Will Broadway ever bring back originally written shows?- Page 2

[DEClarke]

Posted: 1/10/13 at 5:19pm

I don't mind movies turned musicals when they're good adaptations. For me, I find that novels turned musicals tend to be better... but that's not a guarantee. Completely original musicals have a lot to prove, and some can be down right terrible. But any musical, no matter how original it is, runs the risk of being God awful.

Personally, I'm tired of the jukebox musical. You know, the top 10-18 singles of certain performer, group, and/or era do not always fit together to make a show. Please stop constructing trite plots around them. Yet, as I rant, I can think of a few jukebox musicals that have worked for me. But they are fewer and farther between.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 1/10/13 at 5:22pm

This poster has a long history with BWW and evidently knows what buttons to press to garner responses. The guy is sick, but if y'all want to indulge him, go ahead.

On the other hand, I guess the poor fella is doing no harm if he stirs up conversation amongst the non-insane.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/10/13 at 5:23pm

The problem isn't adaptation per se, it's being slavishly true to the source material because the customers paid $100+ per ticket and basically want to see what they already liked. (Read Michener's "Tales of the South Pacific". R&H and Logan used fewer than 10 pages from the full-length short story collection.)

I can't imagine a more deadly way to write, unless it's writing screenplays for comic book movie sequels that are actually remakes.

[rhdery]

Posted: 1/10/13 at 8:05pm

I would at least like to see them choose better movies. Leap of Faith was an average film with little following. So, there was little to no built in audience to be brought in by the title.

The Jerk or Man With Two Brains would have been better Steve Martin films to adapt.

By the way-- anyone else remember his remake of Pennies From Heaven?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 1:11am

True. But then for ever Leap of Faith there is a Newsies, which was a flop, but now has a great life on Broadway.

At least in the "old days" when they adapted a movie they'd change the title. I wish they'd do that more. To me it just makes musicals in general look cheesier when it has the line "the musical." Ghost could have been a great show, but who wants to see something called "Ghost the Musical?" That just sounds awful.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 3:04am

If you're adapting because you're actually adapting, you might pull a Green Grow the Lilacs/Oklahoma! or whatnot. But if you're adapting because you want to cash in on the source material's popularity, of course you're not going to change the title.

[rhdery]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 4:59am

Good example with Newsies. It reminds me that the producing game is really hard. I don't think anyone knows for sure what will hit, and every year there are good shows that just don't click with audiences.

I remember being very skeptical of Rock of Ages, but it has done well and I ended up liking it, so I guess it comes down to people putting up the best shows they can and hoping for the best.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 8:29am

I don't think you can say "for every Leap of Faith, there is a Newsies." Sure, Newsies flopped at the box office when it was first released, but every article has pointed to the huge DVD sales and cult following it gained after that. Go to any college campus and you'll find students (probably theater students) watching the film, quoting the film, singing "Santa Fe," etc. It had plenty of fans in the population of 18-30 year old musical theater fans, which, coincidentally, is the most lucrative Broadway audience (see: Wicked, Rent).

Leap of Faith, on the other hand, flopped at the box office and has virtually no following.

All that said, it is frustrating and a tad hypocritical to hear people say in the same breath "I wish they'd stop adapting popular movies just to cash in!" followed by, "Leap of Faith was a stupid choice from the beginning because no one knows the movie." Do you want them to use popular movies or don't you?

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 08:29 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 9:12am

In good hands, Leap of Faith could have probably been turned into a good musical. Unfortunately, it was adapted by hacks.

Newsies is a good example of something mentioned several times earlier here - it's not an adaptation, it's merely a transfer with a few new songs thrown in. There's nothing significantly new or different about it as compared to the source.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 10:06am

As has been said, original librettos as opposed to adaptations have long been the exception.

As to why BDWY turn to movies instead of plays and novels, there are a variety of reasons.

As Gaveston said, the popularity of film in relation to the theater and reading has exponentially grown.

There are likely fewer contemporary plays and novels which seem ripe for musicalization than there were when Ziegfeld read Show Boat and R&H read Tales from the South Pacific.

Also, movies are often adapted from plays and novels before their musicals are. There were films of Liliom and Pygmalian well before Carousel and My Fair Lady. Even today we tend to think of shows like Giant and Rebecca as cashing in on film popularity, but they were novels before they were films.

Still, it would be nice if adapters would look more often for non-movie source material, and, as has been said, if when they did look to the movies they'd sometimes make smarter choices as to which to adapt. It also goes without saying that they should - of course there are exceptions - do a better job of adapting them.

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 10:06 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 10:16am

"There are likely fewer contemporary plays and novels which seem ripe for musicalization than there were when Ziegfeld read Show Boat and R&H read Tales from the South Pacific."

At least regarding novels, I would strongly disagree. Off the top of my head, I can easily imagine several works of Julian Fellowes, Paul Auster, Michael Chabon, and Joe Keenan being adapted successfully to the musical stage.

I will acknowledge, however, that relatively few people actually read novels, and that would include musical theatre writers.

Regarding plays that are ripe for adaptation - well, there are fewer to see, at least on Broadway, aren't there? Look at calendar year 1940 with 60 original plays, as compared with 2012 with a paltry 14 (3 of which were really revivals of old plays, just never before seen on Broadway).

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 10:21am

Newintown, I didn't mean to say there aren't any but with the examples you give and other well known ones, isn't it very likely that the rights to them are in the hands of those looking to adapt for the screen not the stage?

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 10:21 AM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 10:27am

Very possibly, yes. Although I just heard a conversation among some rabid movie lovers, stating that significantly fewer movies are adapted from novels today than ever before as well.

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 10:27 AM

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 1/11/13 at 11:16pm

I have been fortunate to be part of two original musicals that are still awaiting producer interest. Not based on any book, tv show or movie. Easy to cast, catchy hum-able commercial music, drama and comedy in all the right places, fresh dialogue, and very low overhead. No one will touch them. Peter Filicia himself came to review both productions and said there was no reason why they should not be playing in NYC. Instead, what's on it's way? Flashdance.

I long for the day that Broadway comfort food ends and we can get back to the business of a heavier tipped scale of fresh and exciting new theater instead of the constant barrage of reheated microwave movie offerings that don't last very long.