Has their ever been a good sequel to a musical?- Page 1

[Oldies m]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 10:08am

Gresse 2 sucks

Love never Dies is stupid

Shock treament is gargbge

and no one remebers bring back birde 

 

Why are their no good sequals to Musicals?

[Lot666]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 10:16am

Just because YOU think a show "sucks", "is stupid", or "is garbage" doesn't mean it's so.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 10:17am

I've seen it argued that the score is what makes a musical "beloved," and a sequel by its nature would not have any songs from the original show. It's an almost impossible task for the authors to create a new show that's equally good and pleases fans and newcomers, while continuing a story in a meaningful way.

RAGS was originally conceived as a sequel to FIDDLER, but it completely stands on its own. More of a "spiritual sequel." Though I suppose you could argue "Falsettoland" is a good sequel, wven though now it's just Act 2.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 10:37am

Snoopy the Musical!

It captures the charm of You’re a Good Man Charlie Brown and also has wonderful songs.

It works because it doesn’t try to be anything else but what You’re a Good Man Charlie Brown was. Sweet sophisticated vignettes.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 11:53am

My opinion of “Love Never Dies” isn’t as awful as a lot of other people’s but that’s in large part due to the fact that I think “Beneath A Moonless Sky” is one of the best songs from any ALW musical.

[carolinaguy]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 11:58am

All the musicals people have ever attempted to “sequelize”, to coin a term, were complete, satisfying stories in themselves. The characters wanted something, they went through a series of experiences, and the situation was resolved. There was no further story necessary, so no reason for the sequels to exist. ANNIE 2 especially suffered from lack of any reason to be. Movies with good sequels (say, THE GODFATHER), had more story to tell. 

I suppose of all of them, you could ask whatever became of the Phantom after he released Raoul and Christine. But given the convoluted, unappealing continuation presented in LOVE NEVER DIES, we’d have been better off letting him recede into mystery and the original ending stand on its own.

 

Hate to be that guy, but OP: you want “there” in your thread title, not “their”. 

Updated On: 9/4/19 at 11:58 AM

[Lot666]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 12:09pm

I very much enjoyed Love Never Dies and saw it numerous times, both in London and in the U.S. 

Jordan Catalano said: "My opinion of “Love Never Dies” isn’t as awful as a lot of other people’s but that’s in large part due to the fact that I think “Beneath A Moonless Sky” is one of the best songs from any ALW musical."

I think it's a glorious composition.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 12:35pm

Lot666 said: "Just because YOU think a show "sucks", "is stupid", or "is garbage" doesn't mean it's so."

True, what when audiences don't buy tickets, word of mouth is poor, and the reviews are mixed to negative, it usually safe to say that a show sucks. What is more interesting is why a show sucks.

Aside from "Bathing Beauties" the score for Love Never Dies is quite good. The performances of the various productions have had positive feedback. Then there's the book, whis is a mess. The book is weak. It retcons too much for its own good, and fails as an adequate sequel to its predecessor. Sadly, the book makes so little sense as a sequel that it diminishes the piece as a whole. I dare say that what finally made it to the stage is more nonsensical than The Phantom of Manhattan, which was also quite bad.

[DoTheDood]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:00pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Though I suppose you could argue "Falsettoland" is a good sequel, wven though now it's just Act 2."

Wouldn't March of the Falsettos be the sequel, and Falsettoland be the third in the trilogy, counting In Trousers as the first? There is an argument there at the sequel is even better than the original as a lot more people know March of the Falsettos than In Trousers.

Also I may be in the minority but Shock Treatment is not that bad. Definitely not as iconic as Rocky Horror but nothing really can compete with the original movie. Shock Treatment is at least still fun and a trip to watch.

[aj88]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:03pm

“Though I suppose you could argue "Falsettoland" is a good sequel, wven though now it's just Act 2."

And even the act one portion of FALSETTOS (aka March of the Falsettos) is technically a sequel to IN TROUSERS so that’s the biggest exception to the rule in my book.

 

[Princeton2]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:13pm

I know many people who actually prefer Mamma Mia 2 over the original.

And give me Grease 2 over the original

Love Never Dies should have been a completely new story unrelated to phantom, or needs a complete rewrite. Although a strong score, interesting how people seem to highlight different songs that are the strongest/weakest though

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:17pm

But MAMMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN basically uses the same score as the original. And after the story, the primary reason for sequels not working is because people love the music from the original and none of that is in the sequel.

I actually wonder how FROZEN 2 will fare, and if audiences will be receptive to seeing a film that doesn't include Let It Go and Do You Wanna Build.... Unless they're going to shoehorn some of the original songs into the film. I predict that critics will feel the new songs are inferior to those of the original film.

[BritCrit]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:39pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "But MAMMA MIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN basically uses the same score as the original. And after the story, the primary reason for sequels not working is because people love the music from the original and none of that is in the sequel.

I actually wonder how FROZEN 2 will fare, and if audiences will be receptive to seeing a film thatdoesn'tincludeLet It GoandDo You Wanna Build....Unless they're going to shoehorn some of the original songs into the film. I predict that critics will feel the new songs are inferior to those of the original film."

It's hard to say how well Frozen II's new soundtrack will fare - reaction to the three new songs showcased at D23 was pretty positive, but the originals are casting a very long shadow. However, Frozen II is going to be pretty different from the first film, which is quite a big advantage. One major problem with Mary Poppins Returns was that the songs often invited direct comparison with the original, and were almost always inferior. Taken on their own terms, the likes of 'A Cover is Not The Book' and 'The Place Where Lost Things Go' were quite decent, but they were always fated to lose in a battle with 'Supercalifragalistic..' or 'Feed the Birds'. It seems like 'Into the Unknown' and 'Some Things Never Change' have enough differences from the original soundtrack to be judged seperately from it, which will be pretty beneficial.

In addition, Mary Poppins Returns (and many of the Disney DTV sequels) essentailly had the same stories as the original films, but with younger characters. Frozen II allowing Anna, Elsa and co to grow up a bit and go on a new adventure means that this pitfall will mostly be avoided. We don't know whether Frozen II will match the success of the original Frozen, but it certainly looks like a pretty ambitious and interesting new movie...

Updated On: 9/4/19 at 01:39 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:39pm

I like the score for Love Never Dies, not the book or the lyrics but the music is lovely. I actually prefer the title melody used as "Our Kind of Love" in The Beautiful Game. It has better lyrics. I do wonder if some of the music that ended up in Love Never Dies was written for The Master and Margarita which I know Andrew Lloyd Webber was working on at some point and then seemed to abandon.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 1:50pm

I actually prefer the title melody used as "Our Kind of Love" in The Beautiful Game. 

Me, too.  I actually saw both shows in London and Our Kind of Love received an ovation like I've never seen before or since.  Hannah Waddingham had to discretely acknowledge the audience with a slight bow before they allowed the show to continue.  

Love Never Dies does have some lovely music (Coney Island Waltz and Dear Old Friend are among his best melodies to date).  But the score also includes the WORST number he has ever written, The Beauty Underneath.  The blatant attempt to mirror the title song and scene from Phantom resulted in an abomination of a number that simply should never have been placed on stage.  Or sung.  Or composed.  Even if you can forgive the ridiculous book, there's just no forgiving that number.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 2:55pm

Mister Matt said: "I actually saw both shows in London and Our Kind of Love received an ovation like I've never seen before or since. Hannah Waddingham had to discretely acknowledge the audience with a slight bow before they allowed the show to continue.

Love Never Dies does have some lovely music (Coney Island Waltz and Dear Old Friend are among his best melodies to date). But the score also includes the WORST number he has ever written, The Beauty Underneath. The blatant attempt to mirror the title song and scene from Phantom resulted in an abomination of a number that simply should never have been placed on stage. Or sung. Or composed. Even if you can forgive the ridiculous book, there's just no forgiving that number."

Thank you for that story about “Our Kind of Love.”

Have you heard the revised US tour version of “The Beauty Underneath?” It’s basically the same but the lead in is different with a bit of music from the Phantom title song worked in and then I think it was the chorus section of the song that was rethought. Did you find that version any better than the original?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzY6sSnZ3Wo

 

[Lot666]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 2:58pm

CATSNYrevival said: "Have you heard the revised US tour version of “The Beauty Underneath?” It’s basically the same but the lead in is different with a bit of music from the Phantom title song worked in and then I think it was the chorus section of the song that was rethought. Did you find that version any better than the original?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzY6sSnZ3Wo"

I really liked what they did with the tour version, but I didn't dislike the original.

