FirstNationalBastard: Well, if it is, that means it's got one up on the movie.

You're dead to me.

oh fudge

FirstNationalBastard: Krymson Tyde: FirstNationalBastard: Well, if it is, that means it's got one up on the movie.

You're dead to me.

I hate the Goonies, have never seen A Christmas Story but am willing to give its fans some amount of shiat, and have never seen Princess Bride, but do refrain from trolling its fans because Andre The Giant was in the movie.

...I'm probably not any more alive to you after that, am I?

I'm not a big fan of The Goonies, but still, no.

I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Well, it would almost have to be better than the direct-to-DVD sequel.

" (Only one moment doesn't stand the test of time: I believe Western culture may be ready to retire the familiar and beloved and, yes, ragingly offensive scene where the waitstaff of a Chinese restaurant serenade the family with "Deck de harrs with hows of horry!")"

And yet, my wife who is 100% chinese descent, finds that scene to be the funniest scene in the whole movie, and finds nothing offensive to it.

FirstNationalBastard: Krymson Tyde: FirstNationalBastard: Well, if it is, that means it's got one up on the movie.

You're dead to me.

I hate the Goonies, have never seen A Christmas Story but am willing to give its fans some amount of shiat, and have never seen Princess Bride, but do refrain from trolling its fans because Andre The Giant was in the movie.

...I'm probably not any more alive to you after that, am I?

You are dead to us all. Never having seen the Princess Bride alone does that.

Oh fudge.

snowshovel: " (Only one moment doesn't stand the test of time: I believe Western culture may be ready to retire the familiar and beloved and, yes, ragingly offensive scene where the waitstaff of a Chinese restaurant serenade the family with "Deck de harrs with hows of horry!")"

And yet, my wife who is 100% chinese descent, finds that scene to be the funniest scene in the whole movie, and finds nothing offensive to it.

That is such a farkin' stupid quote, I can't even wrap my head around it. The movie is a slice out of a time long gone. Its charm is that it's so right on. When my parents and grandparents saw that film you could just tell that it hit right on the mark.

There is one thing I never understood about a Christmas Story when watching it as an adult. There is the scene where the dad goes to plug in the leg lamp and there are a ton of other electrical devices connected to a single outlet. But this movie took place in the 1940s, and the scene took place before the Christmas tree was put up. So besides the radio and maybe 1 or 2 lamps, what the hell would have been plugged into that outlet?

mechgreg: There is one thing I never understood about a Christmas Story when watching it as an adult. There is the scene where the dad goes to plug in the leg lamp and there are a ton of other electrical devices connected to a single outlet. But this movie took place in the 1940s, and the scene took place before the Christmas tree was put up. So besides the radio and maybe 1 or 2 lamps, what the hell would have been plugged into that outlet?

When electricity was first introduced into houses, it was primarily used for lighting. At that time, many electricity companies operated a split-tariff system where the cost of electricity for lighting was lower than that for other purposes. This led to portable appliances (such as vacuum cleaners, electric fans, and hair driers) being connected to light bulb sockets.

As electricity became a common method of operating labour-saving appliances, a safe means of connection to the electric system other than using a light socket was needed. The original two-pin electrical plug and socket was invented by Harvey Hubbell and patented in 1904. Hubbell's first design screwed into a light socket rather than being directly connected to the building's fixed wiring. (US Patent #774,250) Other manufacturers adopted the Hubbell pattern and by 1915 they were widespread, though light-socket connections for appliances persisted into the 1920s.[5][6][7]

OtherBrotherDarryl: I saw it in Seattle last year and it's worth seeing.


I also saw it in Seattle last year and, unless they fixed the simply terrible dialog sections between the songs, it's really not worth seeing.

vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

Mrs. Zeitgeist and I were given tickets to see it (in Raleigh, NC) last year, and it was terrific. I could take or leave seeing the movie again, but the musical adaptation was phenomenal.

