"Holding out for a Hero is a genuine show stopper thanks to an amazing set of girls and the hero boys in the middle"
"the actors are far better as are the singers"
Well, both of those aren't actual changes to the show, just your opinions on the performers. Some of the changes you mentioned do sound stronger while others sound like they are just your personal preferences. What "camp elements" were toned down? How did they change? What is different about the finale?
Personally, I didn't like the Broadway production of Footloose. I thought it was a great idea that went horribly wrong in its staging and direction. Looking at the photo from the UK production of Holding Out For a Hero, it looks like the same mistakes are being made, which is too bad.
Sure Fame did something right in the West End to play for so long. Like I said, it is a matter of the audience's tastes, which is VERY different in England than it is in the US. Obviously, Fame's strengths were in its presentation and performance. The book and the score are very very very weak when compared to most shows, but as with many weak shows, if you can deliver some dazzling performances, you can sell a show and make a profit. People will overlook the show's other faults. Cats and Starlight Express also had very weak books and not the greatest scores, but broke records in the West End. It desn't mean they were GREAT shows (though I would argue the merits of Cats), but they worked. I would not rank Fame as highly as either of them, but it works with European audiences. So did Notre Dame de Paris. Go figure.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
