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

[jimnysf]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 11:11pm

"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.

[Al Dente]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 11:14pm

Rath, for once I will agree with you in the sense that a job is a job and not many are in the position to turn down leading roles in musicals but as I've seen Blonde twice, I will sadly state Bundy's work is far from being as inspired as it was over a decade ago. Part of what was great about her Ruthless was her youth and the fit of the role. IMO, she's become more linear as an adult actress. There's nothing extraordinary in her portrayal of Elle Woods. There's not much in the way of 'extraordinary' with the show at all. The lyrics are especially mind numbing. It's mindless fun but again, IMO, this show will not have the effect of Wicked. Elle is no Elphaba and hard as 'they're' trying, she's no Galinda either.

[Julian2]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 11:18pm

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.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 11:19pm

Rath,I already said in my previous post there's nothing wrong her doing those type of musicals.My exact words were:"There's nothing wrong with it but it was just something I happened to noticed." I hear she is doing a great job with this and has done a great job with her past musicals. There's nothing wrong with anybody doing those type of musicals it was just a pattern I noticed.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 2/11/07 at 11:34pm

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

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 11:43am

well ive actually seen the show and as 27 year old guy who works in musicals i have nothing but praise for this.

Of course its not a stupid idea,the film screams of a musical(surely any idiot can see that?)

The show is well directed and well played by all involved and the audience seemed to love it.
Films been turned in to musicals is fine if they work and this one does.

The bashing of this show by people who haven't seen it is stupid,if you don't wanna see the show then don't.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 12:13pm

"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.

[Julian2]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 12:33pm

It's harder for more challenging stuff to make it on Broadway. As such, that work, and "staunch" proponets of such work are on the offensive. And they are right, we need to be careful to keep a good balance of comedy/middleground/serious and commericial/artistic. Luckily, unless it has DISNEY plastered all over it, you have to get at least a few good reviews (and/or have to be somewhat good) to run for a while. The Wedding Singer closed after not too long of a run, and High Fidelity barely bliped on the radar. So even our fluff/light stuff/comedy/whatever! has to be well done.

My point is, the fluff has to be at least decent to succed (hopefully), but at the same time, "serious" work does need more of a showcase. So, I think we should trumpet more serious work on B-way, without being hateful on musicals made from movies or commissioned by producers that are actually somewhat well crafted.

MUSICALS MADE FROM MOVIES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. THE LACK OF ADVENTUROUS PRODUCERS AND VISIBLE GOOD PIECES IS. SO HATING THE MOVIE MUSICALS IS NOT THE ANSWER. MOVIES ARE A PART OF THE AMERICAN ART SCENE AND ARE JUST AS VIABLE AS ANYTHING. BAD SHOWS DESERVE TO CLOSE, BUT SHOWS THAT ARE AT LEAST SOMEWHAT WELL CRAFTED AND MAKE A CONNECTION WITH AUDIENCES ARE FINE. EVEN IF WE STILL NEED MORE SERIOUS WORK, THEY ARE FINE AND NOT THE ENEMY WE SHOULD BE FIGHTING. TRUMPET THE GOOD WHILE KEEPING ROOM FOR THE DIFFERENT.

Rant Over.

Updated On: 2/12/07 at 12:33 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 12:57pm

"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

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 1:08pm

haha YES!

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 1:22pm

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.

[carymetorent2]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 1:40pm

Bigbill, I don't know what your problem is, but your post sounded so angry over a show you've never seen!

There are people on these boards, a lot of them, that have stated that they went in not liking a lot of the songs or the premise and came out loving the show.

You have just decided that this movie shouldn't be a musical, which is fine because that's your opinion, but when I heard they were making a musical of the book "Wicked" I wondered how they came up with that idea considering all the serious subject matter and undertones that that book contains.

Don't see the show or see the show. That's your own choice. But do not pass judgment on a show that you don't intend to see and haven't seen yet. And before you jump on me, I am fully in agreement that people who haven't seen the show should not express how much they LOVE it and how it's one of their favorite shows.

This thread was unnecessary and is just going to turn into another battle of the haters vs. lovers - almost all people who have yet to see the show. I have yet to see anyone post on here that has seen the show and hated it as much as you seem to.

[Julian2]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 1:40pm

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

[pemberlee]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 1:41pm

Not all movies or musicals have to be deep and artistic to be entertaining.

[Dancin Thru Life]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 3:24pm

I was supposed to put THOUGHT into my screen name?

[snl89]

Posted: 2/12/07 at 3:49pm

a while back, I prob would have said yes, I think it is ridiculous. But you know what? Wedding Singer has taught me otherwise :) You CAN have a show like this, and if you get a kick-ass enough cast, REALLY addictive music, and some hella funny writing in there, it makes for a really, REALLY good time!

now, whether or not Legally Blonde will be great, I do not know. So far I'm thinking it looks cute, but not amazing. But.. I still am interested to see it- I'm always up for a little cute even if its not perfect! And who knows.. I might end up loving it just as much as I loved wedding singer! Though somehow I doubt it, mostly because I do not have any kind of attachment to the cast, whereas I had been addicted to stephen lynch and amy spanger (and even felicia finley to an extent) long before wedding singer even came to be But it still might suprise me!

[lite2shine]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 12:53am

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.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:09am

Not all movies or musicals have to be deep and artistic to be entertaining.

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

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:18am

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

[HumATune]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:19am

So blaxx, you've never liked anything that's pure fluff? There's no movie, talk show, reality show, junk novel, or tabloid that's your guilty pleasure? Not everything CAN be deep or else it becomes laughable.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:29am

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.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:32am

blaxx: Well, I mean, I see that your quote at the bottom of your posts is from The JAnice Dickinson Modeling Agency television show.

Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE

Since entertainment must also always have deep artistic meaning, can you tell me what is the deep artistic meaning of that t.v. show?

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:35am

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?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:39am

LOL.

Damn, I thought I had you in a trap.

Sorry for that.

I've never heard of many people named Janice so I incorrectly assumed it was her and judging from America's Next Top Model that sounds like something she would say (I've never seen her show).

Well, anyway...
My apoligies.
Way to make myself look like a complete dumbass.

Updated On: 2/13/07 at 01:39 AM

[luvliza89]

Posted: 2/13/07 at 1:57am

"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".