"Because the final product of Aida bears very, very little, if any, resemblance to the Puccini opera. I never said Aida was an entirely original musical."
No, but it is in no way
more original than this new project, which was your argument. Aida was an adaptation of an adaptation. It makes no sense.
"And yes, Disney took a HUGE risk with that show. Elton John's name was not a guarantee. And, early on, the Disney name wasn't even used in their advertising. The show was advertised as being produced by 'Hyperion Theatricals.'"
Please. Aida opened on the heels of The Lion King, which introduced Elton John's first Broadway score, so it wasn't
that big of a risk. It used a story recognized by classical music fans and a name that, even those who have never seen opera, have most likely heard of it. And finally, by the time the show opened, when it was most important to the success of the show, everyone knew it was produced by Disney, which had been announced prior to its Atlanta tryout. Not to mention the fact that there was a concept recording to introduce Elton John fans to the score prior to the musical's stage production. Disney knew it was charting new territory producing a musical directly for the stage and it took a safe and tentative route to do so. The biggest risk for Aida was in its rather ambitious set design, which was scrapped out of town when it was discovered it was too expensive and unreliable.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian