Musicals based off of NOTHING else- Page 2

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 8:31pm

Ave Q is a spoof of Sesame Street.

Yes, and that describes its style. But the question of originality deals with plot.

AVENUE Q has an original plot.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 8:37pm

C-R-E-P-U-S-C-U-L-E

[Kad]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 8:51pm

Well, I guess I'm not winning this bee.

[Matteo]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 9:39pm

definitely not looking for "inspired by", as honestly everything is inspired by something. Looking for actually "based on". As I now see that there are quite a bit more than I originally thought, the majority of work nowadays is still not ENTIRELY original (a little disheartening, if you ask me).

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/6/12 at 10:41pm

You know there used to be (maybe still is) a creative writing class exercise where one student was told to go to the board and draw "an animal no one has seen before." When s/he was done, the instructor would point out that what had been drawn was actually just an animal with the head of a lion, neck of a giraffe, tail of a fish, etc.

The point is that no artist can envision something NEVER seen. The best s/he can do is rearrange his or her own reality into a form that seems novel and therefore interesting.

EVERY show is inspired by something. But we have traditionally called a musical "original" as long as its plot is new and not replicated from another medium.

As I'm sure everyone knows and although musical adaptations go back millennia to Greek tragedies, as shows have become more expensive, there has been a trend toward basing musicals on hit films in the hope that a family of four will be more likely to shell out $480 if they already know they like the characters and story. (When reading was more central to our culture, there were more musicals based on books. The same was true, once, of musicals based on plays. Now it's hard to find a play popular enough to draw in a paying crowd for an adaptation.)



Updated On: 9/6/12 at 10:41 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 5:44am

Inspired by and based on are very different, indeed, but I can see how this is a grey area.

I've tried to quantify this about six time while writing, but keep doubting myself. For example, I really don't know if I know the work of Seurat because I fell in love with the musical or if I was even aware of it before I saw it. (I'm certainly not well versed in art.)

Art comes in all forms: inspiration AND adaptation -- each with their own merits and challenges.

Wasn't Birdie based on Elvis' being drafted?

[tazber]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:17am

There is nothing new under the sun.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:31am

This thread is turning into a Dworkin/Fish debate on the epistemology of the literary text.
What is originality?

[artscallion]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 9:07am

Bat Boy, The Musical. A good example of something "inspired by" something else, yet, in my opinion, original. Yes, it comes from the tabloid stories. But the only thing they have in common is the idea that a bat boy exists. Past that, it's all original.

[bdn223]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 1:23pm

technically Bring It On is completely original...the only resemblance it has to the film is that its about rival high schools cheerleading teams...which you could basically say its inspired by the film rather than an adaptation....honestly they could have called the musical Cheer...but as Lysistrata Jones learned which is why its title was changed from Give it Up to Lysisistrata Jones, people kept confusing it with Bring it ON....

**I know that Bring It ON is was paid for by the producers of the film, and was always to be called Bring It On the Musical, but still it really isn't as much an adaptation as it is inspired by the movie as well as other teen comedies. ***

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:28pm

if it was totally original we would not understand it . It has to have a basis that we can understand. N2N which has an orginial approach to family relations and grief. But the topics have been done before.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:35pm

Uh... yeah

[artscallion]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:40pm

"if it was totally original we would not understand it."

Well, that can't really be the case. Everything is new to us at some point. We aren't born with the experience of the ages. Yet we see things and we come to understand them. We weren't born with an understanding of family relations and grief either. they were new and original to us at some point, yet we understood them through experiencing them. Same with a play. We can understand it by experiencing it.

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:48pm

such as ? name one thing that is totally new

[Wynbish]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:48pm

Totally new at any point in one's life?

[My Oh My]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:57pm

I'm endlessly amused over the fact this thread managed to infuriate me...after the first post!

It's usually a progression. You know, lame comment = testy; clueless moron = upset; stupid wannabe expert = angry; just plain mean a-hole = Nothing; another clueless asshat = infuriated.

Not this time, the only posts that have caused me panties to twist are the OP's.

Think about what you're asking. Even for 5 minutes.

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 07:57 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 7:59pm

Wasn't Birdie based on Elvis' being drafted?

It was inspired by the fuss around Elvis being drafted, but it is still considered an "original" musical because the actual characters and plot are otherwise fictional.

Jordan was using "totally original" in a different sense. His usage is like the writing class exercise I mentioned above. If we were suddenly presented with a non-carbon-based life form, it would probably be too different for anyone but the most imaginative scientist to identify.

"Original" when used with regard to adaptations isn't quite so extreme. It usually just means new characters and plot events. As scholars have pointed out at length, there are really only a half-dozen or so basic conflicts.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:15pm

Everything was inspired by something. And everyone adapts (or steals) plots...even Shakespeare.

The question is the quality, level of imagination and PERSONAL ARTISTIC INVESTMENT that went into the product.

This is why I get antsy about musicals (and in London, plays) based on overly-popular middlebrow hit movies...there is no discernible personal expression or investment that is thoroughly exposed onstage. It seems to be a crass play to get a consumer dollar from an audience they have already branded as tools, counting on them to have a knee-jerk reaction to the recognized brand name. The problem is, after so many of these crappy shows, the consumers are getting wise. That's why FLASHDANCE, right now, seems such a naive idea to produce on Broadway. Maybe in the early 2000's you could have pulled that off, but not now.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:21pm

I agree with you, borstalboy, but I think the fault lies with the motivations of the adaptors, not necessarily with the original project. Middlebrow source materials have given birth to classics like GUYS AND DOLLS, HOW TO SUCCEED..., even SWEENEY TODD.

I think it depends on whether the adaptors love the original, or merely love that the original was a hit. And then, as you say, the level of personal investment given to the project.

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 08:21 PM

[emo_geek]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:21pm

Brooklyn the Musical


and Beauty and the Beast...just kidding.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:33pm

"definitely not looking for "inspired by", as honestly everything is inspired by something. Looking for actually "based on". As I now see that there are quite a bit more than I originally thought, the majority of work nowadays is still not ENTIRELY original"

OK, so you're not a complete idgit. Glad I managed to trudge through the rest of this thread, lol. Although what initially irritated me had more to do with what I suspected you were on about: that somehow these so-called "COMPLETELY original" works are inherently superior to works that aren't and the criteria used to decide that (simply, whether it's original or not, and that's it) only skimming the surface.

"(a little disheartening, if you ask me)."

WHY?

[tazber]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:36pm

So, in terms of not being based on previously existing source material I think the following qualify:


Follies
Grease
Anything Goes
Book of Mormon
City of Angels
I Had a Ball
13
Falsettos
Baby
Caroline or Change
Company
Grind
Hedwig and the Angry Inch
In the Heights
Me and Juliet
Starlight Express
Urinetown

[Wynbish]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:37pm

Passing Strange?

[artscallion]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:42pm

"such as ? name one thing that is totally new"

Food is new to us at one point. Rain is new to us at one point. Being hurt by someone you think loves you is new to you at some point. Sex is new to you at some point...yet you understand them all through experiencing them, with no need for any past experience to put them in context.

I'm not disputing the "there's nothing new in the world" theory. But that's not what your post was saying. You were saying that we are unable to understand things that are new. And I'm saying that's not true. Things may not be new to the world. But they are, at points, new to us individually. And we are able to understand them even though they are new to us and have no historical context to us, individually.

Updated On: 9/7/12 at 08:42 PM

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 9/7/12 at 8:44pm

Has anyone mentioned Finian's Rainbow? I don't believe that's based on anything.