This Year's NBC Musical... — Page 9

We have to agree to disagree. I believe that the presentation will be a spectacle lavish performance. But I don't believe it will be successful, especially when it
comes to viewers rates.

"But I don't believe it will be successful, especially when it
comes to viewers rates."

Why? Elaborate, please.

Watching the 1960 broadcast with Mary Martin, there is a musical number where
Peter pretends to be a dame with some high soprano notes. I wonder how this will be
handled by a masculine's vocal ability?

Cathy Rigby has been doing the show for decades without that number, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Just finished watching both the 1960 NBC broadcast and the Cathy Rigby version.
Couldn't help noticing the changes between the two presentations. Good question
would be which version would they go for?

I don't think Peter Pan will be as successful as The Sound of Music but it will still be successful. I mean we don't even know who they've casted yet. Carrie Underwood brought a ton of viewers and if they can get someone like that then they can be successful again. I just don't know who they can get. My picks would be Nick Jonas for Peter and Hugh Jackman for Hook. Not saying that's gonna get a ton of viewers but we'll see.

I really hope they do Cathy Rigby's version, the original version just does not make sense in many ways. It worked for the time but now it's just outdated. There is no reason for Liza to go to Never land, the dancing animals and trees is just weird, the indians are just boring (The dance is awesome in Cathy Rigby's version), and the mysterious lady song has no reason to be sung by a boy who doesn't grow up. There are other things that I can't remember now. I'm not saying I don't like that version I just immensely prefer the Cathy Rigby libretto.

It's all on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSMCSaDF2Ps

Like The Sound of Music, I hope that this particular Peter Pan version will get preserved in its original stage form.
Like I stated earlier, this evening I watched both the Rigby and 1960's version,
and although I felt the Rigby's version was way much better than the NBC telecast
in the 60s I do hope that the original will be done again.

Zac Efron has tried to move away from this type of thing. This would be a step backwards for his career, at least I guess that's how he would see it. Won't happen.

---

I still think the visible wires and actors in dog and crocodile costumes is going to look ridiculous for a television production in 2014. The two times this was done in the past they were based on stage productions so it was somewhat acceptable and the Rigby production even digitally removed the wires. This is a completely new production made specifically for television and I fear that it will look too unrealistic.

I still think it's insane that we're discussing A-list young male stars as possibilities for Peter. Unless the young male star is openly... effete like Chris Colfer, what agent or manager in his right mind would put them up for the role?

My initial instinct is also to agree with this. And its not the idea of a young male actor playing Peter Pan, it's the idea of a young male actor playing Peter Pan in the Styne/Charlap musical of PETER PAN which was very specifically composed for the 1954 sensibilities of a woman playing the role. It's possible that there could be a young male actor who could pull it off beautifully, but I would be initially skeptical that the 'gay' (in the traditional sense of the word) sensibility of songs like "I've Gotta Crow" and "I'm Flying" would, by contemporary audiences seem 'gay' in the modern sense of the word when assigned to anything other than a woman or pre-pubsecent boy, and its hard for me to think of any male child star with enough clout to ensure the bonanza ratings to justify it.

Especially when you think about all the A-list female stars out there who could conceivably pull it off. I could see Amy Adams, Ann Hathaway, Renee Zelwegger, Anna Kendrick, Jennifer Lawrence, etc. all potentially being delightful in the part and not at odds with the tone of the score.

I also continue to believe that no amount of 'goosing' up the special effects or production values is going to make the Charlap/Styne version of PETER PAN seem anything other than what it is - a wonderfully, old fashioned, highly 'theatrical' stagebound version of the story.

Why fight that? Nana is going to be a man in a dog suit. What could they possibly do to make the 1954 musical version of PETER PAN more 'hip' or realistic? Why would they even want to try? Since this is the version of the story they've committed to producing, I think they'd be wise to simply embrace it.

NBC completely embraced everything about THE SOUND OF MUSIC that was old fashioned and did nothing to try to gloss over that it was a television adaptation of a play. If anything they seemed to celebrate it - from the design, the videography, the direction and the casting of much of the supporting cast. They may have taken criticisms for the execution of something so 'stage bound' in the after fact - but what does that matter? It didn't keep huge numbers of viewers from watching the entire telecast as it was happening-- in fact, perhaps the feeling that THE SOUND OF MUSIC live was unique, old fashioned and not an overly polished television film was ultimately part of what kept viewers tuned in. The executives won't fail to notice that.

Updated On: 1/21/14 at 11:29 AM