Is there anyone who thinks the idea of Legally Blonde is ridiculous? — Page 4

I don't understand the anger towards movie adaptations. As has been said often here, it's not about where it came from, it's about the musical itself. Adapting from a movie is no different from adapting from a book or a play. I don't know why everyone thinks that "suddenly" there is no completely original musicals on Broadway. Name me one time where "original" musicals have dominated and I'll send you a cookie via mail.

Lets also not forget that Broadway is, always has been, and always will be first and foremost a tourist attraction. Call it art or whatever you want, but it has to make money or it doesn't happen and if you don't know that then you're kidding yourself. I think anything getting people interested in Broadway is good. The more a person knows about it, the more obscure things they eventually start looking into. That doesn't mean you can't not like a show, but know that anything making money has a place. I think it's a pretty fair assessment that Legally Blonde will make some money.

SeanMartin, "Do-Re-Mi" was not fluff (this from a man whose handle is "Allofmylife").

That aside, Broadway has ALWAYS been 98% fluff with a few scattered "meaningful" shows - most of which closed on a very early Saturday night.

"Showboat" ran during a season filled with girlie reviews. "Of Thee I Sing" ran in a season filled with Follies and Scandals and Vanities and exactly one other "meaningful" musical: "The Cat and The Fiddle".

"On Your Toes " had only ONE other musical running during it's run, "The Ziegfeld Follies of 1936" and a whole lotta reviews.

"Oklahoma" opened in a season where the only other hit was "Star and Garter"

Fluff keeps the doors open, the theaters painted, the staff employed and the actors eating and housed.

I have no problem with fluff. And apparently, historically, neither have 98% of the audiences....

---

I don't think that basing a musical on a movie is any worse than basing it on a novel.

I mean, if I had read The Light in the Piazza before it was adapted into a musical, when I found out it was going to be made into one, I probably would have been like "Man, that book doesn't deserve to be a musical." And you know what, I would have been proven wrong.

---

Why is there so much judgement towards people who aren't interested in this show?

I wasn't crazy about the movie, didn't like the clips I saw that are designed to part me with my money and make the effort to see the show. I don't see how what I find to be so-so music adds much to a story I have little interest in.

Great for the creative team and investors if it is a success, but I don't see myself going out the way to see it.

Unless those whose opinions I respect convince me that I mis-judged the show and would probably like it.

Or, I may see it if I got a free ticket and had a free night.

As for screen to stage adapatations. Everyone acts like this is something new. It has been going on for decades. Only now, people are noticing the formulatic tendencies in such adaptations.

---

Updated On: 2/13/07 at 05:09 PM

>> SeanMartin, "Do-Re-Mi" was not fluff (this from a man whose handle is "Allofmylife").

Please. It was a vehicle piece, with an acceptable score and an inane story. It's fluff, through and through.

---

sorry, this is from a while back, but:

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.

how so, may I ask? I understand what you mean about craft and everything- a show, imo, should always strive to be well crafted- but are "well crafted" and "deep and artistic" really the same things? I always thought of well crafted as just.. well made, in any aspect. Deep and artistic, on the other hand, has to do more with a certain TYPE of show, doesn't in? In which case I agree with the idea that a show DOESNT always have to be deep and artistic to be entertaining. There IS such thing as mindless fun, and it CAN be done well, and a lot of times I enjoy really good mindless fun every bit as much as I enjoy deep shows that make me think! Again, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be well crafted- in fact, for them to work they pretty much HAVE to be well crafted, but it just seems like to say that all shows should aim to be deep and thought provoking is kind of eliminating an entire genre of theater!

So really, I think I agree with you, because I have a feeling that what you meant was that even "mindless fun" shows should be well made. its just the way you phrased it that I dont quite agree with :)

---

...just when i thought some people on this site couldn't get any more pretentious....

Legally Blonde is a smart story. The whole theme of the story is to not judge a book by its cover. Elle is thought to be frivolous and not intelligent because of her blonde hair and designer clothes. She turns out to be the valedictorian of her class....

