Wildhorn's Wonderland is Coming to Bway!- Page 4

[Kad]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 2:06am

"KAD~ check your facts when you quote someone. That quote was from philly03 NOT ME. You bashers are something else."

PB ENT~ check your facts before accusing someone of misattributing quotes and not checking facts. I never attributed it to you, sweetheart. The WHOLE QUOTE is in quotations, starting with the sentence "And as PB Ent said, Frank's been great for the community", exactly as how philly03 wrote it. You Wildhorn fans are something else.

[dented146]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 2:09am

Never saw Wonderland and I'm not a huge fan--or hater of the man. Did see Bonnie and Clyde. For a musical which was thrown together in a few weeks it was respectable. The thing is, however, there was one three scene section in the second act which was just fabulous --really good by any standard. By the time it arrived, I was ready to dismiss the whole thing and then Bam!

And then I'm wondering if something quite good is possible with more work and inspiration.

Maybe he spent too much time on the wrong musical.
Updated On: 8/4/10 at 02:09 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 2:10am

"Ok, I find it funny that some of you come on here trashing the work of Frank Wildhorn, and yet his work continues to return to Broadway. How many shows that you wrote been on broadway?"
- minicko88 (for PB Ent's convenience, to prevent any confusion)

This is a silly argument. This is the same as saying movie critics can't review movies if they aren't filmmakers. I, actually, have very little musical talent, but can certainly appreciate and judge music quality. Just as I, and am sure everyone here, can sit in a movie theatre and judge acting or directing quality despite never have starred in or directed a major motion film.

[perfectlymarvelous]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 2:27am

Also Wonderland is a CHILDREN'S STORY. Therefore, what's the problem of it being "Childish"?

You know, just because something is intended for children does not in any way mean it should be "childish." In fact, the best childrens' books aren't at all childish.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 3:13am

ColorTheHours048 - I would hardly call Wonderland "lifeless." So you're saying if Stephen Sondheim or some other (really big WOW) composer like Andrew Lippa wrote the SAME exact stylings, it would be totaly fine? That's bogus.

Um... no? If Sondheim wrote this, I would be very confused. Because Sondheim would never write anything this amateurish or ludicrous. And if Lippa wrote it, I wouldn't be shocked.

Wildhorn writes crap. WONDERLAND is no exception. I really do not understand how anyone with any kind of taste could think there's any kind of merit in it. I may not have written a show that has been produced on Broadway, but I know theatre. And I know enough about theatre to make a solid, informed opinion about quality. Quality is not a word I would associate with this.

EDIT: Yes, I have made up my mind already about this show. Wildhorn has proven (to me, anyway) time after time after time that his shows are bombs. JEKYLL doesn't count, as it relied solely on stunt casting to get audiences in. And it was STILL a flop. I'm all for the man doing what he loves to do and don't fault him for that. But he needs to stay far away from Broadway. He's only taking a Broadway house from another show.
Updated On: 8/4/10 at 03:13 AM

[Edna Turnblad]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 6:53am

I must say, completely irrelevant to the actual show, but romgitsean, your comment on Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass made me happy because, even though I enjoy the Disney Alice from years back, and late 90s television movie, I wish for once someone would write an adaptation that didn't liberally draw from both but rather stayed with one the whole way through.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 7:39am

But isn't it possible that people can appreciate all kinds of theater? What's not to understand about someone enjoying SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE and something like this or J and H? That's like saying that people who like Nurse Jackie or The Good Wife could never enjoy The Amazing Race. People can certainly choose for themselves what does and what does not entertain them.

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 9:04am

Everytime a new Wildhorn musical arrives, the same tired "arguments" are trotted out: Frank versus musical theatre "composers"; anyone who thinks his work is lazy is a snob; he writes musicals for the people, not the critics. And 30 years ago, he wrote a BIG pop hit, so he understands people...Yawn.

Here's the truth: His shows are always lazy. The craft is lazy. The characters are thin. The music has no surprises. You get what you know you're getting...He doesn't really engage story or audiences in any credible way. There are no real risks, only flashes of energy. Ultimately, its all very shallow.

Because everything has been a financial flop (except for Jekyll, I think) his shows don't really stick with the public. They don't love them or are grateful they saw them. They use them to pass the time, and get the meagerest of pleasures. Just enough so you feel you've seen a show, but not enough that you actually care.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 9:26am

I know that I can only truly speak about what I (and possibly my partner of 13 yrs) think about a show or a composer. I can certainly get the gist of what people think on here, but that would not be any means give me the right to speak for EVERYONE or the general theater going public, unless I saw objective data from a group, and then that group asked me to speak on their behalf. Lots of people seem to think that they know how the majority of people feel about a topic, but aside from these and other boards, how do you know? My Mom and Dad love the theater and often go with me to shows, but they have never, and will never read info that is posted here. Do you think you can speak for how they would feel about Wildhorn's work?

