No Lestat. I would rather Batman. 1) It's by Jim Steinman, the one and only... if you ignore what became of his majestic Tanz der Vampire. 2) It was the first major film announced for a musical adaptation at the turn-of-the-century. It deserves that novelty and it deserves justice. 3) Steinman's no fool. U2 are. They're completely hopeless and a-typical. Steinman's a legend. He really knows his stuff. Take a listen to Tanz. Take a listen to Dream Engine. Go and find out all his early stuff with the New York Shakespeare Festival. He's a living incarnate of Orson Welles. His ideal of Batman is not the typical image most of you seem to have: He said himself, he envisions it in a Brecht sense. Judging from the shows I've seen by Brecht, this would allow for some crazy routines, and particular the icy dealers and business moguls of Gotham City. Showing a world of black and white, despondent 'pirates' and financiers would be awesome. Steinman has this combined image of classical Brecht, a demon rising out of Hell with the city behind him, and just a very mythic, heightened and classical approach. He has always been against the obvious, unlike all of the other contendors for Warner Bros. musicals. Which do you like better? An eclectic Tanz der Vampire? Or a constant "in 4-4 time" Aida? The drear of U2 or the majesty of Bat Out of Hell?
Who can explain it, who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons, wise men never try
-South Pacific