Dogg The Bounty Hunter

An interesting note not raised in this piece: how do musicals, made popular by other media, differ when the original source is used? Mary Poppins (on Broadway) was required to merge the novel into the Disney movie, making parts of the stage musical darker.

The television version of "Little House" differs quite a bit from the books. Granted, many of the fans have read the book.

As for what are the worst TV shows to adapt? Well, I'm not going to say, because someone would say, "Hey! 'Love Boat'...that's a GREAT IDEA."

As for the Bible, it's been done, and done very well. "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" is constantly in production somewhere, "Jesus Christ Superstar" shows up on TV every so often, and "Godspell" will be back on Broadway this Fall.

Regional theater has to put people in the seats. The Omaha Community Playhouse (my hometown) stages "A Christmas Carol" every year. They also have a black box theater for smaller, more expiremental works. The Public Theater in New York, probably the most vibrant independent theater in the country, produces "A Chorus Line" to fund other works.

There is nothing wrong in seducing children with popular theater, so long as the adults are entertained as well. And if it encourages them to read the books, so much the better. (I just wish everyone who saw "Wicked" would read "The Wizard of Oz"...the MGM musical was a horrible adaptation.)

"The Grapes of Wrath: The Musical" Unless it was only used as therapy in a sleep clinic.

As for the story, it does have a lilt towards snotty, but as with most things, it's perspective. I'm not a big fan of modern musicals, as many tend to be regurgitated movies or tv shows or collections of disparate songs and show little creativity apart from the feat of making something out of so little to begin with.

I'm not going to see Little House for that reason and because I never watched the show and don't care a lick about it. Here's the where the perspective is important. There is a place for the work Guthrie does and we have to respect their ability to take the risk of producing shows like this. Ordway Center takes many of the same risks but doesn't get nearly the guff about their flops or successes, and they consider the wider marketability just as much if not more than Guthrie. The lives of small troupes and larger regionals are intertwined in a love-hate relationship and always will be, but when they both speak to an audience eager and willing to take the risk with them, you can't distinguish one from the other, large from small.

This report was not meant to be a review of the show. If you want the reviews, visit these links to our regions largest newspapers:

http://www.twincities.com/stage/ci_10217262?nclick_check=1

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/onstage/27019414.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUg:oaEQDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

I guess Ms. Lemanczyck thought all of us were in on the joke of essentially: "can you believe these uncultured rubes have made a musical about Laura Ingall's books?" Lady, the musical isn't about Michael Landon and his TV family, it's about a little girls experiences as she and her family move out to a great unsettled and unknown world, that is full of danger. I suppose in your mind it doesn't compare to the "drama" of two mixed up kids in NY from different ethnic backgrounds trying to have a relationship; or a pair of producers making a comedy about Hitler, but for my money, I think Ms. Ingall's experience could be a rich source of dramatic material for a musical. Like the other comments said: if you had critiqued the performance, fine, but that you just slammed and sniffed about the very notion of such a musical was just unprofessional and petty.

Little House on the Prairie... the musical...?
Before this goes any further the production needs to track down Corky St. Clair to direct this material. His uncompromising work in Missouri regional theater- dealing with "Americana" - was proven in a stunning documentary film called "Waiting for Guffman".

I was delighted that Studio-360 diligently GOT the Spinal Tap (Guest) connect on the Boliv/ Iron Maiden item but was saddened that they were unable to dredge it for LHOTP. I'm afraid this oversight may have weakened their continuing "hipper than thou" ethos. Perhaps their A-team was in the Hamptons.

Imagine this text, set to the tune of "Sharks vs Jets" from West Side Story.

"When you kill a pig
it's a mark of distinction.
Go touch the slab,
or you're up for extinction"

A terrifying glimpse into the as-of-yet unmade "2001, a space odyssey, the musical, on ice".

The "better than thou" attitude I expect from any arts critique coming out of New York City so that wasn't a surprise to me. I was dismayed not to find an actual review of this work. It's one thing to criticize something for simply existing but there were no specific reasons given which had anything to do with this production. The author simply didn't like the idea of the musical. I agree with others that a critique of the quality of the music, actors, storyline, is called for if you're going to trash something. Otherwise it just seems petty, cruel and baseless.

