ORIGINAL Broadway Musicals? Why?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 12:52am

Adaptations (A) & Revivals (R) now on Broadway:

ALL SHOOK UP (A-songs)
BEAUTY & THE BEAST (A)
CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG (A)
DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS (A)
FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (R)
GOOD VIBRATIONS (A)
HAIRSPRAY (A)
LA CAGE AUX FOLLES (R)
LITTLE WOMEN (A)
MAMMA MIA! (A-songs)
MARY POPPINS (A)
MOVIN' OUT (A-songs)
SPAMALOT (A)
THE LION KING (A)
THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (A)
THE PRODUCERS (A)
WICKED (A)

This is about 60%.

Other famous adaptations:

FROG & TOAD, SEUSSICAL, PETER PAN, CATS, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, LES MISERABLES, 42nd STREET, MY FAIR LADY, THE WIZ, JEKYLL & HYDE, ANNIE, etc. etc. etc.

My point:

Many users here complain that there isn't enough originality here on Broadway. This is something that is NOT new! It's been happening for decades! Writers are adapting novels, plays, comic strips, tv shows, biographies, movies, and songs all the time.

Planned adaptations/revivals are: SHREK, BATMAN, SPIDERMAN, LORD OF THE RINGS, PETER PAN, A CHORUS LINE, MAME, Lennon Songs, etc. etc. etc.

It has, is, and shall continue to happen. Now, why complain? These may not be 100% original, and so what if they aren't? Isn't the whole point of a show is to entertain? To tell a story? (And if you learn something from this story, great! If not, hopefully it was entertaining.)

We all enjoy adaptations and revivals. LES MIS, CATS, PHANTOM, WICKED, LION KING, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLE, ANNIE, 42nd STREET, HAIRSPRAY, and THE PRODUCERS are all extremely popular and successful shows. Some are even record-breaking. Some have cults developed!

Some final points:
-Revivals are nice - they allow new generations to see great theatre they missed out on. However, if the same show is revived again and again (a la PETER PAN & others) then what's the point? And why revive a show that was recently on Broadway? Give it at least a decade.

-Musicals are being developed from song artists: Lennon, Elvis, Abba, etc. Famous musicians, famous songs, and a new plot to tie it into a show. Good luck! I have seen MAMMA MIA! and although its a fun show, it was weak in plot and song transition.

-Many movies are being adapted, such as Shrek and Lord of the Rings. Hairspray was, as well as The Producers. SO WHAT? Why are you complaining? If the film wasn't previously a musical - songs will be written for it. Hopefully, the script/story will be revised to allow for the musical creativity.

-Originality is always welcome. I loved URINETOWN. But is it neseccary? The adaptations were once original in their first art form. Now, an original approach is being made to an already created story.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 12:54am

I love Urinetown...

I think adaptations from a book are different...there is no actual look to it (as with movies). It's almost like the summary of the show...does that make sense?

[musicalmjk]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:02am

Lord of the Rings, a musical? How is that going to be possible? The movie is 11 hours long and they cut a lot from the books.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:02am

Yes and no. Sometimes, these novels have illustrations. But no matter. If creators of a show which to "steal" the same look from a movie, hopefully their intent is that it will work for the stage.

Money, and the desire of making money, is a major problem with adaptations/revivals. The LORD OF THE RINGS creators will probably want to keep the same style costumes and dark set design. When the LOTR cult goes to see the show, they will want to see all the visuals be the same. Producers know this, and will not allow for the creativity of a new look. (This is an example. Assumed.)

For THE LION KING, the costumes were similar yet different. The adaptation was fresh and unique. Worked very well for the stage.

[Thesbijean]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:03am

It has to do with the fact that people like to see shows that they are mildly familiar with, be it by plot, or title. Let's see, Hairspray, The Producers, The Graduate, etc... all were not original concepts, and they were extremely successful

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:06am

I wouldn't really say The Graduate was successful...

Anyway, I like Revivals because it allows me to see shows that openend way before I was born.

Adaptations, don't mind them at all...I mean, my favorite show is an adaptation...

