It’s a tough one, isn’t it? If “Dance of the Vampires” had been successful (if it had been produced properly in the first place) Jim would have been able to call his show “Neverland”? Instead, and I totally understanding if he’s taking this approach, he has to resort to calling it “Bat out of Hell” to sell more tickets? Unfortunately, that’s what the audience expects when they spend $200 for a night at the theatre (at least that’s how much I spent when I saw “Wicked”). Then again, it’s not as if “Neverland” or the idea of Peter Pan is completely obscure either?
I don’t know.
But I wouldn’t class “Bat out of Hell” as a jukebox, more like, say, if Andrew Lloyd Webber found success with a 300 pound Texan singer singing songs from an unproduced rock opera about Jesus…and 30 years later a couple producers decided to help him bring it to the West End.
I know, AT LEAST, this is a VERY different creative process to what went on with “We Will Rock You”.
> > Also, the plots for
> > shows like “We Will Rock You” were fairly contrived
> > whereas you have Steinman working on a vision called
> > “Neverland” for the past 30 or so years. Of course, the
> > general public could end up seeing it as just another
> > jukebox musical unless the public relations people do
> > their job properly.
>
> Yes. I think that is the point I was trying to make.
> Although Lord Rahl might be correct and maybe the public
> won't get that it is Jim's special vision. Perhaps it will
> be up to the public relations people, as you say. I doubt
> Jim would like to find out that his fans think he has
> spent the last three years working on a "jukebox" musical.
|
