Riedel on Lestat- Page 2

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 1/12/06 at 9:28pm

QUOTING FROM JACOB

"Yeah, Crawford was in a bad show, but it will never stop him from returning to Broadway because, (drumroll here) HE IS MICHAEL CRAWFORD!!!!"

First of all, I'm *renowned* for harping on about this. But what everyone (conveniently) doesn't seem to know is that Crawford is (mostly) the fault for that show failing.

Anyone, with half a brain, would recognize it was developed from a superior production that played to success in Vienna, Stuttgart, Tallinn, Estonia, Hamburg, Warsaw and now Tokyo. Australia and Paris are in the talks.

Michael Crawford was in a position of power, and used it to his advantage. David Sonenberg, Jim Steinman's manager (who is also to blame) conned Steinman into believing his score needed a big name to sell. They chose Crawford who felt the role was too much like Phantom. Instead of having the courage and dignity to pass it on, he took the paycheck and ran the show into the ground. In his recent interview it shows how much he has distanced himself from the affair and put the matter out of his mind.

It was a great show until Crawford wanted it to be "less like Phantom". After that it became a stupid misguided comedy


"Wildhorn has never had any respect from critics in the past and it has never stopped him. He will be back, probably with a good show that the critics are going to pan before even seeing it because HE IS FRANK WILDHORN, the destroyer of Broadway."


Excuse me? Don't you mean the critics have never had any respect for Wildhorn? All I see is a guy trying to make a success of himself, and pushing as much projects as he can. Whether you like it or not, failure or hit, most expensive losing composer in the history of whatever, he has had three shows playing simultaneously: a record not achieved by any American composer since Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein.

I see only a man trying, making failures with the wrong collaborations, and the critics acting like complete a-holes.

Updated On: 1/12/06 at 09:28 PM

[popcultureboy]

Posted: 1/12/06 at 9:31pm

But what everyone (conveniently) doesn't seem to know is that Crawford is (mostly) the fault for that show failing.

I know this. I also know that Crawford had a "pay or play" contract for $10 million.

[broadwaygiant19122]

Posted: 1/12/06 at 9:34pm

What all have the producers said about the show? where can it be found? im curious...i'm supposed to see the show, but all this negativity is a bummer...

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 1/12/06 at 9:56pm

Here are some interesting articles on DOTV:

http://www.jimsteinman.com/posted.htm

This details the negotiation period with Michael Crawford and Sonenberg. Note the involvement of "Director John Caird". Dance of the Vampires was originally a serious musical, a gothic opera, and Caird is renowned for this form of theatre i.e. "Les Miserables". *That* wasn't a stupid comedy

Caird and Daniel Ezralow were the production director and choreographer.. mysteriously replaced by John Rando and John Carraffa. From their introduction, perhaps brought on by Crawford, the show started its descent.

Note also: the other names thrown around: David Bowie, Placido Domingo, Richard Gere. Steve Barton died before he could repeat the role. They needed a star to fund the show, little knowing that the controversial name of Roman Polanski, and the success of the German show, was not publicity enough

http://www.jimsteinman.com/crawford3.htm

Phantom or no Phantom. What an outrageous price. I heard he gave the money to charity, when the show was through, I hope that's true

In this interview, Michael Crawford makes it clear what I've been saying: the reason he should have passed on the show and not made such a fool of himself and everyone else:

http://www.carpe-jugulum.com/library/bway1/3.html

QUOTE:

Vampires was originally performed in Germany. I saw it Austria when I was asked to record one of the songs by Jim Steinman. I went to see the show because they were talking about doing it on Broadway. I initially thought the character was very dark, which wasn't interesting for me-I wouldn't be doing anything that different from the Phantom. I mean, it's a different part, but I thought it could be swapped around a bit and you could bring in some humor from a different angle. The producers and writers were interested in exploring that, so David Ives joined the writing team and they went to work and come up with something that appealed to me more. So, fans of the German show, please keep going to Germany and give me a break! I just had to do what I thought was right. I think people would have said, "Why did he wait so many years to come back playing the same man with bigger teeth?" I'm excited about it, but I'm also very nervous. But you've got to be prepared-if you want to be brave and adventurous, you've got to go out there. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. But I will be trying my hardest with it, as will everyone else.

-------

If it ain't broke. Don't fix it

Michael Kunze, German librettist and original author, made clear his points post-production:

http://www.carpe-jugulum.com/library/bway2/22.html

Jim Steinman hasn't said anything at all, publicly, but his points were clear enough when he refused to attend the opening. He didn't show up for Garbo either, which was another flop musical (two in one year) that premiered in Sweden.

So, yeah...

Just backing my statements up

[toto2]

Posted: 1/13/06 at 3:08am

badreligion, please don't try to act superior if you don't have the goods to back it up. I said the column was potentially libellous, because it is defamatory and contains clear falsehoods, as others in this thread have also pointed out, not that I expect any legal action to ever be taken.

The catch with Riedel is that no one he slanders would ever be likely to slap a libel lawsuit on him, as he would get way too much mileage out of such a case being brought through the courts. At the same time, he shouldn't be allowed to get away with printing out-and-out lies.