So How is Bonnie & Clyde Different...

than every other crap, pop lazy Wildhorn score? People keep saying it's a breakthrough for him. Sounds like the same recycled stuff to me with the occasional twang...

And the lyrics seem at to the usual crap standard for his "shows".

http://www.playbill.com/multimedia/video/4744.html

---

Updated On: 10/4/11 at 07:15 PM

I've found what i've heard of the score thus far gorgeous. Don't really understand many of the opinions towards him on these boards.

Is there supposed to be a response to the question that would be taken seriously other than confirming the opinion of the OP? That question is more loaded than Courtney Love on any given weeknight.

---

Ahaha, Mister Matt, you took my exact thought and phrased it better than I could have.

And yeah, the problem with Wildhorn shows tend to be the constant reworkings. So hopefully this show can avoid that problem because I'm really hopeful for it. I love what I've heard of the score so far.

---

I guess it depends on whom you ask because I heard that a lot of the changes were improvements. It's probably a slippery slope, though.

---

Mister Matt = WINNING! haha =)

---

Nothing can be as bad as WONDERLAND's horrendous Broadway book. Bonnie & Clyde has a focused director and has kept the creative team in tact.

WONDERLAND axed its director and writers with less than two months before previews.


Bonnie & Clyde is a nice piece of theatre, and the reason why many people enjoy the score (from my standpoint) is there aren't that many ballads (though many duets), the songs actual forward the story more than his previous efforts, etc.

Some of the pieces are gorgeous. Some of them are crap. Having seen it at the Asolo, I can say that the book is much better than any of the other Wildhorn shows.

I haven't thought more of any show Wildhorn has ever been involved with than that it was mildly pleasant, but I really am intrigued by this one. The lyrics seem to be better than usual, and the cast in this one is amazing. I really like the songs I've heard, and I hope they do well by this. Laura deserves a real star turn in a new musical. It would be even better if the book is good like people in this thread have been saying it is.

---

Yeah, I'm not understanding that change at all. It was easily the best song in the show as a solo. Not so sure about it now.

I saw it in La Jolla and wasn't much impressed, but I will say it's got one thing going for it that Wildhorn musicals have lacked thus far: Laura Osnes. Taking a smaller theater is also a smart move. I'm not a fan of that twangy sound, and I found the B couple (Clyde's brother and sister-in-law) to be fatally dull. I also thought it suffered from Wildhorn Disease, where it felt as if the songs had been written way in advance of the book, and that the book writer's job was just to patch in the plot around them (it wasn't until later that I discovered that this is more or less accurate).

Was it better than anything else he's had on Broadway? You bet your bippy. But will that translate into actual success with critics and audiences, or will Wildhorn have to settle for merely topping his own "personal best"?

Getting excited about a new Wildhorn musical is like being told there's a fresh young whore at the Bordello, then when you get there Cloris Leachman walks out again.

This is perfection.

You know, the Bonnie & Clyde story has been told as well as it's going to be (the genius Arthur Penn film); I can't imagine that any artist capable of doing better would work with someone with a reputation for total schlock (and financial failure) like Wildhorn.

I think the duet portion of Dyin' Ain't So Bad comes at the end. As long as Laura has the rest of the song to herself I'll be happy, truth be told.