Carrie Sept 20th? — Page 3

Another thing they need to do when/if it's revived is to make sure that Carrie's powers are firmly established by the end of Act 1. A major problem with the show was that if you hadn't seen the movie or read the book, you would've been clueless as to what was going on. Up until the end act 1, the only evidence of Carrie's powers was a light exploding. When the act 1 finale arrives and Carrie's hands are suddenly in flames those who weren't familiar with the story were lost.

There's a scene in the book and I think it's in the movie as well, where right after Carrie has her period, the gym teacher takes her to the principal's office. While attempting to get the story of what happened out of her, the principal repeatedly gets Carrie's name wrong. Finally after the 3rd or 4th time, Carrie has an outburst and some of the items in the office clatter to the floor. I'd like to see that scene in put in the show, as well another scene or song where Carrie discovers the extent of her powers.

---

Celia and Carolee

Omg divarobbie YEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!

Again BorstalBoy proves he knows little about the topic he is commenting on

Carrie always wanted to meet a boy and live happily ever after, Stephen King himself said that the whole point of carrie was that it was about a girl who just wanted to belong and have what other teenagers had

Its a Cinderella story

I also heavily disagree with the person who says the most of the material is garbage, some of the songs (Mainly the songs between Carrie and her mum) convey more power and passion than most shows do.

From the terrifying but brilliantly written Eve Was Waek, to the beautiful and Haunting I Remember How Those Boys Could Dance, the score is full of Gems.

The younger songs performed the ensemble are the problem, Out For Blood, Dream On and Wotta Night need to be dropped.In was fine but could do with an update if it was done again, as with Dont Waste The Moon.Sues 2nd act song also needs to go (even though it was already changed twice)

The book needed to go back to the very in depth workshop book and the 1986 re write book which showed scenes in a library with Carrie figuring out she had telekinesis and great scenes in the classroom and principles office (where carrie made the desk move).

Carrie was not the disaster that the critics made out (i watched it as a kid in the UK and loved it and so it seemed did the rest of the audience)

It just needs a bloody good spit and polish

---

I dont care if its revived again or not

I just hate when people state an opinion about things they know nothing about

And i would also say you are way of the mark with the "no one likes" comment

If that was true people would stop talking about it

And also just because YOU don't like it, it does not mean that no one else likes it.

---

Im calm love, im sat here drinking my Vodka, im practically sedated

---

Now thats a good question

And i think you do need a powerhouse to do them songs, when Cook did it here in the UK she sang it much more operatic and they felt flat, Linzi performance went through the roof when Betty joined the cast.

However the workshop cast was also pretty good with a strong female lead playing Margaret, so i think other women could pull of the role too.I dont think they will top Betty though

Alice Ripley would be good i think

---

But how much time does the book and movie spend inside Carrie's head? To me, that's where the musical fell off -- sure, Carrie has those universal, Cinderella-esque fantasies but is it really about her getting them or her having them HAPPEN to her? Carrie is not the engine of her success, the other characters shove her into that limelight/fairy tale, for a mixed bag of motivations but THOSE motivations are as much the story of Carrie as Carrie herself. And I think for the purposes of a musical, what people think and feel about Carrie is more dramatic than what she thinks. No one in that story really knows or understands what she thinks -- that's a big part of the story. Let THEM decide what Carrie wants/needs, making her inability to handle it all the more tragic. She's still the center/core of the story but without being the lead character in terms of stage time.

At least that's the Carrie I want to see and I'm a pretty big fan of the book/movie too :)

Updated On: 9/10/08 at 06:12 PM

songanddance, Trevor Nunn never had anything to do with the RSC Carrie. It was Terry Hands, who was looking to Carrie for a "big commercial musical hit" to equal Nunn's success at the RSC (in the form of Les Mis).

"Really? No one likes it? Hmm. I like it (a lot, actually). And many here (and elsewhere) have said the same....

I'd put money behind a revival, given the show's cult status being as strong as it is."

As I said, I'd put my money into a revival of this too. But again, it's not an issue if the material is good (which most is not), the cult fans (& many others) would see it to see what it's all about.

You'd be suprised about weird/bizarre marketing. And according to people on this board, Carrie (novel + film) is HUGE deal to normal people. Personally, I seem to find more people know what 'It' is other than Carrie (but Carrie is better!).

Regardless, Carrie has a memorable story, but it is a LITTLE awkward I would think for a musical (I believe there was a play a few years back that was small-scaled but moderately successful?). It would still draw Stephen King's fans (generally), as I see that he has only got more famous than 20 years ago.

Stephen King does not own the rights to "Carrie: The Musical." He owns certain character rights, but the music and choreography of the show are owned by seperate people. You'd be suprised how many people would go see it if they revived it. Michael Bennett...you are obviously not very well schooled on the general public and what they are interested in seeing. I think Carrie: The Musical would work for todays generation far better then it ever could in the 70s and 80s. Adults, and teens alike would go see it.

Updated On: 9/10/08 at 10:12 PM

Monkey --

Thats not exactly true. It would depend on the terms of the original contract. I'm not saying Stephen King owns the rights to the music and lyrics, but he does control the base property. If the original terms to produce a musical based on one of his novels has expired, he could certainly prevent it from being produced again if he wished.

A similar issue came up with the recent new musical of GONE WITH THE WIND. Though Harold Rome first musicalized the work in the 70s, the option to produce the actual material reverted back to the Margaret Mitchell estate long ago, which is what opened the door for the new musical version of WIND that recently flopped in the West End.

And I see absolutely no evidence to support that the 'general public" is interested in seeing CARRIE. How do you know adults and teens alike would go see a show that received horrible reviews and ran for five performances 20 years ago?

CARRIE is not some forgotten masterpiece. Its not THE GOLDEN APPLE. It remains a show that has about 4 great songs in it and a alot of unspeakably horrible material surrounding it. Even a great director isn't going to be able to hide that. And no mainstream audience is going to pay 125 dollars for a piece of garbage long enough to keep a 20 million dollar musical afloat long enough to recoup. I don't care what its based on.

Updated On: 9/10/08 at 10:33 PM