I, for one, am glad.

vrax: snowshovel: " (Only one moment doesn't stand the test of time: I believe Western culture may be ready to retire the familiar and beloved and, yes, ragingly offensive scene where the waitstaff of a Chinese restaurant serenade the family with "Deck de harrs with hows of horry!")"

And yet, my wife who is 100% chinese descent, finds that scene to be the funniest scene in the whole movie, and finds nothing offensive to it.

That is such a farkin' stupid quote, I can't even wrap my head around it. The movie is a slice out of a time long gone. Its charm is that it's so right on. When my parents and grandparents saw that film you could just tell that it hit right on the mark.

Ad it's not even a "slice of time" thing. She claims they are singing in the exact accents that her uncles have, and if you've ever been to a traditional Chinese celebratory 10 course dinner, serving the chicken with the head still on the platter is common (and then her adult relatives put the heads on chopsticks essentially do puppet shows with them).

In a lot of ways, to her as an American-born Chinese, that scene is almost the most true reflective scene ever filmed in Hollywood of her ethnic heritage, and of the sort of "strangeness" a traditional white family would have to those traditions ("it's smiling at us")

All I know is that Christmas Story 2 looks to be one of the signs of the coming apocalypse and I will crush the eye juice of any exec I see who greenlit that POS.

T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

Fano: mechgreg: There is one thing I never understood about a Christmas Story when watching it as an adult. There is the scene where the dad goes to plug in the leg lamp and there are a ton of other electrical devices connected to a single outlet. But this movie took place in the 1940s, and the scene took place before the Christmas tree was put up. So besides the radio and maybe 1 or 2 lamps, what the hell would have been plugged into that outlet?

Everything electrical in the room. Rooms didn't used to have nearly as many outlets back in the day.

But besides the radio and a lamp or two what other plug in electrical stuff would they have in 1939? I mean looking around my living room almost everything I have plugged into wall outlets didn't exist in ralphie's house (TV, dvd player, cordless phone, cable box). You can watch the scene on youtube and there are easily 8 cords coming out of that wall outlet. What were all those cords going to?

vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Now the adult Billingsley (awful to picture, right?)

Oh I don't think the picture is awful at all.

T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Broadway debuits when they opened.

Yet even that is irrelevant because you are confusing popularity with your misconceived notion of originality. What you did was the equivalent of listing the 16 most popular television shows currently broadcast regardless of how many seasons. And then pretending those are the only shows on TV. It makes no sense.

To gauge "originality" you have to track what is going on NOW. What is currently being produced. The last season we have data for is 2011.

In that year there were 41 new productions. 16 of them were new, original plays. 8 of them were new, original productions of classic plays. 11 were new, original musicals. The last 6 were new, original productions of classic musicals.

So yes. I think you are parroting things you have heard other people say.

T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Broadway de ...

Who on Earth would I be parroting? The funny thing is, that if you expand the list to include all current Broadway productions, it's even worse! Yes, there are a lot of new productions of tired, old material. Woo!

Here's the list: Link

Not terribly exciting by any measure.

T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Broadway de ...

I think maybe what he's trying to get at is that most new Broadway (and West End) productions seem to be coming from Hollywood properties as opposed to fresh new ideas. The alternative seems to be also to create a musical out of a greatest hits CDs for classic bands. So the 'new' ideas are becoming increasingly formulaic, which is exactly what Hollywood is doing these days too. Other examples would include Shrek: The Musical and the failed Lord of the Rings production.

But then some of that is self-perpetuated, as the average person who is going to go see just one show to say that they've seen a Broadway or West End production -- will go to something they're familiar with. So either one of the classic standbys (Phantom, Les Miserables, etc) or if a newer one -- something you're familiar with from the cinema.

I even myself am guilty of this. In London last weekend, decided I was finally going to see a West End show. Step out of the underground at Covent Garden, go to a discount theatre ticket house and see what they have available for that evening. Rock of Ages, We Will Rock You, Shrek, Loserville, and a couple others I don't recall. I resisted the urge to see Shrek on principle, Loserville I'd never heard of (and may actually be an original idea? Is sort of Big Bang Theory in concept though I think). So then it went down to did I want to listen to 80s classics or Queen all night... and Queen's probably my favourite classic rock band - so that decided it.

People go to what they're familiar with, producers see this and so look for familiar properties to bring to a new medium. Hence the 'recent' spate of musicals based on Hollywood and 70s/80s music hits.

Caeldan: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Bro ...

Yeah, it seems that they are doing exactly what Hollywood is guilty of, except that there are relatively so few Broadway productions it feels like they are just wasting time and space. Hey, if people was familiarity when they go to a show, that's fine, but that's not me at all. That why when I see something like "The Book of Mormon" or an "Ave Q" I think, "Wow, now that actually looks interesting!". I don't think that even one bit with most of this field. "Cyrano"?! Holy farkin' hell! I was watching the Macy's parade this morning and they had their usual line-up of Broadway snippets and it was all pure bullshiat! If those help attract anyone, it'll be the brain-dead. There's my new show idea: "Brain-dead Broadway Zombies"

vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Bro ...

Here is a list of everything currently playing on Broadway or opening shortly: (your link was incorrect) Current Broadway Shows

30 of them are are original musicals or plays. 13 are revivals of classic material.

But facts aside you still seem confused. You label an entire industry unoriginal but when pressed can only fall back on complaining that the shows aren't "interesting" or "exciting" to you. Which is entirely subjective.

But ok. Let's go with sorting out what you THINK and not what you KNOW.

First off I'm surprised you did not think Peter and the Starcatchers or War Horse counted as new or interesting. You are alone in that opinion but ok. It's possible.

Second, most people are pretty excited about things like a new Mamet or Rebeck play. Yet you are not.

None of the play revivals interest you at all? Really? You don't think it's cool (and takes huge balls) to produce something like Golden Boy in this day and age?

As to new this season. You really aren't interested in seeing what Matilda is all about? No interest on seeing Tom Hanks in his Bway debut in a Norah Ephron play? None of the new shows coming in hold any interest to you a all?

I suppose it's possible you have a finer tuned theatrical sensibility than the rest of the world. But I doubt it.

I think you are continuing to ignorantly parrot things you have heard other people say.

Unless you care to explain your thesis further?

Caeldan: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Bro ...

Do I really need to break down the West End now and prove YOU completely wrong as well?

Honestly it does not seem necessary..You are even more confused than the other guy.

Again, I suspect you are just parroting things you have heard other people say.

T.M.S.: Caeldan: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: T.M.S.: vrax: I don't care how good this production is, Broadway makes Hollywood look like a land of original ideas!

Why do you say a silly thing like that? What specifically is it that you think shows this lack of originality?

I hope that you are joking, but if not, here's your top 16:

The Lion King
Wicked
Jersey Boys
The Book of Mormon
Mamma Mia!
Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark
Chicago
A Christmas Story
Mary Poppins
Rock of Ages
Evita
Newsies
Bring It On: The Musical
Chaplin
Annie
Scandalous

Out of all those, "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend any money to see. "Bring It On: The Musical", FFS?! That should be off-off-off-off Broadway and in a gutter somewhere in the mid-west.

What you would spend money on is irrelevant. You indicated Broadway was lacking in new ideas. I think you have no idea and are parroting things you have heard elsewhere. But I could be wrong. So, why do you say this thing?

Parroting? I can look at the list of shows with my own two eyes! Virtually every one of those shows is either a very tired, old production being rehashed once again or just a flat-out terrible idea. Farkin "Elf"?! "The Book Of Mormon" is the only one I would spend money on because it's one of the very few original ideas in all of Broadway. If you compare Broadway with Hollywood, there's no contest. "Hollywood", in spite of all the shiat they put out, wins hands down on the ground.