[newintown]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 9:46am

I love posts like the one from minicko. Let's take it apart, shall we?

"How many shows that you wrote been on broadway?" We'll ignore the strange, Bush-worthy grammar, and just reply, "Since when does one have to write a Broadway show before one is allowed to comment on work?"

"... I can't believe the disrespect you are showing to a man who spends his life trying to thrill theater goers." You could also describe Wildhorn as a man trying to make money in the theatre. I'm not saying he's not an altruistic artist, giving to his audience with no expectation of reward, but he probably isn't.

"The show ... does have a great message..." No, it doesn't. It has a sentimental, clichéd message.

"... wait and see what the critics think." Why? Why should I wait to hear the opinions of people who may very well know less than I do about theatre? Why should I wait to hear the opinion of anyone whose opinion has no more validity than mine?

[philly03]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 9:56am

"JEKYLL doesn't count, as it relied solely on stunt casting to get audiences in. And it was STILL a flop."

Jekyll & HYDE ran for THREE years without stunt casting. Robert Cuccioli opened the show as a near unknown, along with the unknown Christiane Noll, and featured Linda Eder, who would become a "star" as the run went on. I would never ever call Rob Evan, Luba Mason or Anastasia Barzee any type of stunt casting either... Jack Wagner wasn't even brought in for this purpose, he wanted to do the show. The others were well, yes, stunt casting.

"You could also describe Wildhorn as a man trying to make money in the theatre." - newintown

Frank, as I've said, is not in it for the money. If he was, he would have left the theatre scene... He made a LOT of money with "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" which he gives credit as "giving him the freedom to work in the theatre."

I do however full heartily agree, the critics will more than likely tear this apart!

I think this is also becoming a problem within the B'way community... Theatre fanatics hate anything the general public enjoys if it doesn't live up to their standards. In a bad economy, I'd rather take my $130 and go see something new & funny with fantastic music (obviously taste is different for everyone) than go see some poorly thought out revival.

[philly03]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 10:01am

Perez Hilton posted this on his website:
http://perezhilton.com/2010-08-03-coming-to-broadway-an-alice-in-wonderland-musical

Interesting to see the different comments from people...

& what's with the new tagline? "WONDERLAND: A New Alice. A New Musical Adventure."

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 10:08am

& what's with the new tagline? "WONDERLAND: A New Alice. A New Musical Adventure."

I think lots of people struggled with how much Janet doesn't look like the "typical Alice." I don't think the quick reference they had at the beginning of the show to try and explain that away did enough. Maybe if it's in the tagline, people will come in expecting someone not blond haired and blue eyed.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 10:32am

LOL. This thread is really funny if you insert "Ripley" into the text each time it reads "Alice."

[Kad]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 10:47am

"Jekyll & HYDE ran for THREE years without stunt casting."

And it STILL didn't recoup! Which boggles my mind. Most shows that open and are fortunate enough to remain running for 3 years and for over a thousand performances- which is a very uncommon occurrence indeed- manage to do so. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of another show that had such a respectable run without recouping its investment. What was up with Jekyll, then? Was it stubbornly remaining open despite houses that weren't full? Was it really that expensive to maintain?

Big hits don't close in the red.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 1:34pm

The level of deep-seated hatred on here is strange.


I'm not Wildhorn's biggest fan but I don't react to him as if he killed my puppy and ate his innards.

Having said that, honestly who cares? If audiences think Wonderland is as bad as all that then it will flop and close and that's that.

In the meantime I'll focus on the shows I am excited for which is just about the rest of the season.

Oh, and for the record I've seen 2 Wildhorn shows J&H and Scarlet.
J&H was truly awful, mostly b.c of the staging though imo.
Scarlet was fine. I enjoyed it well enough. Didn't change my world or anything but it was a diverting evening of theater with some nice music.

Updated On: 8/4/10 at 01:34 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 2:18pm

Kad Footloose ran for 777 performances, a great run for that kind of show and did not recoup

"They have no problem defending their favourite out of town shows that didn't get any where near raves (Catch Me If You Can, The Addams Family)"

I rarely see anyone defending Addams, it gets bashed left right and centre. Catch Me if You Can did well out of town. It did not get raves but the reviews were very good. The show also has a great score and great talent involved

[Kad]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 4:41pm

"Kad Footloose ran for 777 performances, a great run for that kind of show and did not recoup"

Jekyll and Hyde ran for more than twice that- 1,543 performances.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 4:44pm

I seem to be unable to edit my last message, and for PB Ent's sake, I realized I made a factual error: that is actually just LESS than twice the performances.

Still, a great deal of difference.

