? Or just plain talent? Theatre has the power to engage and uplift the heart and soul and mind -- is there ANYTHING in this show that even TRIES to do that?

Sorry, but for me -- and I know LOTS of people don't agree -- for $111.50, I want more than mindless, forgettable, poorly executed fluff. I don't mind "silly" or "fun," as long as it's put together with precision and intelligence and skill with Broadway caliber dancing and singing and music and design and a book that has a bit of substance beneath all the flash and dazzle (HAIRSPRAY is a good example of a show that's silly and campy, but nevertheless has a solid book and score and clever staging and design with a story that deals with race and class and being an "outsider" while still being entertaining -- and you could tell all of that just from seeing a handful of clips on its press reel before the show even opened).

Bottom line, if I want mindless fluffy entertainment, I can watch a sitcom or reality show or some similarly forgettable piece of junk 24/7 on any one 500 channels in the comfort of my home. Or I can go to the local multiplex and pay $11 and see the latest comedy spoof or action/adventure flick. For $111.50, I expect more -- MUCH MORE and I think we all deserve and should expect a higher level of creativity and artistry and originality than the kind of overpriced theatrical junk food we too often get served these days in the name of "entertainment."

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?page=5&thread=924278&boardname=bway&boardid=0

[Kad]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:44am

I can buy everything that happens in Hairspray because it's ridiculous show that knows its ridiculous every step of the way, and, for the most part, there really isn't much superfluous material.

Legally Blonde really wants be like that, but it doesn't work. It has so many weird detours, like Paulette's inexplicable Irish obsession.

And it "fleshes out" characters that weren't fleshed out in the movie because the movie was 100% about Elle. She was rarely off-camera. It was about her. It wasn't about Emmett. And the 'relationship that comes out of nowhere' doesn't come out of 'nowhere'. It's mentioned in an epilogue that takes place 3 years after the story ends. And they're not fleshed out, as SporkGoddess said. Enid went from "radical feminist" to "haha, she's a lesbian". Hell, it even deteriorates Paulette a bit. In the movie she had a huge crush on the UPS Guy for god knows how long, but lacked the confidence to do anything. In the musical, it's love at first sight.

I can't believe we're discussing this as in depth as we are.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:46am

Again.. I think MargoChanning called it...

"Well, if the show has ANY chance of being a hit, it had BETTER find a way to appeal to my "age group" and older since we're the ones who buy the vast majority of tickets for Broadway. The average age of theatregoers on Broadway last year was 42 years old and people under 18 only constituted about 8% of the total attendance. Even for a show like WICKED, which everyone associates with teenage girls, according to its lead producer, teenagers make up less than 10% of its audience -- it's middle aged and older ADULTS who are keeping that show a soldout hit, not the kids. The same is true of supposed "youth shows like RENT and SPELLING BEE and AVENUE Q -- the kids may talk about them incessantly and create fan pages and crowd the stage door, but no show can survive on $20 student rush tickets and NEEDS to have tens of thousands of people willing to pay the full $111.50 ticket price if it has even the slightest chance of recouping. 90% of actual sales are made by people over well over 18. So, LEGALLY BLONDE better hope and pray that those clips and any further marketing and reviews make the show have a STRONG appeal to the over-40 set, or it'll go the way of HIGH FIDELITY, WEDDING SINGER and other shows who's so-called "target audience" was the under the age of 18. ?

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?page=6&thread=924278&boardname=bway&boardid=0

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:47am

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 12:47 AM

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:56am

That joke would work better if it actually hadn't gotten a third season. Which it did, it just had none of the original people.

But back to Legally Blonde, I respect you guys opinions, but I still think the musical is better than the movie. You are all over observing things to a point where your finding flaws where there really isn't. That's not saying I don't think the musical has flaws cause it does, but this never was meant to be the most epic thing to ever grace Broadway and blow everyone and anyone away. It had a very set demographic, and it targeted that demographic well, it's obvious in the millions of Youtube videos of fans singing songs from the show and mimicking scenes from it.

It was a hit in the right that it set out to achieve what it wanted, but it had alot of things going against it being a huge financial hit. It wasn't certainly doing awfully bad, it just wasn't doing fricking fantastic financially, but I don't care however, it's real goal was to entertain, to turn your brain off (much like the movie it was based off of) and entertain you for 2 hours. That's it. And IMO, it did that and it did it well.
Updated On: 10/23/08 at 12:56 AM

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:58am

Here's one other reason no one has really offered yet. Movie Musicals only work when they offer a different experience from the movie...The Producers, for instance, was ripe for a stage adaptation not just because it was about the theatre, but because it made sense to have big musical numbers. Its theatricality enhanced the story and told the story in a completely different way from the movie. Legally Blonde tried to enhance the story with big theatrical numbers as well, but for the most part, as others have commented, they seemed like weird detours from the story. The fact of the matter is, the film was able to tell this story better. As David Spade said after it opened, "It's for people who want to pay $200 to see the movie again."

There was nothing fresh about it. It did not make a case for a theatrical adaptation, and smelled simply of crass commercialism and exploitation of an existing brand, regardless of the artistic talents of those involved with the show.

