| Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I love this story and it doesn't need to be set to muzak. | |
| Link | The Count of Monte Cristo |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 12:22 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| For me, it's not so much an issue of Wildhorn singlehandedly ruining shows - I put him in a similar camp with Sir Andrew, and feel that they only tend to be as good as their lyricists, who are generally mediocre at best, and often worse. I do think Wildhorn is capable of writing effective, exciting music, but too often he writes down to the level of his lyrics instead of trying to soar above them. (This is assuming he writes music to lyrics, and not the other way around.) Typically the ballads suffer the most, perhaps because that's where lyrics can often become most predictably banal and hallmark-y. But for every cloying/annoying "Someone Like You" there's also a fun, energetic "Into the Fire." Not all of his stuff is bad, by any means. To me it's the lyrics that tend to make the songs seem amateurish, when they do. So...he fact that Wildhorn is again working with Jack Murphy as a lyricist does not bode well at all. At all. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | Arioso 09:52 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - Chromolume 12:22 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| Agree somewhat, but the music is what moves me more than the lyrics. However, loved Nan's lyrics for Scarlet Pimpernel, and especially the lyrics for "Into The Fire" by a female, no less. Now, he will again work with a female. Robin Lerner wrote the lyrics for ARTUS opening in Switzerland. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 12:05 am EDT 04/04/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - Arioso 09:52 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| Agree somewhat, but the music is what moves me more than the lyrics. But this is theatre. You simply don't have a good theatre song without good lyrics. If Wildhorn were writing instrumental music only, that would be a different matter. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | PatrickHSF 08:17 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I'm a fan of Wildhorn ... Maybe the only one on this board from the sound of it. I loved SP and J&H. Never saw Civil War, but have listened to the recording. B&C was ok. I'm in the minority here but I like his work and I'd be interested to hear his CoMC score and/or see a production. I used to be a huge fan of the novel. I had some rough patches growing up gay in a little town, and the novel brought some comfort as I daydreamed about how to exact revenge on my tormentors. Eventually I went a different route though, succeeded in my opinion in my life, and just let the past and it's hurts wash away. But still, I really identified with Dantes. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | JohnPopa 08:58 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - PatrickHSF 08:17 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| As I recall from an interview with Leslie Bricusse, Wildhorn writes the tune first and the lyricist works from that. Can't find the link, though, but I'll dig when I have some more time. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Agree! | |
| Posted by: | LynnO 04:55 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - PatrickHSF 08:17 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| So I'm the second fan of Wildhorn on this board, I also love SP and J&H (And the Count). You are not alone! :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Me three! | |
| Posted by: | BroadwayTonyJ 10:28 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | Agree! - LynnO 04:55 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| I'm definitely a fan of many of his scores. I think The Scarlet Pimpernel is his best -- I love "Into the Fire", "Vivez!", and especially "Storybook". I enjoyed the first two versions of Jekyll & Hyde (pre-Broadway and Broadway). I thought that the post-Broadway tour of The Civil War that came to Chicago was quite stirring. I even liked the score of Dracula. Unfortunately, I think he has a problem when it comes to choosing collaborators. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Wild for Wildhorn | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 08:32 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | Me three! - BroadwayTonyJ 10:28 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| OK, I guess that makes me No. 4. I love Wildhorn's stirring and romantic melodies. * ''Jekyll & Hyde'': ''A New Life,'' ''This Is the Moment,'' ''Once Upon a Dream'' * ''The Scarlet Pimpernel'': ''Storybook,'' ''Only Love,'' ''Into the Fire'' * ''The Civil War'': ''Sarah,'' ''For the Glory,'' ''I'll Never Pass This Way Again'' * ''Bonnie & Clyde'': ''You Love Who You Love,'' ''This World Will Remember Me,'' ''How 'Bout a Dance?'' Wildhorn can't seem to get respect on Broadway, but his musicals are constantly being done in Japan, Korea and Europe. | |
| Link | Frank Wildhorn: Plenty of projects |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| has anyone heard the score? | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 07:20 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| it seems like it has played in europe already. is it typical Wildhorn (which isn't bad in my opinion, but not something that is super exciting.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn and Japanese musical industry | |
| Posted by: | Kaoru 06:51 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| For some reasons, Japanese producers LOVE Wildhorn, I guess. When I was in Tokyo and saw Love Never Dies, I got almost half inch thick flyers for upcoming plays/musicals. And there were THREE Wildhorn musicals: Alice in Wonderland, Carmen, and Death Note. I wonder if there are any anime fans here but Death Note is actually a very popular manga/anime, and they are going to musicalize it in Japan and Korea. Also they do Wildhorn music concerts all the time. I just don't get it. BTW a Japanese actress (former Takarazuka star) announced that she got engaged to him. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn and Japanese musical industry | |
| Posted by: | TXTyler 04:02 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn and Japanese musical industry - Kaoru 06:51 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| His works are typically popular in both Japan and Austria. Strangely enough, Vienna has an interesting history in sending their musicals, such as Elisabeth and Rebecca, to Japan. As Wildhorn is widely produced in Austria (especially in St. Gallen, where he just premiered his newest musical about King Arthur) I think this link between the two countries has helped him immensely. It also doesn't hurt that both countries still seem to have an affinity for pop, ballad-heavy musicals. I'd be interested to hear about the Japanese Love Never Dies. Overall I think the musical is a stinker as a whole, but there's some gorgeous stuff in there. I'm not sure that those little nuggets of beauty justify the number of new productions, but I keep hoping that somewhere along the line they'll "fix" it. And by that I mean change that ending. Of course the whole piece seems to make all the characters from the first, that the fans empathize with, soooooo unlikable. Ty | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Love Never Dies in Japan | |
| Posted by: | Kaoru 01:45 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn and Japanese musical industry - TXTyler 04:02 am EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, Japanese musical fans love Elisabeth. I forgot to mention they produced Rudolf, which is another Wildhorn's musical. So LND (strangely, in Japanese, the title was changed to Love Never "Die"), they imported the Australian production set and costumes and performed as the Australian version. I have the DVD but didn't see it prior to watching the Japanese production but it's pretty much the same. I actually really like POTO and saw the show nearly 20 times lol, especially they were running in SF for five years. Anyway, I think POTO is like a B movie (except it's not a low budget movie) but with a class. LND on the other hand, is another B movie without any class or romance. Casting two actors who are over 60 yrs old as Phantom doesn't help either, but due to star casting system in Japan, and those actors actually sell the tickets, they couldn't cast real talented actor(s) for Phantom. Did you hear about a story that in an interview ALW said they were considering changing the ending and trying to bring it to Broadway? I don't think it'll work as the premise of the story doesn't make much sense. | |
| Link | Press Conference for Japanese Love Never Dies |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Love Never Dies in Japan | |
| Posted by: | TXTyler 06:12 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | Love Never Dies in Japan - Kaoru 01:45 pm EDT 04/03/14 |
|
| |
| I'm also a big fan of the original. So much in fact that I purchased a ticket to see the Estonian production next year. I wish I could say the same of LND. It's lifeless and a bit embarrassing. As you said, the premise makes little sense, and the material does nothing to hide this fact. I'm glad to hear that they're possibly thinking of changing the ending, although I'm sure it wouldn't be the ending I'd like. Haha! As far as I'm concerned, all of the characters are completely different in POTO and LND. Almost all of the heroes of the first (Raoul, Meg, M. Giry) come off as complete and utter assholes in the sequel, and the Phantom is suddenly a fine, upstanding guy (who somehow, mysteriously, has only gotten younger as the rest of the cast ages). The three narrator types are poor substitutes for Carlotta and the managers, too. It's got some gorgeous music in between the big clunkers like Bathing Beauty and Devil Take the Hindmost. BTW, who played the Phantom in LND? Was it one of the original Phantoms from POTO? If so, I'd almost say it's a step in the right direction. In almost all productions around the world, the actor is quite young. Although the music is written for more of a pop voice than the original musical calls for, it's nice to see some continuity. Thanks for your comment. Very interesting. Ty | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | RonAnnArbor 05:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Hmm...I would bet 99 percent of people in the US under the age of 50 haven't heard of it, just like they had not heard of Scarlett Pimpernel... I think you have nothing to worry about if it is set to a musical score. Plenty of people enjoy shows like that. And maybe it will encourage a few 17 year olds to read the book. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 05:56 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - RonAnnArbor 05:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I would bet 99 percent of people in the US under the age of 50 haven't heard of it, just like they had not heard of Scarlett Pimpernel Except it's only a little over a decade since the last big-screen adaptation of Count, which earned $20 million over and above its budget in the U.S. alone... and Alexandre Dumas is a lot more widely known than Baroness Orczy. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| $50M in 2002 was probably considered a failure | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 06:47 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - MockingbirdGirl 05:56 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| It costs $35M to make the movie but they probably spent tens of millions on advertising. It was a Jan release, so the studio had little faith in the movie. I don't think i saw the movie and i see about 70 a year in the movie theaters. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 07:01 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | $50M in 2002 was probably considered a failure - dramedy 06:47 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| $20 above budget is a good take... plus it made another $20 million internationally. Out of the 479 movies released in 2002, it ranked #48 in domestic box office gross. TV viewers may also be familiar with the story from a more recent source: it was the basis for the current hit series Revenge. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 07:01 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I hope you're remembering the difference between movie grosses and movie net receipts. Producers and distributors of films never pocket the whole gross--they're lucky to get 50 percent of it, and it can be a lot less. Theater owners get the rest. I haven't looked up Count's box-office, but just as a hypothetical example, if a film costs $50 million to produce and it grosses $70 million, it's not making a $20 million profit. It's probably losing about $15 million, and that doesn't even factor in prints and advertising, which can run to many millions and is a separate item from production costs. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I haven't looked up Count's box-office, but just as a hypothetical example, if a film costs $50 million to produce and it grosses $70 million, it's not making a $20 million profit. It's probably losing about $15 million Monte Cristo cost $35 million to produce and grossed $75 million, and was considered a modest hit at the time. A movie marketing budget is typically 50% of production's costs... but even if Disney spent $20 million on marketing, the movie would still have made $20 million -- a tidy sum. The claim that it was "probably considered a failure" is untrue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 01:52 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I'm afraid this is wandering off topic, but the figures you're giving me don't add up as you say, unless by "grossed $75 million" you mean "netted $75 million." If Monte Cristo cost $35 mil and grossed $75 mil, that means Disney netted, maybe, $37.5 mil on the production, but advertising costs, etc., would have more than wiped out the tiny apparent profit of $2.5 million. So, not a success from a box-office p.o.v. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | chrisampm 10:07 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Please check the e-mail above yours. Using your stats, the movie would have cost $55 mill. And, with the typical 50% take of gross, would have taken in only $37.5 mill. A $15+ mill loss that may have been covered later by ancillaries. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:10 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - MockingbirdGirl 05:56 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i'd be interested to know, though, how the sales of the books differ. not interested enough to look it up but interested. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 05:49 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - RonAnnArbor 05:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i wonder how long it's going to be? i'd wager more people (even in that age group) have heard of the scarlet pimpernel. i don't have as much of a problem with a musical version of this (even by him) as i would many other classics. it's a fun book and a great read but, really, it's never been (nor was it intended to be) anything more than a potboiler. that's no slam against it. it's an adventure story. a great one and well written but that's all it ever wanted to be. like everything else, it will come down to execution. i think a better argument could be made that a work as exquisite as ROMEO AND JULIET should be too sacrosanct to be turned into a musical. that one worked out ok. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - enoch10 05:49 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I never saw the scarlet pimpernel. I never heard of the scarlet pimpernel. I don't give a ** about the... sorry, couldn't resist and sorry for screwing that up... .but it's true. but i Love the count. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Scarlet Pimpernel a joy | |
| Posted by: | peter3053 04:14 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| For what it's worth, the first revised version of The Scarlet Pimpernel was the most joyous afternoon I have ever spent in the theatre. Seriously, joyous. And the audience was having an absolute ball. The script was witty and literate, and the music carried us away on a cloud. And when the Pimpernel lost his hope momentarily in the second act, we were involved and disturbed, only to be reassured with more joy at the finale. A couple of the ballads needed to be sharper in focus, I felt, but they didn't detract from a thrilling score at the service of a stirring piece of theatrical storytelling. I understand Bonnie and Clyde was also far superior to the impression given by commentary about it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | chrismpls 11:13 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I think you reversed the first and second sentences. Otherwise, you are dead on -- and thanks. I always appreciate a "Chorus Line" reference! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| also it occurs to me that y'all are talking about films. i've never seen films of either of these books. the movie version of the count of monte cristo may well be superior to a film of the scarlet pimpernel. i wouldn't know. to quote you i don't give a ** about movies. i like books and both of these books are terrific. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Count of Monte Cristo stage versions | |
| Posted by: | Max 07:15 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: let's get something straight - enoch10 06:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Remember James O'Neill (Eugene's dad) played the Count on stage for years, from the 1880s through the early 1900s and then "converted Monte Cristo into tabloid form for the vaudeville circuit to accommodate changing taste in theater entertainment. By 1913 a cinema version was playing on nickelodeons." Whatever else can be said about it, it's stageworthy. It doesn't sound like adding a musical score is going to hurt it much. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Count of Monte Cristo stage versions | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 07:24 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Count of Monte Cristo stage versions - Max 07:15 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i don't know where i got it, it may have been published, but as an undergraduate i actually read a version of the script he performed. i remember thinking this must have gone on for hours and hours and he must have been a hell of a performer for making it interesting (and it must have been, he played it long enough) because reading it required effort. and stamina. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Count of Monte Cristo stage versions | |
| Posted by: | Max 07:32 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Count of Monte Cristo stage versions - enoch10 07:24 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| It did run on and on. The standard play at the time was a five act play that could easily run four hours, not counting the intermissions, which were easily 30 minutes plus each to allow for the scenery to be changed. An evening at the theater lasting five to six hours was expected and the norm. (And nowadays some people complain about 90 minutes!) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | jero 06:46 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: let's get something straight - enoch10 06:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i agree about movies.. my avoidence of movies has served me well, theatrically. I never saw the movies of Priscilla, Edward Scissorhands, Crybaby, Billy Eliot, Full Monty... and that made the stage versions very fun for me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:34 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i promise i wasn't slamming the count of monte cristo. i thoroughly enjoyed it when i read it. but it is intended to be more of an adventure and (again, in a good way) more of a melodrama than much classic literature is. i like the fact that it's not intended to be precious. and you should read the scarlet pimpernel. it's delightful. and if you liked the count i suspect you'd like it as well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | jero 06:45 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: let's get something straight - enoch10 06:34 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| my only point is, wtf is a pimpernel? Ok just looked- a flower... the show, the title, never interested me ever so I kind of blanked it out. (I always thought I would have benefited from a liberal arts education but it's a little late.) I don't think I've even seen an ad or logo of the show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | Zelgo 05:28 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Honestly, this is a novel that you don't hear much about nowadays. No one reads it any more. I'm glad it will at least be in the public eye again. Sure the music will be schlock but whatever. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 1.844447 seconds.