not logged in
| re: Thanx for putting those up | |
Posted by:  |
Tremorlor 04:07 pm UTC 12/11/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Thanx for putting those up - rockfenris2005 03:37 pm UTC 12/11/07 |
| My guess is, the original show is close to the source material due to Polanski. With Polanski gone from the team due to his inability to enter the States, Steinman got to play with the book as he saw fit. There was no one to overrule him after all. Add his passion to recycle - even if it means altering the story or transforming it to Neverland with vampires - and lo, the various DotV scripts came into being. Still with Krolock as a dark character. Add MC and lo, Krolock became a farce. As for dialogues, it's a matter of preference. In show recordings, those I listen to once and skip whenever the CD is played again, in terms of the usual CDs like Bat, PBox etc, it's the same treatment. If I'd want spoken words, I'd go for audio books (of which I don't have any as I still prefer to have the actual book). > I still don't understand the full story with DOTV. > Steinman seems to have a whole different story than the > Press did. Who instigated the changes? It looked like it > was already going to be a different piece before Michael > Crawford got involved. He just made things worse, I > think. > > I'll venture (waaay out, mind you) with my little theory. > Steinman wasn't happy with the changes that were going to > be made. However, he saw that he had an opportunity to > stage his dream Broadway musical. "Batman" was also in > development and everyone presumed that "Vampires" would > have succeeded and helped greenlight "Batman". So Steinman > wasn't *that* passionate about the whole thing (Of course > not, his beloved show was in Vienna.) He started recycling > anything & everything to get the job done, half-hoping it > would succeed somehow. > > I don't know. Ken Mandelbaum should uncover the whole > sorry saga. All we have is a bunch of misleading articles > and PAN reviews across the world from that period. That's > all. The only thing that comes close to telling the whole > story is Michael Riedel's review. But he's full of shit, > IMO. > > I'm very torn about the virtues of a through-sung musical > as opposed to those with dialogue. I think it all depends > on the subject matter. Kunze is a visionary, and he's way > ahead of everyone's time on Broadway. The Europeans are > making the real theatre, not the Americans, IMO. Kunze's > through-sung shows are amazing but I also love Steinman's > dialogues. They're so weird and creepy and eerie. > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Thanx for putting those up - rockfenris2005 03:37 pm UTC 12/11/07 |
| Next: | PS. - rockfenris2005 03:39 pm UTC 12/11/07 |
| Thread: | |