[geekgirl06]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 1:06am

I forgot that people actually paid over $100. I'm not going to lie, I only ever saw the recording. And this is definitely a show you would not have to see on Broadway to fully enjoy. It just wasn't... special enough for Broadway.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 1:13am

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 01:13 AM

[justafan2]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:15pm

What didn't work for me, personally, in this show, was the singing of the dialogue in between actual songs. It came across as a semi-operetta, which was (IMO) frustrating. I would have preferred straight dialogue with musical numbers for emphasis. The second act had a bit more actual dialogue (court room scene) and so, I enjoyed the second act more.
Updated On: 10/23/08 at 12:15 PM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 12:19pm

I just downloaded Omigod You Guys, and it is a bit catchy, but the only parts I remember and get stuck in my head are the Omigod You Guys part. That's the only reason the song gets stuck in my head. I don't think anything else is worthy of download now though.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 2:55pm

While I am an admitted and proud nitpicker, I don't think we're analyzing things to death here. It's stuff that sticks out. Don't you ever listen to a cast recording and have a thought cross your mind? Like... why does Kate have the entire admissions statistics to Harvard Law School memorized?

Also, here's the thing about the movie versus the musical. The movie is cleverly written. The plot has a lot of holes and it would not hold up to my level of scrutiny either, but there aren't any scenes that make me cringe. In the musical, you're almost ashamed to watch parts like the "back to the scene of the trial." And I would say that 99% of the jokes make me groan because they're either a reworded line from the movie that isn't as funny as the original phrasing, or an overt reference to pop culture where you're supposed to go "Hehe, Match.com! I know what that is!"

The musical had potential to take the movie's weaknesses and fix them, but instead they focused mostly on areas that did not need fixing and, in trying to fix them, created even more problems.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 6:17pm

Okay, I don't recall EXACTLY.. but isn't the "I'm taking the dog" scene changed for the musical, somehow? Dialogue-wise? I remember seeing it on MTV and thinking "Well that just sucks".

[theminutepast]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 6:45pm

I agree with what people have said here about the book; however, the movie had its flaws, too. Movie!Elle's final courtroom scene where she cracks the case isn't clever. (You can watch it on YouTube). She rambles on about a sorority sister and perms, and it isn't really believable that she suddenly surprises Chutney with her own lies. I'll blame my nerdy interest in law and trials when I was younger, but it would be much more intelligent and engaging if Elle used an articulate logic to crack the case.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 7:49pm

Just to add what everyone else said, I also think the character of Paulette was butchered in the musical. Paulette came out of a clearly dyfunctional and emotionally abusive relationship that made her terribly insecure and lack self-confidence. It was the friendship with Elle that made both of them stand on their own two feet and be independent. It wasn't until Paulette started coming into her own where the UPS guy noticed her. It also helped that she was cleverly played by Jennifer Coolidge (who seemed to be self-directed).

In the musical, Orfeh plays her as if she was a total moron. I mean it was a miracle that survived to live the next day. I mean she was so unsubtle, it was painful to watch.

Plus, how could Emmett work three jobs while in law school when you can only work less than 24 hours a week while in law school?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 7:59pm

Haha, I once read a comment that Emmett probably tells Elle she can't go home for Thanksgiving because she has to study more just so she won't leave him.

I dunno, I find musical!Emmett creepy. And I don't like that he only helps Elle because he identifies with her, not because he sees her potential. Er, not that Emmett should be helping her in the first place, though.

[ZiggyCringe]

Posted: 10/23/08 at 9:12pm

I don't know why it wasn't a hit.

I suspect that "Legally Blonde" got caught up in the whole "movies to stage plays" thing, and was placed in the same pool with terrible shows like "Footloose," "Saturday Night Fever," "The Wedding Singer" and "High Fidelity."

It didn't belong in that particular pool. "Legally Blonde" was a terrifically constructed piece of musical theatre. Its songs landed in the right places. They moved the characters forward. Other than the second act opening, I don't think there is a single misstep in the construction of the show. And I feel it's a distinct improvement on the original film.

Whether the MTV stuff helped or hindered, I don't know.

I personally believe that Larry O'Keefe and his collaborators created a terrific piece of musical theatre, a musical that illuminated and surpassed its source material, and one that doesn't deserve to be lumped in with "those musicals based on movies that sucked."

[crushgroove]

Posted: 10/24/08 at 12:03am

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the show....

I think Reese Witherspoon's effervescent charm is was made the original movie a hit. Laura Bell Bundy does have her charms but not in the same way. Let's face it though, it's not a deep mine of material to cull from...it's a pretty paper thin storyline. Yes it was funny...and they took pretty much every joke from the film and put it in the show.

The songs...while some were fun and infectious and followed the film...like "Omigod You Guys!" and "So Much Better." But with others like "Ireland", the composers were really stretching for material.

Plus everyone in the movie wasn't so over-the-top like they were in the show. I found the character of Brook most annoying on stage. The thing about Elle is that she's a fish out of water...everyone else is supposed to be very blase and boring compared to her (except for her 2 Delta Nu cohorts). It seems like the tried to make all the characters over the top like Elle.

Plus there was too much pink!

Maybe if Marc Shaiman would have worked on the material, it would have been a much wittier show.

[brettystar]

Posted: 10/25/08 at 9:58pm

LB wasn't that great.

It was good to see it once, but I do not think any of the songs were memorable. A show needs people to come back again and again and I just don't think this is a show that requires multiple visits.

It is good that it lasted as long as it did really.

[charmer88]

Posted: 11/9/08 at 9:07pm

wow, thats so bizarre, when i saw the show i always thought that Elle seemed so much less ditzy and alot smarter than in the film. In the musical i felt that it was alot more apparent that Elle always had the potential to do great things once she put her mind to it and you could see her actually getting smarter, sure she was a bit ditzy and shallow, but never once was she "stupid". in the movie she just seemed brainless and by the end didnt seem any more mature than when she had started out.

once again, this is just my opinion, i'm not saying anyone else is wrong so don't bash me for it lol.