Is there anyone who thinks the idea of Legally Blonde is ridiculous? — Page 3

"If the powers that be deem it absolutely necessary to produce re-hashed big screen material, is it too much to ask that they at least start with some of the all time great films of all time and then work their way down to the "Legally Blondes" of the genre?!?!?"

I loved how this comes from someone who's screen name is a reference to WICKED.

I also wondered about that. That's why I replied above about the novels that are turned into musicals. I guess that person considers "Wicked" one of the greatest novels of all time.

---

I don't think the idea is ridiculous, I think of all movies, this is one that could easily make the transition. I don't know if it is any good, but the idea is far from ridiculous.

Agreed.

---

Because fluff musicals pay the bills, and why stop doing blockbuster musicals?

"We need more intelligent theatre."

Then get some investors and produce it (that is, if you have decided not to attend Grey Gardens, Company, The Apple Tree, Spring Awakening, or the upcoming LoveMusik, Pirate Queen, 110 in the Shade, or the plethora of plays this season). Right now, many producers are taking the safe route and opening shows based on material that is familiar to audiences. Like it or not, Legally Blonde was a hit comedy film and musicalizing it was far from a ridiculous idea. The Wedding Singer was a misfire and High Fidelity's film popularity lies more in cult status, but both had book and score flaws that were beyond repair by opening night. Wedding Singer was able to hang on for a bit mainly due to exposure on talk shows and the Tonys, but High Fidelity came and went almost completely unnoticed. Legally Blonde has been promoting itself wisely through smart and strategic marketing and its tryout has landed pretty solidly with audiences and critics. Sounds intelligent to me.

Broadway is a business involving not only the money of the investors, but that of the audience. Legally Blonde's conception is the result of a trend based on audience response to musical comedies based on familiar titles. This type of adaptation has been around for decades, be it from a film, play, poetry, fairy tales, etc. So, I don't see how the idea of adapting a popular film comedy to a stage musical comedy is in any way ridiculous. It's a smart idea, that if developed properly, could strike gold for the producers a la Hairspray, entertain thousands of people, boost the Broadway economy, attract more audiences, and keep artists employed. I'm not sure why someone doe NOT want that to happen. Unless they believe there is something wrong with popular escapist shows in Broadway theatres, which is actually the foundation of Broadway itself.

---

"A musical about a doll? Why not just write one about the common cat or the King of Siam? Give it up, Smithers."

Montgomery Burns

C'mon, folks: fluff has a long tradition on Broadway. WHERE'S CHARLIE. DO RE MI. ALL AMERICAN. ANYTHING GOES. MAMMA MIA. STARLIGHT EXPRESS. More curretly, AIDA. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. AVENUE Q. None of these are especially deep shows with haunting messages; they're a couple of hours of mindless fun and nothing more. I can think of a dozen more without breaking a sweat. And there will always be an audience for fluff... *but* the trick is to make it at least worthwhile. The fluff that Gershwin and Porter wrote back in the 20s and 30s and 40s lives on, not because of the cleverness of the plot but because of the gorgeousness of the scores, while a lot of the other fluff has died and gone on to the Heavyside Layer where it probably deserves to be. If LB has a good score accompanying a decent book, it might last past a season or two and recoup its investment. If it's nothing but eye candy, it'll flop on its butt and wave its arms around in desperation while people walk past it.

---

Great point SeanMartin, practically everything written Pre-Oklahoma! was POPular fluff entertainment, with stringy plot and greats songs, including many shows by the early masters. Eventually it moved to level where the story had more importance, and then it became the perfect meld in the time of R&H. I think that all have a place in the modern american musical theatre, the trick is finding the balance.

Revues (Zeigfeld Follies of 1919) > Musical Comedy (Sally) > Comedy (Anything Goes) > Comedy with a Conscience (Of Thee I Sing) > Plays (Oklahoma!) > Concept Show (Allegro) > Drama (West Side Story) > Tragedy (Sweeney Todd)

Not a perfect chart, but you get the idea.

---

Updated On: 2/12/07 at 01:40 PM

I was supposed to put THOUGHT into my screen name?

---

I saw the show and if Hairspray has been enjoying a healthy run on Broadway as well as on the road, I think LB will do the same. Of course theatre snobs will bash the show from the start and the critics' review would be mixed (no rave but no slumming) but as long as there are teenage girls who like Wicked and Hairspray, this show will do okay on Broadway. And as long as people come to see a show based on a movie, producers will keep making such show.

How is it anymore ridiculous than adapting Hairspray into a musical that went on to win 8 Tonys?

The film is a light comedy that seems able to adapt easily into musical comedy, so, no, it is not ridiculous at all.

Will it be my favorite show of all time? No, of course not. I prefer shows that are more, for lack of better terms, intelligent and artistically lofty, like Company and Sweeney. But not all musicals are going to be great works of art. We need some light, fun stuff, too. Shows like Avenue Q and Spelling Bee and Hairspray, that greatly accomplish what they set out to do: give people a fun night at the theatre. Not every show has to make some great powerful social statement.

Will LB be as good as the shows mentioned above? Hell, if I know. But it certainly has a chance to.

I also don't understand those who say "We need original works on Broadway. Stop adapting movies!" Musical theatre is an adpative artform more than an original one. Look at all the most sucessful musicals over the years and by FAR the majority of them are some sort of an adaptation of something else.

Why does it matter if a show is original or an adaptation if it is a good show?
Honestly.

---

Updated On: 2/13/07 at 01:18 AM

No, sorry. and no respect for the concept of dividing (to quote some) "artistic" and "entertaining". Since when we need to separate both? And I'm not even talking about LB, I just can't understand trying to justify any theatre production with poor artistic merit as "fun" , is that supposed to make it ok?
I am sure this production could achieve that (or perhaps it already has), but it seems to me that some are trying to defend something about it.

I'm sorry, but anything that is well done and crafted is always inmensely entertaining to me (as it is inspiring) and will, hopefully, be part of the development of the art form we all love.

---

No, love, I quote what I consider to be a witty and well crafted character created by Jim Henson from the late TV series The Muppet Show...heard of it?

---

"That's idiotic and mediocre not to aim to achieve both."

But you don't know what LB "aims" to be. According to you something has to be well done to be "inmensely entertaining", but the world can not prescibe itself to what your definition of what well done is. The man sitting next to you in the theatre could very well believe the show is "well done and crafted".

Fine, artistic and entertaining should go hand and hand. But it doesn't. Should shows simply be shunned if they aren't artistic verging on developing the artform, and of course, well done? If you're answer is "yes", then that is "idiotic".