not logged in
| re: Here is what I don't understand... | |
Posted by:  |
Smeghead 06:14 pm UTC 07/22/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Here is what I don't understand... - Jacqueline 05:47 pm UTC 07/22/09 |
| Of course I want to see Jim have success... but I put that far below having something great created... and it seems that so many people just discuss how Jim can monetize this or promote this... It is the same crazy thing that so many people on this board always suggest what Jim song could or should be recycled into his latest show or album... any other artist would have fans expecting new material. Jim's fans seem to accept now that all we are likely to see is rehash and so when Batman was being discussed all we had were discussions about which previous Jim songs could be shoehorned into the show... the same has happened now ith Booh... though that is slightly different in that most people will see Booh as a Jukebox musical instead of Neverland and thus sticking in songs from Batman or Pandora's box is more appropriate. BTW JD, nice to see your opinion on a topic instead of just having to chastise the naughty children here... > I see your point and it's a good one. > > I think as a fan of Jim's work - knowing the quality of it > (both released and as demos) - I'd like to see it honored > with "success" in his lifetime. Especially this - his > dream project. > > You're right that some of the greatest art was ignored at > the time it was created. > > Still, it's always a thrill when I can stand with a crowd > and applaud Jim directly. > > That's said, I think the happiest I've ever felt with > regard to this topic is when we all sang "Two Out Of > Three" along with the Dream Engine and Jim was there to > hear it. :) > > > I don't understand why the people on this board would care > > if the show was successful. I mean that would be nice for > > Jim... but it is much more important to get a great show. > > Plenty of great pieces of art were not successful when > > they first appeared, but they have stood the test of time, > > where as crap that gets promoted enough to make money yet > > ends up being forgettable. So many great things I'm > > showing my daughter now (many Disney movies like Sleeping > > Beauty, Bambi, Pinnochio... many others all lost money > > upon initial release. Willy Wonka. Wizard of Oz only > > broke even. It's a Wonderful Life) All of these were > > failures but stood the test of time because they were > > great art. Promote the hell out of a turd, paint the turd > > green and red so everyone thinks it is a Christmas turd > > and rushes out to buy one... even if it makes money and is > > a "success" in a few years it is forgotten. I would > > rather have a financial failure like Pandora's Box that I > > can listen to and enjoy then have a crappy Jim album that > > makes money but that I have no desire to ever put on. > > > > > > There is a difference between going on TV to flog > > > > something and casting your show using a reality show... > > > > > > Your reading too much into these so called 'casting' > > > shows. > > > > > > They're primary function is promotion, and the best promo > > > you can get. > > > > > > I wouldn't describe them as 'stunt' casting either. That > > > would be sticking someone famous in the show that was > > > unsuitable (ie Crawford). > > > > > > The casting element is 'fixed' anyway. ALW without doubt > > > 'planted' Lee Mead, Connie Fisher & Jade (Eurovison) and > > > lo & behold they won. > > > > > > Whatever role they would decide to 'cast', I'm 99% certain > > > Jim would get the person he wants? > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Here is what I don't understand... - Jacqueline 05:47 pm UTC 07/22/09 |
| Next: | re: Here is what I don't understand... - Scaramouche 05:24 pm UTC 07/22/09 |
| Thread: | |