Do we really need ANOTHER Into the Woods on Broadway... — Page 2

I don't need another revival; I feel like I've seen that show a million times.

But I don't begrudge the Public's desire to cash in on the show's vast popularity; Lord knows that poor company needs any funds they can bring in.

I love "Into the Woods" and as long as I can afford a ticket, I will always go to any Broadway revival. I disagree with the received wisdom that the last revival was bad, I saw it and the original cast (save Bernie) and thought it was different, but not bad. I'm glad I saw it, I'm glad I saw the original, I will be glad to see any future revivals.

I've given up worrying about whether or not something like this is something "we" "need." If they mount it, I will come. Basically, that's my philosophy of life.

---

Updated On: 5/14/12 at 12:11 PM

"If Broadway only produced what the academics and hard-core Golden Age enthusiasts wish to see, we probably wouldn't see any shows recoup and Broadway would truly turn into the corporate theme park people believe it to be now.

I'll take another Into the Woods over another Gypsy any day. "

I love Gypsy, but yes, exactly. And whereas lately Gypsy seems to get revived purely on the instigation of the idea that so-and-so-Broadway diva *had* tp play the role, this Into the Woods isn't existing in a vaccuum. The producers are well aware the last revival lost a lot of money (I know it's been pointed out that the original did too, but it did recoup on tour and also helped lead to I'm sure a very lucrative property to license). However this version first was chosen because the London staging of it was such a success, a bit of a surprise success, both with audiences and critics. While I'm sure the ideal is to have a Broadway trasnfer, it also was an obvious perfect choice for the Summer musical in the park.

Yes we do need it. I never saw the original production nor did I see the revival but I know that was bad anyway.