It Looked Great - On paper — Page 3

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#51

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 9:49pm

Okay, I loved GOODBYE GIRL.

But that's because it starred Peters and Short - saw it three times.

Have I ever shown you my Shattered Dreams box? It's in my Disappointment Closet. - Marge Simpson

#52

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 9:57pm

Martin Guerre. You had Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil. But the show was mucked with too much, and it just didn’t work.

#53

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 9:57pm

"Rob Marshall (sorry, couldn't help myself)"

Well... he certainly did a better job than Schumacher, Columbus, and Stroman... I'll give you that. I still would have loved to have seen any one of these shows adapted for the screen by a Director with real vision. For instance, RENT as directed by Martin Scorcese (who was once attached to the project).

Edited for accuracy

Updated On: 7/18/06 at 09:57 PM

#54

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 10:04pm

That wasn't me, Luscious.

Have I ever shown you my Shattered Dreams box? It's in my Disappointment Closet. - Marge Simpson

#55

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 10:14pm

Woooops. Sorry to misquote you, Rath. To put it "bluntly", my clock has been parked at 4:20 all day.

Updated On: 7/18/06 at 10:14 PM

#56

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 10:27pm

LOL!!

Have I ever shown you my Shattered Dreams box? It's in my Disappointment Closet. - Marge Simpson

#57

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/18/06 at 11:44pm

I'm gonna put LOTR here. Everyone said that the show would run years in Toronto. Even opening night, the Mirvishes said it would outrun the Toronto production of Phantom - which ran 10 years. It lasted just over six months and I'm very skeptic of how it will do in London...even if anything can fly there. *cough*we will rock you*cough*

#58

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:11am

WithoutATrace, my bad...

It was the score of Nick and Nora that was nom'ed (I think it won?). Faith went on to win for G&D with Nathan. The time lapse between the two shows seemed so long that it felt like a different year (at least in my memory...which, clearly is not so great...) N&N opened and closed at the end of 91 and Guys and Dolls was a few months later in 92. N&N only lasted a week as I remember. Faith got her job shortly thereafter on Guys and Dolls.

Also, thank God for Suskin's book. Let the truth be told...!

"It's not so much do what you like, as it is that you like what you do." SS

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana." GMarx

#59

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 1:12am

"It's not a mean-spirited thread. I hate people who are way too "Life is Great - everything's great" - that's stupid."

Well, there's a positive thought, rentboy. Can we at least agree it's a negative thread? That, possibly, serves no real purpose other than to be negative?

"Is there a Director out there who knows how to adapt and re-imagine a Broadway show for the screen?"

"Rob Marshall (sorry, couldn't help myself)"

Now, see, here, even I'm compelled to be negative. Marshall didn't so much direct Chicago as much as had the bejesus edited out of it for him. I defy anyone to find a single shot of "dancing" in that film that lasted more than 10 seconds (and even that will be tough).

#60

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 10:24am

i also never saw WOMAN IN WHITE, but i was so excited when i got the cast recording, i was like "wow! its gonna be another PHANTOM! yay!", and when i listened to it, i was very bored, and very dissappointed...
id also have to say the same for TARZAN, never saw the show, have the c.r., and am bored by it, especially all the new songs...ewww
:P
yeah

#61

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 10:31am

Breakfast at Tiffany's - despite the creative team and cast, proof from waaaaaay back that a good movie doesn't necessarily inspire a great musical.

Updated On: 7/19/06 at 10:31 AM

#62

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:11pm

I too enjoyed Goodbye Girl

Another entry for this thread is Dude. Any musical by mac dermott than would have looked sure fire hit. Too bad they had no book

Poster Emeritus

#63

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:12pm

Roxy: did you see DUDE? Anything with Nell Carter couldn't have been THAT awful.

#64

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:15pm

Regretfully, that was one train wreck I missed. I have a CD of many of the songs (no idea how many actually made it into the finished show)from the show. The music is not that bad. Mac Dermott is a very talented composer who, after Hair, got stricken with a case of Charles Strouse disease - write good music & shows bomb

Poster Emeritus

#65

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:27pm

I have the CD too...Carter sounds great in "So Long Dude."

#66

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:31pm

MB= Carrie was great on paper, and despite some major lyrical and stuctural issues was immensly entertaining, it was direcotrialy (sp?) that it went wrong.

Lolita My Love, sounded great on paper, but def. did not work in life...despite a good score.

Gone With the Wind is another, that just never caught on here. I blame Parnell Roberts.

#67

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:37pm

1491
Bring Back Birdie

Poster Emeritus

#68

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:38pm

Bring Back Birdie was great on paper AND on stage!

I would do anything to hear the score from 1491.

#69

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:44pm

So would I

Poster Emeritus

#70

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:50pm

Baker's Wife and 70,Girls,70 are two shows that got recordings that really sounded good on paper.

Baker had potential, but when you can cover the entire story in one metaphorical song, it kinda makes you wonder why your sitting through it...but I'm not a fan of the show, so I'm not too objective.

If I'm correct 70's failure was in part to the fact that it opened in the same season as Follies, and another show featuring primarily aged stars, and it was almost an overload. Personally, I find the score absolutely charming.

#71

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:52pm

70 does have a great score. Would you expect anything less from K & E ?

Poster Emeritus

#72

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 12:59pm

Personally I prefer Liza's arrangement of "Yes" better than the show's arrangement, but that may be more a matter of the order I heard it in (Liza first and then the show).

Anyone Can Whistle was another one that I love to death, and never took off. There are a lot of scores that are much more interesting to listen to than to see, Merrily, Ragtime (although when done well it's great), Secret Garden (same with Ragtime).

#73

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 1:02pm

LEGS DIAMOND and BIG DEAL pop into mind as well.

"For me, THEATRE is an anticipation, an artistic rush, an emotional banquet, a jubilant appreciation, and an exit hopeful of clearer thought and better worlds." ~ an anonymous traveler with Robert Burns

#74

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 1:08pm

Definitely the last two

Poster Emeritus

#75

re: It Looked Great - On paper

Posted: 7/19/06 at 1:24pm

Legs Diamond was...well...different. Ever notice how well preserved many flops are?

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $70

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $101