New Poll: When a Show is Revived Do You Think...

[Jessica7]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 3:40pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/BWW-Polls-When-a-Show-is-Revived-Do-You-Think-20110826

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 4:07pm

I hate the choices. There should be a choice "It would depend upon the show". Some shows are so dated that it wouldn't make sense to do it as written, some shows need repairing, some shows are classics and have held up over the ages and shouldn't be touched.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 8/26/11 at 4:49pm

No show shouldn't be touched. Theatre is meant to be redesigned and directed with every production. Otherwise you're just getting a remount. Not every original production get's it right. There are plenty of shows hits and flops that could use a new take.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 12:11pm

I don't get the "either or" premise. Isn't there room for both? Especially since some people have no idea what original productions were like, and that will be more the case as time goes on.

The only barometer for me is quality, which can exist in revisionism or preservation. And with respect to many shows, quality can arguably only be guaranteed by at least some measure of revision, either because they weren't especially good to begin with, or because time has withered their original conceptions.

Can't we all agree that a wonderful classic play - a Medea or a Winter's Tale - can be done either traditionally or in a very original take. Why shouldn't the same be true for a more recent work?

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 8/27/11 at 12:15pm

I think there's a difference between traditional and carbon copied. Some people just want a remount. I'm not saying you can't stay traditional but give your creative team the freedom to design a new show, not copy previous work. This poll seems to reflect quite a bit of people want the latter.