Why isn't the standard of new musicals rising after the Book of Mormon?- Page 2

[NotAnotherSN]

Posted: 9/14/12 at 11:55am

Well take a look at what's coming down the pipeline. "Nerds," which is finally going to make its way to Broadway, is fantastic with a very funny score. But you do have to realize how long it takes to get a musical to Broadway. I saw Nerds in 2007, and it probably won't make it to Broadway until next Spring. Good musicals take time, that's what makes them good.

[lull89]

Posted: 9/14/12 at 7:42pm

I find it strange the the premise of the OP seems to suggest that shows being written aren't good because the people creating them aren't deciding to make them good. Like they could wake up in the middle of the night in the midst of previews and go "Oh! I should write a GOOD show that lots of people will like and come to! Why didn't I see it before?"

Very few people set out to write uninspired, boring or bad musicals. Even people working on studio driven projects based largely on brand recognition don't want to make something terrible to put on their resume (unless they're Max Bialystock). Musicals are complex organisms that are almost impossible to get right, that's why it's so wonderful when something like Mormon breaks out and everyone celebrates how wonderful the form can be.

[shrekster224]

Posted: 9/14/12 at 9:18pm

Sorry to those who think the thread it stupid, but it's allowed for this discussion if northing else. So how about you stop knocking it and if you don't like it just post in another thread. Pal Joey has been one to post the best insight on the question at hand.

"Why not just enjoy each one for what it is? (Or realize you just don't enjoy it at all.) Understand what each one's artistic aspirations are and decide for yourself whether the creators succeeded at realizing those aspirations--or not? (Or even surpassed them!) Enjoy each one's unique entertainment value, and see if it makes an emotional connection with you?"

I cometely agree with this, and I wasn't even saying Book of Mormon is the best musical that there has been. It has just been a huge commercial success among both avid theater fans and first time theater goers. I think that is what is special about it- even the first timers know what's good about the show and can sit back and enjoy it, while Next to Normal, as great as I think it is, is indeed more of an art show. If a first time theater fan loved theater forever more after seeing it, that's great, but I know for a theater fan like my aunt who loves going to shows, she saw it and thought the music was good but ended not really liking it because of the crazy journey of the show. Different strokes for different folks. I think with shows like this, they don't appeal to as wide of an audience as BoM- some will find West Side a total bore and never even know what Sunday in the Park with George is, but they may try to BoM lotto 30+ times!

"That way you can enjoy the lavish spectacle and the intimate chamber piece, the uproarious comedy and the touching slice of life, the satiric, the sincere, the powerful, the gentle, the strange, the wonderful, the dark, the light...the Stephen Sondheim, the Stephen Schwartz, the Jerry Herman, the Jerry Bock, the Frank Loesser, the Frank Wildhorn, the Wicked, the West Side, the Book of Mormon, the Once... Enjoy each one for what it is--or simply don't! But don't dismiss it for what it is not."

I do think you are absolutely correct. Each one can be appreciated for different reasons and different aspects. The thing is tho, I guess I shouldn't have used standards in the title of this thread. Maybe I should have said why hasn't the type of new musical changed since BoM? I definitely think that there is more than one way that writers can go about this art-form and still get a successful piece, whether it be artistically or financially.



Finally, I guess whoever said it was right. There could be a thread like this after any huge hit comes out. Obviously when Phantom and Wicked came out they could have been seen as the next generation of musical-trend-setters, but they are both still shows that are having great runs and no one will deny that anyone can find at least something they like about each, as someone could with any show. That being said, the standard for everything changes. Think of it in terms of cell phones. All of the people with iPhone 4/4S that are tech savy will want to update to the iPhone 5 to have the latest and greatest piece. Maybe a year or two ago what they have was the greatest, but it isn't the case. Although the phone they have may be in perfect working condition and do more than they will ever need in a phone, they choose to get the update to follow the trend. Then, companies will start making phones that don't model the iPhone 5, but you will definitely see similar features so that it tries to compete. That is where my original question comes in. BoM (or other mega hits) could have sparked those branches of new shows that have similar qualities, even if they are nothing alike in the least.

[jv92]

Posted: 9/14/12 at 9:38pm

WHAT AN EFFING JOKE!!!

BOOK OF MORMON is a charming little "college show" (to quote Sondheim), not...well...anything more than that. It's a big hit because it's funny and cleverly put together (and SOUTH PARK has a big following).

It's a parody musical (meta-musical, whatever). It's not anything more. Sorry gang.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/14/12 at 10:03pm

There hasn't been anything good on Broadway since MARY, MARY.

[Owen22]

Posted: 9/15/12 at 12:32am

At least in its last incarnation, "Nerds" was a silly Fringe type of show, nowhere near the quality of "BOM".

And I would argue "BOM", though somewhat silly itself, is actually quite profound in its own way. I think that's what makes it popular. Not its vulgarity.

The show has moments of brilliance.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 9/15/12 at 11:11am

I'd have to say Book Of Mormon isn't completely original they parody different composers and shows left and right. Although it is brilliantly structured.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 9/15/12 at 12:55pm

In my humble opinion, the key to a great musical is in its core.
All of the great musicals mention have a great "core" or "theme"

For example Book of Mormon- out need to believe in something no matter how crazy it is.
Fiddler on the Roof- holding on to our traditions and home in the midst of intolerance.
The Producers - using the system to succeed at any cost and having it turn on you anyway. The idea of Fate
Hairspray - being a unique individual that is normally shunned by society but being its hero.
Gypsy - How our parents effect us and drive us and how to let go.
Wicked - Who is really good? who is really evil? How does public opinion and media effect our outlook.

all of these great musicals have a core.

versus musicals that don't succeed (or semi succeed) and don't have a core:

Chaplin - no solid core. An encyclopedic telling of Chaplin's life.
(although it try to patch one on with "What happens when you fall."
Leap of Faith - tried to latch on to an old fashioned belief in faith and God that induced eye rolling.
Spiderman - no core whatsoever-just flying and sets and awful in so many ways.


So my belief that a great musical needs not only a great theme but a great core that people can hang onto.