[degrassifan]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 3:28pm

Honestly, I prefer Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again over Mamma Mia. It was better made film, and Lily James is always lovely. I also quite enjoyed Mary Poppins Returns and think it was a good sequel to a musical. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 3:37pm

Have you heard the revised US tour version of “The Beauty Underneath?” It’s basically the same but the lead in is different with a bit of music from the Phantom title song worked in and then I think it was the chorus section of the song that was rethought. Did you find that version any better than the original?

Yes, I saw the tour.  The new staging wasn't quite as hideous as the original, but the song itself is just as bad as before, really.  Adding the Phantom bits just made the parallel structure of the two shows even more on-the-nose.  The melody of the tune is clunky, the orchestrations are overbearing, and the book becomes too ridiculous at that point.  It couldn't be fixed with a few tweaks.  It needed to be burned in a dumpster and the entire scene should have been completely rethought and rewritten.

[BeNice]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 3:39pm

Annie Warbucks (different then Annie II ) actually had some decent songs in it. While no means as good as the original, it was not a disaster either and I believe it enjoyed some success off Broadway.

[leefowler]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 3:54pm

I was having a conversation with Mike Nichols several years ago, and I asked him if he had any connection with Annie 2 (he of course produced the original Annie.) He said, "no, you can't have a sequel to a musical." When I asked why, he explained, "a musical is about the most life changing moment in a person's life, and you can't have two of those."

[BritCrit]

Posted: 9/4/19 at 4:16pm

leefowler said: "I was having a conversation with Mike Nichols several years ago, and I asked him if he had any connection with Annie 2 (heof course produced the original Annie.) He said, "no, you can't have a sequel to a musical." When I asked why, he explained, "a musical is about the most life changing moment in a person's life, and you can't have two of those.""

I think this is a brilliant point. Musicals often have a lot of flaws in story and characterisation, but they are so good at sweeping us up in their heightened emotions and memorable music that we don't care. Sequels are always at risk of losing the spontenaity which made the originals so iconic, which is why sequels to musicals are still relatively rare in the age of franchaises. Mary Poppins Returns was a solid film and its story was tighter than the original Mary Poppins, but it was so reliant on copying the structure and beats of the original that it lost a lot of the intangible magic and emotion which made the first so special. The "loss of novelty" is also the biggest obstacle facing Frozen II. The success of the original came as a total suprise to almost everyone, in no small part because most of Frozen's best and most interesting features were hidden and/or downplayed during the promotional campaign. Expectations weren't high, but it managed to be the right film at the right time. Because we have all been waiting six years for Frozen II (during which time the Frozen brand has been shoved down our throats) there is a risk that it could be considered disappointing even if it proves to be superior to the original....

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 9/5/19 at 5:38am

leefowler said: "I was having a conversation with Mike Nichols several years ago, and I asked him if he had any connection with Annie 2 (heof course produced the original Annie.) He said, "no, you can't have a sequel to a musical." When I asked why, he explained, "a musical is about the most life changing moment in a person's life, and you can't have two of those.""

I guess the challenge would then be to identify a show where the characters went on to have an even more significant life experience after the show ended. But given the premise, the original show might not have been interesting enough to deserve a sequel. I guess by this logic, the sequel would have to be about a character who didn't get their due in the original show. Like, nobody wants it but Billy Flynn or Mama Morton could certainly have gone on to have something more significant happen in their lives. There's no reason a random house party would be the most exciting thing to ever happen to Petra in A Little Night Music. 

I want to make an argument for characters like Anita in West Side Story or Julie in Show Boat or Nessarose in Wicked but the problem with them is that they're involved enough in the story that it probably does cover some of the most significant points in their lives. 

Then there's the Funny Lady or Pocahontas II problem where even if you're dealing with a real person who had interesting things happen to them after the events of the original story, a sequel can only pale in comparison. It's really hard to argue "this is the love of this person's life" for a second time. 

[Mark Waltz]

Posted: 9/6/19 at 9:54am

This goes back nearly 90 years, but "Let Em' Eat Cake" was a follow-up to "Of Thee I Sing", which of course was a smash hit. The score for "Let Em' Eat Cake" is terrific, but they turned the presidential character into a dictator like figure which displeased audiences. It closed after about two months. The concert version, done with "Of Thee I Sing!", was recorded, and is enjoyable to listen to, but like many of the shows mentioned proves itself to be unnecessary. Mike Nichols' quote on why musicals should not have sequels is brilliant. 

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 9/6/19 at 10:43am

While not a stage musical, I really loved MARY POPPINS RETURNS.