Now, maybe you are confusing Broadway with all the off (off-off) productions and countless plays throughout the US, but I'm talking ON Broadway productions, just to be clear.

Nope. I think I have a pretty good ideas what Broadway means.

And yes, other than again stating your opinion about the shows you would be interested in seeing every thing you said was unfortunatly false.

Of the 16 shows you listed exactly three are "re-hashes" of tired old shows. Meaning they were not Bro ...

Do I really need to break down the West End now and prove YOU completely wrong as well?

Honestly it does not seem necessary..You are even more confused than the other guy.

Again, I suspect you are just parroting things you have heard other people say.

Actually I was just trying to say that as a layman to the whole Broadway and West End scene, what my impression is.

It feels like (and maybe it's just advertising) that the large majority of productions anymore are as I said based on Hollywood blockbusters or 70/80s greatest hits catalogues.

To be fair, Broadway and Hollywood have been borrowing ideas from various sources since time began (usually books)...it's just how obvious the source is that has changed recently. An "original" production in some cases is always questionable. And in some cases, I don't understand the complaints on some of these. I would agree that some of the ideas are kind of tired and/or cheap, something like Footloose or Bring it On (where the dance routines and music are pretty much already pre-programmed into the story). Part of the allure of Lion King is seeing how they pull off the puppetry, and Wicked, really is nothing like the book except for the basic idea, and the book itself wasn't widely known until the play came out.

Strangely, I had the same reservations of Jersey Boys, but my wife wanted to see that, and the telling of the story of band is actually compelling enough to get around all of the music issues.

Or Is the complaint that some of these shows are just old? For all practical purposes "Chaplain" appears to be an entirely new play. Granted, based on biological life of someone.

And would you have been interested in "Book of Mormon" if is wasn't written by the South Park guys? If you walked down the street and saw the poster for that for the very first time, would you have said "boy, a musical about guys knocking on doors selling a religion sounds awesome!"

I guess I remember the big blockbuster musicals as a kid to me were a lot of the Andrew Lloyd Weber productions (Cats, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph) and Schonberg (Les Miserables, Miss Saigon)... and maybe at the time they seemed more original than say.... Shrek, or Lion King.

I agree that if you don't have some familiarity, if you aren't a regular theatre goer -- you probably won't give some shows a try (unless they've generated enough hype).

I will say that We Will Rock You -- while the music itself isn't original -- the story built around the catalogue of songs was entertaining enough, even if it had its own fair share of tropes and cliches. But it's almost like because that's being done as a subgenre of musical itself, the idea isn't original even if the story is.

But then where do you go to get outside the box again?

I heard it's fabulous!

Caeldan: I guess I remember the big blockbuster musicals as a kid to me were a lot of the Andrew Lloyd Weber productions (Cats, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph) and Schonberg (Les Miserables, Miss Saigon)... and maybe at the time they seemed more original than say.... Shrek, or Lion King.

I agree that if you don't have some familiarity, if you aren't a regular theatre goer -- you probably won't give some shows a try (unless they've generated enough hype).

I will say that We Will Rock You -- while the music itself isn't original -- the story built around the catalogue of songs was entertaining enough, even if it had its own fair share of tropes and cliches. But it's almost like because that's being done as a subgenre of musical itself, the idea isn't original even if the story is.

But then where do you go to get outside the box again?


Part of the issue is many people don't understand that the creation of a new musical is making "original" art regardless of the source material. Even Shakespeare and Mozart used existing plots, characters, thoughts, diction, melody and spectacle. (no I am not comparing today's composers and playwrights with them, it's just that the process is the same)

It is highly unusual for a musical to be generated from whole cloth. Most of the best have been based on fairly well known works. It's not really an issue though because the musical itself it the only end result that can be fairly judged.

