Sweeney @ Hot Topic — Page 3

Moxie, I'm asking this purely out of innocent curiousity and not to start an argument, but do you think you felt that way about the depth because you had seen the original? Since the revival was my initial exposure to the show, my personal experience was very much that I found something new and put new pieces into the puzzle, so to speak, each time I saw it. I'm just wondering if you feel that way because seeing the original sort of took away the... element of surprise, for lack of a better term? Do you feel you discovered it that way the first time with the original, or never at all?

---

Updated On: 9/6/06 at 11:22 PM

I think it'll probably also get a big following because, well, it sounds like something young people will relate to in the issues it deals with and all that.

---

>> So, you do know better/more about it than someone that just jumped on the bandwagon.

:: sitting here biting my tongue till my jaw drips red with blood ::

Except you were making claims about this production *specifically*, not just the show. Using my Rent example, had this other person seen the movie and I had not, and we were commenting on a specific aspect of the movie and not the show, then it would support your attempt at a snarky comment, but I said nothing to imply that.

As for your comment about the "flames", you're the one that implied you know better than Sondheim and Furth what's good for Company.

---

Updated On: 9/6/06 at 11:46 PM

Logically, if Sondheim had a problem with it, he's powerful enough not to allow the production to occur. And if he saw it and then didn't approve, he's powerful enough not to allow it to go any further, which he could very easily do in a sacred production meeting. Yet oh, look, it's going to Broadway. With Sondheim's permission. I'm SURE he's lying, though. He really thinks it's crap and just didn't tell anybody, so he's letting it go where thousands of people will see it anyway.

---

Updated On: 9/7/06 at 09:30 AM

Eh, let them wear Sweeney t-shirts. All I care about is that Burton doesn't turn it into a cartoon, and that it makes a good film.

You're just afraid to admit that Sondheim does know his own work well enough to approve of something YOU disapprove of.

Capitalization fully noted, word hence repeated. I said "if" he had a problem with it. I acknowledged the hypothetical. Disagreeing with me is one thing, but you're not going to get me and invalidate my opinion on a made-up technicality.

---

Updated On: 9/7/06 at 09:48 AM

I understand the "Just be glad it's getting more fans" sentiment, but it's a psychological fact that people resent it when the things they like become popular. It's human nature, really.

I admit that I myself have no patience for people who only see the movie of the musical. Now, I understand the "Can't afford to go to Broadway" argument. Heck, I'm stuck in the Midwest; I've never even been to NYC. But there are tours which aren't horrendously expensive, and, heck, Sweeney Todd is available on DVD and everything. I don't like how people only acknowledge that a show exists because it's now a movie.

Also, if the movie is bad, people will automatically associate that with the show. For instance, I cannot even begin to name the number of people who have said "The musical Evita sucks; I saw the movie and it was boring." And I'm like "The stage show is SO DIFFERENT!" It's frustrating.

I also however agree with BSoBW2 who said that there are a lot of new Sweeney fans who are just into the revival and it's quite aggravating. Not that I'm an old Sweeney fan, mind you

I actually though wouldn't mind Sweeney shirts at Hot Topic. I'd probably buy one. Though I already have one from the revival which I can safely say tends to freak people out.

---

For every 10 kids doing it as a fad, maybe 2 or 3 will be moved by it and it will become more than just a fad to them. I'm ok with that. You can never have too many broadway fans.