Posted: 4/7/25 at 11:27pm
Kad said: "Ensemble1665759202 said: "Kad said: "Listen, I am not and never have been somebody who thinks the label of "original" automatically makes a new musical worthwhile or superior to one adapted from an existing property, but if we are now labeling a musical based off a century-old piece of intellectual property "original," then the term no longer means anything."
Ughh were you one of those people arguing Hamilton wasn't an original musical? lol"
There is literally nothing wrong with a show being an adaptation. It is not a dirty word and it does not make a show inferior. Most musicals are adaptations!"
I think it's two different things - taking a known IP and writing a fully original story around it (like this is) versus an adapting an existing story. Betty Boop has existed as a character, but this musical isn't adapted from any of her cartoons or their plots. It's similar to Annie or the Barbie movie in that way - existing character, putting her into a fully new story. I'd call all three of them original.
I mean in the strictest way I don't disagree with you, but it also depends if we're defining original as "first/origin" vs "innovative/creative" - they're both common definitions of original, but in my mind it's more the latter. If we're discounting all shows that reference an existing character, take reference from a book or movie, any existing music... we're left with verrrrry few shows. Something like Rent, even though it has its La Boheme source material, I'd refer to as an original musical. Something like Hairspray, even with fabulous new music and a new conceit, I wouldn't. But it's all a bit grey.