Yes the so called 'juke box musical' exists but it's a term most people don't actually understand. And in fact a JBM is by definition not a musical at all. They are really musical reviews, pure dance pieces or a songspeil.

Adapting a non-musical film to the stage can be just as valid as anything "original". Would you say Cabaret is a bad show just because it was inspired by I Am A Camera? Is A Little Night Music sub-par because it was based on an Ingmar Bergman film?

Sure adapting a musical film for the stage seems like culture going in the wrong direction but there are still plenty of great shows done that way. Last years Tony for Best Musical went to Once and I challenge anyone to prove is not a great and original show.

The simple truth is for some reason otherwise intelligent and cultured people feel they have a free pass to attack Broadway from a place of total ignorance. They demand their opinion be valued in spite of overwhelming evidence they have no idea what they are talking about. (I don't think you were doing that by the way)

That said I agree the consumer is overwhelmed by what is getting the most attention and advertising dollars. But what would you think of someone who judged the entire music industry based only on Billboards top 16 songs? Would the fact that they are mostly disposable pop songs by people like Justin Beiber and Ki$ha prove there is no good music being made at all?

Caeldan: I guess I remember the big blockbuster musicals as a kid to me were a lot of the Andrew Lloyd Weber productions (Cats, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph) and Schonberg (Les Miserables, Miss Saigon)... and maybe at the time they seemed more original than say.... Shrek, or Lion King.

I agree that if you don't have some familiarity, if you aren't a regular theatre goer -- you probably won't give some shows a try (unless they've generated enough hype).

I will say that We Will Rock You -- while the music itself isn't original -- the story built around the catalogue of songs was entertaining enough, even if it had its own fair share of tropes and cliches. But it's almost like because that's being done as a subgenre of musical itself, the idea isn't original even if the story is.

But then where do you go to get outside the box again?

Not to be snarky, but since this fark, Cats, Jesus, Joseph, Les Miz (and Miss Saigon to a certain extent) are all based on pre-existing work.

With that side...

I think that the costs and risks of doing a big blockbustery broadway show is just to great to try a wholly original thing (both story and music). I think there's a lot of smaller sized shows where you can get away with that, things like Avenue Q.

And again, I'm not sure how far away you have to go from original source meterial for it to be considered new, Is Aida original...or re-telling a known story? Sweeney Todd?

I think that the Les Miz people tried something a few years ago, called The Pirate Queen, which didn't do to well, but even that is based on a historical figure/legend.

Has there been a show similar to Moulin Rouge? Even though the songs in that movie were originally all pop songs, I think the thing that made it stand out was the way they re-made the songs into something completely different.

Obviously, something like Shrek is intended more to churn cash for the license holder and to get kids interested in the live theatre more than anything else.

vrax: ...Book of Mormon.."

You mentioned Book of Mormon three times in this thread. What is it exactly that you think is so strikingly original about that show?

T.M.S.: That said I agree the consumer is overwhelmed by what is getting the most attention and advertising dollars. But what would you think of someone who judged the entire music industry based only on Billboards top 16 songs? Would the fact that they are mostly disposable pop songs by people like Justin Beiber and Ki$ha prove there is no good music being made at all?

Fair point.
However here on Fark you think it does work that way :)

/did we just have a rational discussion on this site?

Caeldan: T.M.S.: That said I agree the consumer is overwhelmed by what is getting the most attention and advertising dollars. But what would you think of someone who judged the entire music industry based only on Billboards top 16 songs? Would the fact that they are mostly disposable pop songs by people like Justin Beiber and Ki$ha prove there is no good music being made at all?

Fair point.
However here on Fark you think it does work that way :)

/did we just have a rational discussion on this site?

Impossible.

♪ ♫ Ohhhhhhhh iiiiiiiit sezzzzzzzzz

FRAJEELLAY!

FRAJEELLAY!

That's quite an odd word!

Must be Italian, as far as I've head! ♪ ♫