I do, however, hate Jukebox Musicals...at least adaptations (for the most part) have original music never heard before...

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:06am

I wouldn't really say The Graduate was successful...

Anyway, I like Revivals because it allows me to see shows that openend way before I was born.

Adaptations, don't mind them at all...I mean, my favorite show is an adaptation...

I do, however, hate Jukebox Musicals...at least adaptations (for the most part) have original music never heard before...

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:08am

That's true. Broadway is now a tourist attraction. When people visit the City, they know they can see a Broadway show, something that they can't do anywhere else (or should I say 'wouldn't' do).

Therefore, something that is familar to them is appealing. "We liked the movie? Let's see the show!"

Broadway used to lead the entertainment genre, or at least be a major influence. Look at all the movie musicals back then based on Broadway shows: Cabaret, The Music Man, Grease, Guys & Dolls, Hello Dolly, Funny Girl, My Fair Lady, Fiddler on the Roof, etc. Movie producers came to BROADWAY for their ideas.

Now, it's the other way around. Stage producers are going to movies for ideas.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:09am

Even Fiddler is an adaptation...

So is Cabaret and My Fair Lady and IT GOES ON FOREVER!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 1:49am

There are very few good shows that weren't based on something -- most classic musicals were based on a novel or some previously published work of fiction. In the last decade or so, shows have been based on movies as well as fiction. I don't personally have a problem with that -- the source of the original idea isn't nearly as important as how well that idea (be it a book or a film) is executed. Basing a show on a classic book doesn't mean that it will necessarily be any good, just as creating it from scratch is no guarantee that it will work. Writing a great show is extremely difficult no matter how it's done.

The fact is that most shows -- adapted or original -- are not very good. 99% never even make it to Broadway and, of those that do, 90% never make back their original investment. If a show is good and successful and I enjoy it, I could completely care less whether it's based on previously existing material or not.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 2:33pm

"If a show is good and successful and I enjoy it, I could completely care less whether it's based on previously existing material or not."

Amen.

[Chloe]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 2:43pm

As has been pointed out many times, very few of Shakespeare's plots are original, and there probably aren't that many basic stories anyway. I imagine that, given the difficulty of creating a successful musical, it's useful to have an already proven plotline to build around, rather than everything having to be new.

[ChrisLovesShows]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 4:00pm

I think many (including myself) don't necessarily mourn the preponderance of musicals adapted from other sources, but are horrified at the thought of the gradual death of the original score. Original scores breathe new life into already existing stories and the original score is a big part of what musical lovers love. Who cares that Show Boat, South Pacific, Mame, A Little Night Music, or Hairspray were adapted from existing material? It is the music that makes or breaks these shows. We go to see them to hear something NEW and exciting, and the best ones do excite us and move us. This is what is so sad (to me) about the current invasion of jukebox musicals and adaptations of already-existing movie musicals (using the existing score). I've heard the music of Elvis, The Beachboys, John Lennon, and ABBA. The ones I like, I own on CD. It doesn't interest me in the least to hear these songs again in the context of some awful book. I’ve also heard the songs of Mary Poppins, The Lion King, and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. The original Broadway score is dying, and that is what distresses me most.

Updated On: 2/10/05 at 04:00 PM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 6:00pm

Yes...and no.

LION KING and BEAUTY & THE BEAST were animated musicals, written by stage & screen composers (Alan Menken and (Ashman?)). New songs were written for both when adapted to the stage. So some of the score is new.

What I cannot stand, however, are all the Jukebox musicals. ABBA, Lennon, Elvis, Beach Boys, etc. Yes - people DO already have these songs on CD. The show brings nothing new, musically. I expect those type of shows on cruises and theme parks.

[bwaybaby891]

Posted: 2/10/05 at 6:12pm

I think people feel comfortable adapting musicals from other sources that are popular. This ensure them a hit show(at least they think so) and some adaptations are some of the most loved musicals ever, like My Fair Lady. Broadway needs these shows to stay running. Plus adaptations are often different from their oroginal source. Take Rent for instance, the show is so much different from La Boheme but it is still an adaptation of an amazing opera.