Lestat = Le Bad — Page 2

Chloe, I realized it was a play on slang, but it still doesn't make any sense.

And anything I've seen or heard has not been positive, but I'm not particularly interested in Lestat so I haven't been seeking out reviews, good or bad. I also mentioned within my post that we had not been trashing Lestat in this thread.

And disliking Elton John's musicals doesn't mean I hate theater. He's hardly the alpha and omega of theatrical undertakings. This is a slippery slope though, so I'll leave it at that. Because The Lion King definitely has a lot to offer (and music that isn't his that is great), and apparently Billy Elliot is an amazing production, his music aside.

You're right though. Perhaps it'll be the most amazing show I've ever seen--wait, I've never really made any comments about it except about the music, so we'll amend that to Perhaps it'll be the most amazing music I've ever heard, and then, boy, will my foot be in my mouth.

---

Yes, it is both The Vampire Lestat & Interview With the Vampire. Lestat is Act 1 and Interview is Act 2 with apparently a bit of Queen of the Damned tossed in at the end (from what I've read.)

---

They want to take the character "in a new direction," whatever that means. I'd heard rumors he wasn't working well with the cast, who knows what the real story is.

---

One thing that struck me as funny as the comment that you don't sympathize with Lestat. The same can be said in the books. Lestat is not a charcter you like or care what happens to.

---

Same here. I haven't read the books, and I feel like if I had, some of the stuff in the musical would make more sense (if at all possible). Then again, I shouldn't have HAD to know the source material that well to enjoy a separate piece of work based on it.

---

I really hope they fix it up before it comes to NYC.

I haven't read the books either. Is is necessary for me to do so before seeing it? I don't want to be confused.

Kass983, Witches = Mayfair. :) Hope that helps.

NYNYBroadway baby, typical whiny response of "don't say anything bad about the show before you see it" but you can praise a show to high heaven before it comes out. The posters like you are wasting your time and are all being ridiculous, and by the way your post makes no sense.

---

Well I don't know how much of the QOTD stuff will be staying, from reviews I've read that seems to be the weakest part, so it may all be excised for all I know. (and I really don't know exactly what is there now as I haven't seen it yet.) They should probably just concentrate on the first 2 books and leave all the Akasha stuff out of it, since to really understand that you have to know a whole lot of backstory.

---

You know,

back in the day: Broadway was considered "pop". And its consisting composers wrote "pop music". Because rock came along, and theatre wasn't quick to catch up (and it only really did with Hair, Godspell, Superstar and then a heap of flops), people have been caught on this cloud of insane frenzied snobbery. If a contemporary pop / rock composer enters the field people are (almost) like: "well, jee. They write pop. We'd rather hear music from the 40s and 50s". Whereas, the reason why the music of the 40s and 50s succeeded (primarily) is because it was the music of the time. There can be no denial

I praise Elton John and his efforts. I liked Aida, I didn't mind Lion King, and I'm looking forward to Billy Elliot (still can't wait to get that CD: not to mention the Broadway premiere). Also, I've been hoping that this one would break the vampire curse. I really really want this show to succeed because a) it's different and b) I want to see pop composers, the modern equivalents of the Rodgers and Harts, succeed in theatre. Steinman came close, but was lead astray with Dance of the Vampires. Wildhorn didn't have the right team. Elton John has written some of the most stirring songs I've ever heard: and I'm not a fan. I want this show to succeed

And I wish people would get off their high horses and accept that the reason Broadway succeeded in the first place (not to mention musical theatre itself) is because it was conditioned to its times. If theatre is just, say, an experimental show (with the musical echoes of the 40s) then who cares? No one wants to see that except old people and their parents. I welcome this show, and the work that Elton and Bernie are doing: and if it doesn't succeed, then it's only because it wasn't handled the proper way.

But don't get me started on that old "open mind versus snobbery" argument. I can get quite vicious in those

---

Updated On: 12/25/05 at 03:49 AM

Well, since you saw the show you are right to comment. Others who haven't should not. I'll wait to see the show and revise my thoughts on the matter

---

Amusing review I found on metblogs:
" An afternoon at the theater"

---

My wife used to be a big fan but said her last 3 or 4 books have been dreck

Still, it may succeed because of the fact John wrote the music & Rice's name & title recognition will count for something. How long it lasts will depend on word of mouth. Aida was closed down & retooled & was a hit so the same could happen here

Remember a vampire never dies except if it is played by Michael Crawford or Tom Hewitt

---