Do theater snobs who hate shows like Legally Blonde love Next to Normal?

Just curious. It seems like they should.

---

Please tell me in what way they're even remotely similar.

---

I don't really understand how the two are related.

I love Next to Normal.

I enjoyed myself at Legally Blonde.

Obviously they're two very different kinds of shows... but I enjoy serious fare and occasional fluff. Variety is the spice of life.

---

Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying they're similar, so why are "theater snobs" who hate Legally Blonde all over Next to Normal?

---

Well, I suppose this thread is intended to be yet another pre-school taunt to incite a useless debate about individual tastes, so I'll leave you to it.

For the record I like both very much.

---

I think the REAL question is, Do those of us who HATED TOS fanatics like N2N freaks any better?

I think enthusiasm for a show is a great thing.

Saying everyone who disagrees with you is "wrong" is more or less what happens on here though.

---

While I have still yet to see Next to Normal, I like what I have heard/seen so far. And I also happened to enjoy Legally Blonde. I don't really see what this means, but I think tastes are a personal matter. It's not as if all snobs like only one type of show and I am sure it's not as black-and-white on the other end of the spectrum. What I really don't understand, however, is the amount of hate people had over Legally Blonde. I can understand disliking it or it not being some people's cup of tea, but people seemed to equate it with Broadway lowering itself. While I do think the MTV airing and MTV reality show kind of helped with this perception, I just can't swallow the whole movie-to-stage is bad for Broadway pill.

Look, I enjoy an original musical just as much as everyone else. I really do. I loved the crap out of [title of show], In the Heights, Drowsy, Parade, Urinetown, etc. and although I thought it was flawed I thoroughly enjoyed Happiness (which I think is actually one of the most original musicals in spite of its plot device). That being said, adaptation is adaptation. What makes something like South Pacific, which was based off a book, so much better than something like Legally Blonde? I mean both star an adorable blonde girl finding her way and showing us all that being true to yourself never goes out of styl...oh wait...no, that..that doesn't work.

But really the difference is in the execution. You can either have shows that are adapted brilliantly like Billy Elliot or you can have Shrek. I just think the idea that Legally Blonde and other shows like it are bad for Broadway simply BECAUSE they are in the movie-to-stage or "unoriginal"category is silly. The same category produced West Side Story, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Rent, Les Misérables, Carousel, Phantom, Gypsy, and countless other shows that were still considered pretty original when they came out.

I love both shows for what they are. I need a good, cheesy smile? I listen to or watch LEGALLY BLONDE. I need to cry? I see N2N. Sure, you can be in favor of heavier, more challenging works like N2N and hate BLONDE and vice versa, but it all comes down to personal taste. It's not a universal thing that you can only like one and not the other. This board is a very SMALL group of theatregoers, so any "vitriol" noticed towards BLONDE is not necessarily the consensus.

I think it depends on how you feel about "rock musicals."

---

I didn't particularly care for both either.

---

mormon -

I think the difference with the shows you named (phantom, les mis, etc...) and the movie-to-musical shows (9-5, legally blonde, shrek, etc) is that the ones you named were created to cash in on the fact that they are considered 'classics'. They weren't trying to necessarily cash in on the fact that they were a major hollywood blockbuster movie.

At least that's how i see it.

I absolutely loved Legally Blonde! Saw it 5 times...
I loved 9 to 5....
I loved next to normal...

---