Posted: 7/18/22 at 2:37pm
I was thinking about this yesterday…people are always talking about how more original works should be on Broadway/in theater, but then when original works ARE made, they don’t seem to do as well as adaptations. When was the last time a completely original concept did VERY well? I’m talking no previous iteration of the story being told.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 2:40pm
Define "very well," as the term is subjective. Off the top of my head, The Lehman Trilogy and The Ferryman did very well albeit they didn't have long runs.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 3:06pm
The way you ask the question confounds the answer. The issue is not whether "the story" has been told - there are few if any stories that have not been told previously in some iteration. When most of us talk about "original" work, we mean that the property is not adapted from some other work. That's not the same as what you asked. To give the most obvious recent answer to your question, Hamilton. Yes, the "story" was not new, for the most part, but what was drawn from the biography bore almost no relation to it other than "the story."
Does this help you? Is A Strange Loop original? We can go on and on about this...
Another point that I would make is that a large percentage of derivative musicals fail.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 3:13pm
jagman1062 said: "Define "very well," as the term is subjective. Off the top of my head, The Lehman Trilogy and The Ferryman did very well albeit they didn't have long runs."
Totally agree about The Ferryman, but The Lehman Trilogy is based on a book.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 3:24pm
A Chorus Line
Book of Mormon
I guess NOT Phantom, Les Mis, or Chicago as all adapt previous material. When it comes to Andrew Lloyd Webber shows, even Cats & Joseph were adaptations.
How about Sondheim? Again some of his best shows just adapted previous material - like A Little Night Music is based on a film, Sweeny Todd is based on a play based on stories from the 1940's, and Into The Woods adapts Brothers Grimm fairytale.
Yeah, so basically nothing original will succeed. Give up all hope. The end is nigh....or not, if even adaptations, as noted above, can produce notable works.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 3:43pm
hearthemsing22 said: "people are always talking about how more original works should be on Broadway/in theater, but then when original works ARE made, they don’t seem to do as well as adaptations."
Worth noting that the "people" in question are generally not the same people who are keeping Broadway alive (tourists). So that accounts for that discrepancy.
But beyond that - when you do hear theatre fans calling for "original" shows on Broadway, I don't think they literally mean that they want stories that have never been told before. Or maybe they do mean that, but when all is said and done, I think think that's really the underlying desire. What theatre fans want isn't total originality; what they want is CREATIVITY.
Because, as other posts have pointed out, there are plenty of adaptations that are actually very artful, interesting, challenging, and creative. Or even if they're fairly traditional and light, they might still have a lot of creative effort put into them.
When people complain about all the crappy adaptations/jukebox musicals on Broadway, they may look at 1 common thread and assume the central problem is that they're all based on existing properties. But the more important common thread, IMO, is that most of these shows are soulless, bland, formulaic cash grabs. It's the lack of effort and creativity, not the mere fact that there's pre-existing source material.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 4:46pm
As someone who is trying to get my original musical comedy Green Gally Rose into the hands of a producer… See thread: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1153611
I can honestly say from the dozens and dozens of emails I’ve sent out, I’ve only gotten a couple of responses. Maybe I should have started with an existing story.
Whether it’s MJ, Tina, Back to the Future or MacGyver, it seems to be the trend to produce something people are familiar with that will get them in the theaters.
I truly believe there is an audience for original musicals.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 5:09pm
Some original musicals currently or recently on Broadway:
A Strange Loop
Dear Evan Hansen
Hadestown
Book of Mormon
Six
Company
Paradise Square
Come From Away
&Juliet
Recent Off Broadway original musicals:
Kimberly Akimbo
Suffs
Posted: 7/18/22 at 5:23pm
Soozie said: "Some original musicals currently or recently on Broadway:
Soozie, I agree with your examples, in the sense that none of these shows try to capitalize off of a popular film or famous musician, and most of them display some degree of originality or creativity in the storytelling.
But if we're going by the OP's question about shows with ZERO source material, it's worth noting:
Hadestown - based on Greek myths
Six - based on history
Company - a revival, so not super relevant to the conversation.
Paradise Square - based on an earlier theatre piece called Hard Times. The show also has some historical roots, and also utilizes the songs of Stephen Foster.
Come From Away - based on a true story
&Juliet - inspired by Romeo & Juliet, and uses popular songs
Kimberly Akimbo - based on a play
Suffs - based on a true story
Again, I'm not saying this to discredit the shows. In fact, it just proves my (and others'
earlier point that an original STORY isn't the main criteria of what makes a show original in spirit.
