Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 09:53 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| . . . but my original comment is correct and I stand by it. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 11:33 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:31 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - keikekaze 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Your original comments are correct only in terms of the 1966 script. Changes that were made after that definitely need to be credited to those who made them. In fact, crediting the other contributors is a good way to keep each version straight. (Or, maybe I should say "distinct," given some of this thread lol.) It would be equally wrong, for instance, to say that the book for the current Camelot revival was written by Lerner (alone). Get the point? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 02:26 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - Chromolume 11:31 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes I do, and the point is, that having brushed up an existing property by rewriting a few bits here and there is not the same as having written it, that is, having created it out of thin air or even having adapted it from another medium. Mendes didn't "write Cabaret," and Sorkin hasn't "written Camelot." At most, they've rewritten some of it--and for the worse, as nearly always happens in these cases. I suppose it's nearly always going to happen when you're piggybacking on somebody else's work, only somebody else's work doesn't say what you want it to say, but you're not about to write your own show to say what you want to say (as you should) because you damn well want that pre-existing score to sell "your" revival. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:54 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - keikekaze 02:26 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| There's a huge difference between being a contributing writer and an originating writer, but they are all writers, and they all have a form of authorship on the musical. And while you're heaping scorn on Mendes et al here, you're forgetting that the changes made to "Cabaret" led to a revival that injected new life and popularity into the musical, running twice as long as the original on Broadway, and substantially longer than the 1987 revival. That script, which has become the default for new productions, has a lot of smart changes - and a few clumsy ones - that attune the material to a contemporary audience (and at this point, we'd do well to have another round of edits to fully bring Cliff out of the closet). This kind of work isn't just for the ego of a director, it's for the benefit of the musical itself. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 06:04 pm EDT 03/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - Singapore/Fling 11:54 am EDT 03/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know the answer to this: Did Mendes actually write any dialogue or lyrics? My impression is that he did not, but I'm not sure. Prince felt that he should have received royalties as one of the authors, and been credited as director of the original production in revivals, and he was sorry that he didn't put this in the contracts. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Hate to break it to you… | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:03 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Hate to break it to you… - keikekaze 11:00 pm EDT 03/30/23 | |
|
|
|
| Me: Here are some facts. You: I reject those facts. Me: That doesn’t change the facts. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.032018 seconds.