> Last time I checked LND isn't a failure. Yet. Of course
> considering it's ALW if it closes anytime earlier than
> after 20 years it will be considered a failure.
Yes, but none of those shows had anything to do with "Phantom". That's why you never could really compare them.
But he chose to create a sequel which was inevitably going to be compared, whether he liked it or not. Perhaps if the sequel ran for four years it would at least be seen as a noble attempt, and an artistic success, considering what it had to live up to. But many believe that it will not last more than a year.
We'll see, of course.
>
> Anyway, he tinkered with a classic movie like Sunset Blvd
> too, and a classic story like Phantom, or a classic book
> like that cat poems stuff.
Yes, but he's not working on his own version of the score. He's adapting an already famous version and adding to it, and it does not need adding to.
Alright, I understand how you can make this argument with the "Sunset Boulevard" screenplay because of how much the librettists actually used, but still, the film wasn't a musical.
"The Phantom of the Opera" was just an adaptation. "Cats" was setting those poems to music and nobody had ever really accomplished that before, certainly not with the success that ALW had.
When I look at what he's doing with "Wizard of Oz", it would be like somebody in 20 years reviving "Phantom" and adding their own songs to it.
This is what I'm trying to say.
>
> And yes, casting Crawford would mean desperation.
Why is it necessary though? You think he would seem desperate enough adding to an already famous score instead of composing his own because he knows he won't have to struggle to sell something which includes "Over the Rainbow".
|