Updated On: 7/18/22 at 05:23 PM
Posted: 7/18/22 at 6:32pm
JBroadway,
I don't entirely agree. It's one thing when a musical is an adaptation of a movie or a book. I think a musical is original if based on history or events. The book writer is writing an original work. If they are inspired by history or events, but write an original story about it, that seems like an original musical to me and clearly not an adaptation of a previously written piece like a book or movie.
In that vein, I would consider the following quite original works:
Six
Come From Away
&Juliet (at least the script is an original story; didn't realize it utilized existing songs though)
Suffs
and some others I already mentioned that you didn't comment on.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 7:19pm
Dramaturgically, yes, I agree. Using true history requires the writer to make active dramaturgical choices that an adapter of a screenplay wouldn't have to make. Fair enough.
I guess the reason I bring it up in this context, though, is that having grounds in history could, theoretically, contribute to a show's branding. The "recognizable" factor is a huge component of this conversation, as it's why so many films get adapted for the stage in the first place. Disney didn't commission the Frozen musical because they wanted to save their writers the trouble of coming up with an original story. They did it because they thought the property was recognizable enough that people would want to see it.
And in theory, historical figures/movements/events (e.g Henry VIII, the Suffragists, even 9/11), as well as famous fictional characters (e.g. Juliet, Shakespeare, Hades) can also have their recognizability utilized as a marketing tool, in ways that a show like A Strange Loop can't.
So while yes, I agree that most of the shows you named are definitely NOT soulless cash grabs, and yes I agree that they display creativity and "originality" in their artistry. But they still have a leg up over shows that truly have to attract investors and audiences from the ground up.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 7:23pm
JBroadway, all valid points. I simply was basing it on originality of the writing and not being an adaptation of an existing work. I wasn't really talking the business end, etc.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 7:49pm
TheatreMonkey said: "jagman1062 said: "Define "very well," as the term is subjective. Off the top of my head, The Lehman Trilogy and The Ferryman did very well albeit they didn't have long runs."
Totally agree about The Ferryman, but The Lehman Trilogy is based on a book."
Yes, I stand corrected. I forgot about the book when I was writing my response. I was thinking the English version of t he script was simply a translation of an Italian script. Thanks for catching me on that error.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 8:18pm
I think the bottom line is something I learned from an esteemed producer many years ago (and no, it was not an original thought, but it's not that easy to keep in mind): people like things they think are really good, and don't like things they think are really bad. There are a ton of really bad shows created out of thin air. There are a ton of really good shows that are as derivative as hell.
Hamlet is based on Gesta Danorum.
West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet.
Lots of shows are bad because they are cash grabs, but lot of them are bad because they are the product of lazy people.
Laziness is the greatest threat to theatre.
Posted: 7/18/22 at 9:54pm
I have thought a lot about this topic. There isn't a maxim that works for everything- some shows that adapt books or films are great, some are not. some original shows are great some are not. there's not one type of adapted work that is sure to be great or terrible.
There is a certain je ne sais quoi a musical has to have to be perceived as "original" or whatever and I think it comes down to whether a person thinks it was produced "for the art" or "to make money"
For example, Dear Evan Hansen is technically totally original, and Natasha Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 has source material. But ask 100 theatre fans who got caught up in the 2017 tony awards their thoughts, and Great comet may come across as more inventive, more appealing, more new, more original.
A lot of musicals have source material because creating the story is the hard part.[ and producers don't like to invest in something that's unproven.] This isn't just true on broadway, it's also why marvel is spitting out content faster than you can say "taylor swift jukebox musical".
Some of my favorite shows have source material- Aida, Ragtime, Bridges, Fun Home. Some of them are totally original- next to normal. Is Sunday in the Park with George original? Or could you argue the source material was a painting? If so, it's the most inventive type of source material. Is Chess original? or does it being loosely based on certain real-world chess stars take that title away?
Personally, I think an original score is more important than having no source material.
Last big hit original musical, no source material: Dear Evan Hansen, and look at its reputation now.
It's ok to adapt works to the stage, iconic shows and moments are created when you do. But when art/ theatre [at least in the US] isn't subsidized, commercialization drives creation, and original work, ideas, and new artists suffer, and not just in the theatre. TV is changing, and new work is thriving outside the constraints of network tv [not to say that there aren't good broadcast shows]. There just isn't a well funded theatre equivalent yet.