Homicide: Life On The Street
with such songs as
"Oh! There's the Bullet Hole!"
"Red Ball-timore"
and the John Munsch love ballad
"Gee-ardello Don't I Love Her"

and for a book musical
Awaken The Giant Within

Your reporter on this story could have hardly been more condescending if she had tried. Her half-hearted attempt at trying not to giggle through the story was so off-putting it was about all I could do not to change the station. That she would just dismiss outright the notion that anything worthwhile could come out of this production spoke volumes about her own limitations. I am sure she has a copy of that infamous poster of Manhattan that reads: "there's no life West of the East River." In the future, I will be sure to skip over anything she might wish to produce.

Catcher in the Rye is probably a temptation to musical writers. It's got a strong central character, a backdrop of Manhattan, a revolving cast of compelling secondary characters, a chance for cute songs and powerful ballads... And would be a horror on Broadway. Imagine the show-stopping number, "Where Do the Ducks Go (in the Winter?)" or the playful, "I Don't Want Sex, Just Conversation." Ugh.

Gilmore Girls: The Musical. *shudder.*

Degree in theatrical production, minor English writing, having spent a good portion of my life producing and working on musicals, I eagerly address which book would make a horrible one. It’s my favorite, a book I’ve read at least 18 times at various points in my life: Lady Chatterley’s Lover, by D. H. Lawrence.

The novel contains so much: perspectives on class differences, politics, disability, dysfunction, environmental pollution of many kinds, divorce and adultery, and a (male author’s very apt) view of a woman’s perspective on gender and sexual relations and freedom. Many musicals thrive by portraying these topics (also life in England in the 1800s), yet I can think of no more incompatible milieu – no greater artistic injustice – than translating this novel into a musical.

Okay, not unless we would cast Kitty Carlisle as Constance Chatterley, Raymond Burr as her husband, and all three Marx Brothers as Oliver Mellors. Music by the Gershwins, ballet scenes by Isadora Duncan.

How about War and Peace, The Brady Bunch or Star Trek musicals?

I am trying to "hear" the reporter's name from this story - but don't seem to be able to clearly hear her pronunciation. Can anyone please advise. thank you.

The Godfather: The Musical - 2nd choice Apocalypse Now on Ice

I tend to agree with the previous comments - this story seemed to just play into the bias of "all musicals are bad" with a slice of "why bother, we saw it all on the television show!" thrown in for good measure.

I'd never have thought that musicals based on the works of ABBA and John Waters would have been enjoyable, much less tolerable but I've been proven wrong by Mamma Mia and Hairspray (I haven't seen Cry Baby yet). I hesitate to throw any popular culture icon under the Musical Bus as being inherently un-adaptable to that medium, though certain things definitely have a good "chuckle factor" when thinking of them, much less seeing them -- to wit "Evil Dead The Musical" and "Silence! The Silence of the Lambs Musical" -- both are highly entertaining.

I am as much of an art snob as anybody but this story was all snot and no substance. We learned nothing at all about the musical qua musical, (is the music any good? costumes? how about the lead?) we learned merely that creating a new musical is, to some, akin to chain stores, a puzzling equivocation. If the Guthrie were staging a new production of Cats, I would agree but that is exactly what they are not doing.
Neither, as was implied, is it a sin for an arts organization to do something that appeals to a broad cross section of the public. If the work is good, then popularity will not hurt it. Generally speaking, the remit for grants given to arts non-profits has exactly that as one of its goals.
Of course, I have no idea about the quality of the actual work since this piece was about people's opinions about a work that they had not seen. That's good journalism.

This is the snottiest story/interview I have ever heard on Studio 360, a show I normally enjoy. The reporters' biases about the mission of regional theatre, what constitutes a worthy artistic endeavor and against musicals are shocking. Why was this allowed to be aired? Her ignorance of history was equally profound. Regional theatres in the U.S. have been doing new musicals for years: The Goodman, LaJallo, The Globe, The Taper and LCT.

The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski is probably the worst book I could imagine for musical fodder. It's an in-your-face don't-look-away graphic depiction of the violence of war; a child witnessing rape, experiencing cruelty, and just barely surviving with his soul intact.

Two works I would dread to see musicalized.
The Bible, the musical.
Dante's Inferno, The musical.