Why did RAGTIME close? — Page 3

Thank You, CutieLyricist... I agree with you wholeheartedly!

i think it closed because it opened around the same time as the lion king and also lost the tony for best musical to the lion king. and it couldn't survive with the hype surrounding the lion king. it was a very good show and brain stokes mitchell was very good.

I really regret coming into this thread so late, because it's nice to finally read comments from SOMEONE ELSE WHO DIDN'T LIKE RAGTIME!

Horrah! MusicMan, I commend you.

I found the entire show overblown, impersonal, cold, and the score was a bunch of sub par attempts at creating a new American national anthem strung together by a flimsy plot.

The only good thing was the cast.

Musetta, I'm afraid I have to diagree with every word in the paragraph you wrote:
"I found the entire show overblown, impersonal, cold, and the score was a bunch of sub par attempts at creating a new American national anthem strung together by a flimsy plot."

I don't think "Ragtime" was overblown - it simply deals with huge themes. Far from being impersonal, each character is very finely drawn and some very personal stories are told, all of which an audience can easily relate to. It was full of burning passion, not cold at all. The score was full of a succession of high quality, simply stunning songs - and the plot is one of the strongest I have ever seen in a musical. The description would fit something as overblown, flimsy and totally lacking in musical substance as "The Lion King" - but not a masterpiece such as "Ragtime".

---

It's a personality-free score and show.

Updated On: 5/1/08 at 08:23 PM

1. Reviews were mixed
2. Operating costs were high
3. Lion King won the Tony. Ragtime was the better show but thems the breaks

---

Regarding your questions about what THE LION KING is:

Yes, it was all those things--WHICH IS THE POINT.

THE LION KING's theatrical conception brilliantly incorporates every kind of world theater arts and crafts to tell its mythic story. Which is why it's stunning and original and plays to capacity houses, compared to the pedestrian RAGTIME (which is a pleasant memory).

througout the entire production of that show..which i was thankfully glad i didnt pay for..I kept thinking that it was childrens theatre..perhaps childrens theatre at its best. I actually got to attend a discussion with some of the collaborative team of lion king and they explained what the lion king was..and to me..I understood what the lion king was trying to be..unfortunatly its not that.

Honestly..could the lion king be done ANYWHERE other than Broadway, london or on tour? anywhere but a massive stage. Can you listen to the CD without knowing the story, or without reading the synopsis and understand where its going? Without the flash and lights of the show..the Lion King is nothing other than the same thing you can rent from blockbuster for $3.50. And I am much more impressed by the passion put in by the animators than any of what Ive seen on the stage. The fact that it took move than one person to write that book baffles me. Did they take turns copying from the screen play? Disney has more than enough money to actually pay for something good.

Shows should be well written. The material should START that way. You should feel emotion in the material. Laugh and cry with the characters. " Wow the cheetah head moves with the actor does" is not the emotional epiphany i was looking for either. Lion King is a big show but that doesnt mean its a good show.

The Lion King is a success. Im not denying that..but for a few reasons.
One: its produced by the Powerhouse disney..where even the most mediocre products..(have you seen any of the lame as hell direct to video sequels) gets the media attention.
Two: its based off of a movie that everyone knows
Three: Honestly..the most idiodic person could follow it. The audience will never ask a question. They will never be inclined to think or wonder what the theme is..other than "gee that stampede scene was just like the movie" or "wow the puppets were just like the animals in the movie". Want a movie? see a movie..

Want Art? Want a well written show? See something else.

I love the Ragtime score, but was extremely disappointed in the book and hated the staging. I read the novel and though the film left out quite a bit, it still managed to remain focused on the stories they chose to tell. The musical tried to include more from the novel, but sacrificed quality for quantity. Thus, many characters were introduced for a scene or two never to be heard from again with no real connection to the plot. It was a major disappointment for me.

I completely disagree with cutielyricist's comments on The Lion King. Ragtime is the show I felt didn't know what it wanted to be. Was it spectacle or minimalist? It had no focus or center. The Lion King was built around a vision for transferring the film to the stage, which was constantly ridiculed until it actually opened. Like the film, it is a family show designed to entertain both adults and children. Unlike Ragtime, I knew exactly what to expect from the book and it lived to my expectations and I was quite impressed with the additions in the score. I don't believe that every musical has to top the last in every single aspect of artistic integrity. But The Lion King was incredibly artistic in its use of costumes, lighting and scenic design and choreography. Of course the most idiotic person can follow it and the same could be said of countless musicals like 42nd Street, Forum, Phantom, Fiddler, Oklahoma, My Fair Lady, etc. The visual beauty of The Lion King did move me and if anyone is moved emotionally from a show, regardless of which aspect moves them, isn't that the point?

---

AND the book was better....

---

I for one am a big fan of Ragtime and I'm not going to defend my position or shoot anyone down cuz they don't like it-who cares?-it's their opinion and if I like it that is what's most important to me, not someone else's opinion although I do value and respect it. On the topic of The Lion King, I saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it, wasn't blown away, but I am glad that I saw it. I think it should be applauded for the idea and the physical work it took to make it what it is, but I don't feel the need to see it over and over, but I enjoyed it a lot.

What really made me wanna post though is MimiChica's response about the classics. While I don't think the revival of Oklahoma was good at all I definatley think it is a classic as with all the others Bulldog mentioned. It brought a new idea to the public, it challenged conservative ideas about the theater when it FIRST opened, as did most of Rodger's and Hammersteins musicals. Those things may not seem like a big deal today but they sure were when it opened on broadway. But like I said everyone is enititled to thier own opinions and I'm not going to try and change their minds, but I for sure felt I needed to put this down in writing.

---

Cutie,

Not only have I seen staged readings, I've been in staged readings. But there's a reason staged readings are not long runs or even cost much. They're not full productions.

We're talking about Broadway shows here. Not theoretical staged readings of both shows going head-to-head. Tonys are given to the best production of a musical. That's why there are separate score and book categories.

Let's face it. PIPPIN and A CHORUS LINE would make crashingly boring Mufti productions. The staging for those shows (and even a show like FIDDLER as David Leveaux is about to find out) is just as essential as the script. Julie Taymor, like Jerome Robbins, Michael Bennett and Bob Fosse, was the driving force behind that production.

I'm not saying that there isn't a production of RAGTIME somewhere that could win me over. I'm saying the production as done on Broadway left me cold, whereas LION KING did not.

---