There's a lesson in that for some of you. You call this show "unintelligent" and "a fluff musical" but in reality, just like its predecessor Hairspray, there is a lesson intermixed with all that pink costuming and Jerry Mitchell choreography. and it is, perhaps, a lesson that some people on this board could learn... Don't judge a book by its cover, or in this case, don't judge a show without seeing it first.

Who knows? Legally Blonde, much like its leading lady, might overcome the adversity of stereotypes and become valedictorian (or in the show's cast the Best Musical of the year).

As far as saying the lyrics are "pedestrian," not everything has to be as complex as a Sondheim. Honestly, the song "Omigod you Guys" is a great way to open the show. The songs are using the vernacular that the characters use. In all honesty, if the Delta Nu girls sang lyrics containing the vocabulary Sondheim uses, it wouldn't make any sense.

From what i have heard and seen so far, Legally Blonde looks and sounds to be a great and energetic musical comedy.

Let's give it a chance and not make sweeping generalizations that all movies based off of films are bad.... (anyone else remember Hairspray, The Full Monty, The Producers, etc.)

Gus, you can embroider a tea cozy for an elephant, but no matter how hard you try, it will never be a raincoat.

DO RE MI, for all its aspirations to "deep and meaningful", was a fluff vehicle for Phil Silvers. It might have had aspirations to say something serious, but that seriousness was buried under a barely passable score and a book laden with cute characters and cute hooks. The potential to say something smart abot payola in the music industry was left dormant in its rush to give Silvers' audience the experience of seeing him onstage, and that was all.

In some respects, it's the musical equivalent of "Miracle at Morgan's Creek," a wonderfully funny movie about "virgin birth" that had all thse little digs at the censors built into the screenplay. But the difference between DO RE MI and "Miracle" is that the latter actually met the problems head on and dealt with them. DO RE MI used a story "ripped from the headlines" to create a formulaic,first-draft-breezy show about nothing of consequence.

It's fluff. Deal with it.

---

Sean, I'd write back some sort of flaming letter saying what a pretentious ahole you can be if this was an arguement worth having, which, obviously it's not. You are right it's fluff. BUT IT'S MY FLUFF!!!! It's my Wicked and Rent and, yes Legally Blonde. I am the Man in the Chair about this show and I find myself fighting a ridiculous fight over a minor show which, without Silvers and Walker, would have run for three weeks (it did have one hit song, after all).

God, I love that show.

And I hate myself for loving it.

Off to the shrink...

---

You have to be kidding me about Rent being fluff.

Is is my number one reason that I am coming to New York in April.

I guess I am just a ridiculous person.

I bet your favorite show was a ridiculous idea too.

This is a ridiculous thread.

Everythings ridiculous.

RE-DIK-YOU-LESS.

---

Hey, we all have guilty pleasures, guys. Whether it's fluff like DO RE MI or, in my own case, a really terrible show called CRY FOR US ALL, we all have those things we dearly love and will defend with the last fibre of our beings.

But let's keep it in perspective, okay? Accept that things are fluff and terrible and move on.

And yeah, in some vague kinda way, RENT qualifies as fluff, but that's another discussion for another thread...

---

I saw the musical a couple of days after it started it's previews. I've gotta say that Im a huge fan of the movie, but the musical, in my opinion was OK. Some of the songs were a bit cheezy, like "omigod you guys", but others I just adored, like "Chip on my shoulder"!

Laura Bell Bundy actually was born in Lexington, Ky. (which is like 2 hours from where I live), So I really enjoyed her. Not just because she's from the Bluegrass State, but I think she is incredibly talented. Also after seeing the show, I have become an extreme Christian Borle fan! He is truely amazing! Im definatley behind him to win the Tony this year( as well as Laura)!

So overall, it was a pretty good show. As to the question "Would I ever see it again?". Well probably, just all depends.

Now you all have to remember I saw this on a Thursday, and I saw Jersey Boys Tuesday (both for the first time). I OBVIOUSLY fell in love with Jersey Boys right after the curtain went down(as well as John Lloyd Young). So it was hard for me to compare the shows after seeing them both so close together. They're 2 COMPLETLEY different shows!

---