not logged in
| re: My thoughts | |
Posted by:  |
rockfenris2005 01:11 pm UTC 05/14/08 |
| In reply to: | re: My thoughts - Smeghead 10:53 am UTC 05/14/08 |
| > > As I see it the songs serve 2 seperate functions. Surf's > Up is Peter convincing Wendy to give him her Virginity. > Heaven Can wait is the wedding song. To me you can't > interrupt a guy trying to fuck a girl for a wedding > ceremony. Plus Heaven Can Wait is one of only 2 songs for > Wendy. And I don't see Surf's Up as being as Laid back as > Heaven Can Wait. But thanks for taking the time to read > and comment! The reason I thought "Surf's Up" would be a better song is because "Bad For Good" and etc. fit their scenarios better than "Bat Out Of Hell" and etc. That is all. Personally, I prefer "Heaven Can Wait" or the illusion of sexual tension between Peter and Wendy. If Wendy loses her virginity to Peter, it kinda takes away from the power of the original. In the play by J.M. Barrie, Peter wouldn't allow anyone to touch him. I assume that element carries over into Jim's version. Interestingly enough, Meat says in his autobiography that Jim would hardly let anyone touch him. > > > Well, I left Max as a nod to the original. I didn't think > changing it to James would add anything and I think of > Hook as Max. I assume it is Emily Hook, just never used > the name. I think Max and Emily are the names of the villains in Bertolt Brecht's "Baal" or "A Man's A Man". Steinman scored both these plays in various productions at Amherst. Max and Emily were Brecht creations and I didn't see what Brecht had to do with Peter Pan. But, of course, it works either way. Both Hook, Mrs. Hook, Max and Emily are convincing and seriously sinister villains. But, personally, I can really see the traditional Hook, crossed with one of the futuristic interpretations of Wotan in "The Ring Cycle", reciting the monologue "No need for nature". > I thought about putting in the Geiger counter > thing, but it didn't seem to have a place and I didn't > really want to add that. Plus a giant Platypus on stage > or mutant dog on stage would look silly and not cool like > in a movie. Yeah, I guess, they are more cinematic ideas. But didn't the traditional versions of "Peter" have an actor dressed as Nana? Maybe you could go in the direction of "Rhinegold", which looks so spaced out from the pictures, having an actor dressed up as a screwed-up demented puppet. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: My thoughts - Smeghead 10:53 am UTC 05/14/08 |
| Next: | re: My thoughts - Smeghead 05:43 pm UTC 05/14/08 |
| Thread: |
|