| re: Should Crawford have played The Joker instead? | |
|
Posted by: |
rockfenris2005 02:11 pm UTC 12/04/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Should Crawford have played The Joker instead? - wordnix 01:22 pm UTC 12/04/08 |
That would mean "Dance Of The Vampires" would have opened on Broadway instead of The West End. The course of events should have been Austria-->Germany-->London-->New York. "Dance Of The Vampires" in The West End would have been a full faithful English translation with most of the German production design in tact and Cornelius Baltus directing, representing Roman Polanski. Jim and WB could have then focused on "Batman" as The Broadway Jim Production, keeping in the tradition of casting famous stars as the villains, i.e. Jack Nicholson as Joker, Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, Danny DeVito as The Penguin. Think of it this way. Michael Crawford was box office gold before "Dance Of The Vampires". "Batman" has been box office gold since 1989. "The Dark Knight" is second only to "Titanic". You combine them with Jim and you have your show. YOU CAN PRACTICALLY CAST UNKNOWNS IN THE REST OF THE ROLES, i.e. Rob Evan as Batman and Mandy Gonzalez as Catwoman. History would repeat itself, i.e. Yul Brynner upstaging Gertrude Lawrence in "The King And I". And remember, all this was before Crawford ruined "Dance Of The Vampires". "Batman" wouldn't have had a director like John Rando, I CAN TELL YOU NOW. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | PS. - rockfenris2005 01:20 am UTC 12/05/08 |
| Next: | re: Should Crawford have played The Joker instead? - wordnix 02:20 pm UTC 12/04/08 |
| Thread: |
|