[philly03]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 4:51pm

The score to Catch Me If You Can has not been in the public (except for what, that one random download?). Therefore, I'll believe it when I hear it legally. Frank Wildhorn also has a pretty good track record for the MUSIC, if even from the spotlight of the public. Look at many of today's top theatre stars, who plenty record & play in concert Frank's songs.

A lot of "Catch Me..."'s reviews from what I remember were along the likes of "It's spectacular when it's good, and horrible when it's bad," and plenty called it slow & heavy.

Addams and more importantly Lippa have had plenty of their defenders on here, just not as vocal.

Re: JEKYLL & HYDE not Recouping -

There were many producers. Remember that the show ran a YEAR LONG Pre-Broadway national tour, which used entirely different sets & costumes. When it came to Broadway, many of the producers stayed, but they had to pay for an entirely new $7 million production without having fully paid off the tour. Atleast this is what has been told. The stunt casting celebrities came later, and while Bach & Wagner were paid very well, it's been rumored that David Hasselhoff took a paycut from them to "live his dream" or whatever he always used to say.

"What was up with Jekyll, then? Was it stubbornly remaining open despite houses that weren't full? Was it really that expensive to maintain?"

No, the house sold in the 85%-95% most weeks it's first two years starring Tony Award Nominee (& many would have said robbed, as he won Drama Desk & Outer Critics Circle awards) Robert Cuciolli and Christiane Noll, and obviously sold incredibly well with Linda Eder. Once the original cast left, it went down, and the grosses weren't terrific during the end of '99, as Luba Mason & Anastasia Barzee weren't necessary kind or into the whole idea of super fanatics. The celebs came and Jack Wagner actually sold the show incredibly well, Sebestian Bach brought a lot of people back, and the Hoff got an interesting crowd. The producers planned to cast I believe Donny Osmond (who recorded "This is the Moment" a few months before), but he couldn't do it until March or April. The Hoff's contract was ending in January, and he was very open to pursuing having it filmed for archive purposes - so that's what happened, they closed the show with him.

It ran when the big hydraulic sets came in, and the nut was pretty high for the grosses it was making. It closed about $1 MIL away from recouping.

It ran for over 1500 performances...I'd say that's a pretty big hit, if even not financially. Many of the same producers also put out the second and third national tours, and the show eventually recouped with it's non-Equity tour. It's been played all over the world.

[philly03]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 4:55pm

As Kad said:

"I seem to be unable to edit my last message, and for PB Ent's sake, I realized I made a factual error: that is actually just LESS than twice the performances.

Still, a great deal of difference."

A flop isn't a "great run" unless it runs over 1000 or more, I'd say. Or what is it, 800 to crack the "long running list" that Playbill and Broadway World keep track of? I'll put it there.

[philly03]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 5:09pm

It's confirmed - Janet Dacal will reprise as Alice, Darren Ritchie (who was fantastic) as White Knight / Jack, and Karen Mason as the Queen of Hearts.

More info here:
http://www.tampabay.com/features/performingarts/strazs-wonderland-is-bound-for-broadway/1112793


The Nederlanders were "moved" says the article by the major book rewrites.

The budget was also bumped up to a whooping $14 MIL, as opposed to the $3-$5 MIL in Tampa/Houston. Updated On: 8/4/10 at 05:09 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 5:19pm

Clearly this is being fueled by producers seeing the success of the recent Tim Burton ALICE and the popularity of the Oz inspired WICKED as being the perferct precedence for a smash hit on Broadway.


I myself am dubious - there have after all been at least half a s dozen musical versions of ALICE that have died on Broadway or on the road trying to get there.

But we'll see...

[JRybka]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 5:32pm

I am sure bashing will come to me but I really don't care too much.
I am of the kind of person who enjoys many kinds of music. For every nuanced Sondheim song that I love, I also love an overblown drama ballad. I enjoyed the music to Wonderland and have not seen the show. I will not comment on a show unless I have seen it.
That being said. It is a shame to read how many people are so quick to bash him. Last time I checked most of you have not have not had a hit musical on Broadway (or maybe ANY musical in that case.)
Let's all draw in our claws and try and not be so "catty" about it all.
If you don't like the show, fine but saying thing like "He's Crap" is really just a cop out of how you feel. Explain yourself.
Okay.. Now back to your bashings and crass comments. (and I am sure some will be directed at me but oh well.)

[GatorNY]

Posted: 8/4/10 at 6:02pm

"I am of the kind of person who enjoys many kinds of music. For every nuanced Sondheim song that I love, I also love an overblown drama ballad."

I'm like you JRybka. I've never seen any of his shows, so won't comment either. I do very much enjoy listening to "In His Eyes" and "You Know Who I Am" when they pop up on my iPod shuffle.

Your dog is really cute BTW.