not logged in
| re: Bela Lugosi Is Dead | |
Posted by:  |
The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 01:38 am UTC 10/20/10 |
| In reply to: | re: Bela Lugosi Is Dead - steven_stuart 03:30 pm UTC 10/17/10 |
| If Rupert is right about this then it seems to be that most of the people behind the Musical don't get what there making, or at least don't understand Jim. He should really just be allowed to pick his own creative team and just make the Musical the way he wants to make it, why doesn't he for that matter, I expect that Jim is rich enough, his songs get played enough on the radio. As for Paradise, the only way I can see it working is if its sung by Hook and his wife, if I know Jim's writing then they'll be a very bitter couple jealous of themselves from long ago, which would tie in very well with "Who needs the young". Dude, I'll get back to you on the other stuff tomorrow, right now I need my shut eye. > Wolf, Rupert posted some interesting comments way down the > board. I'm not sure if you have seen them. I would be > interested to know what you think. > > I don't agree with everything he is saying but I do agree > that "Paradise" has to be included in any "BOOH" musical. > The fans will rebel if its not in there somewhere. At the > moment it is sung by older characters, although there is > the flashback that Rupert talks about, involving younger > dancers acting out what Hook and Mrs. Hook are singing. > > Maybe you will have another idea of what to do with > "Paradise" in the treatment you are thinking about doing. > > I can't agree with Rupert when he says that the story > shouldn't be set in the future. To me the future sets this > "Peter Pan" apart from hunderds of other "Peter Pan"s. > > Unless I am wrong and there has already been a "Peter Pan" > set in the future. > > Although Stuart Beattie agrees with Rupert. He thinks that > the "BOOH" songs belong in the fifties. He doesn't think > that people in the Year 3000 will sound like that. He > doesn't like "Peter Pan" anyway, no matter what time > period it is set in but when he tried doing a futuristic > story about avatars it just didn't work. > > Rupert wrote: > > "I would say that there is a narrative in Jim's work that > stiches a number of songs together however I think Carlin > or other powers that be that infulence the money people > are not convinced that the audio and the visual are > locking together here. For example I would say that > Paradise has to be in any film or musical but set in the > future! No banker is buying that dream unless it is a > flashback or something! Jim's soundtrack is in the > seventies and beforehand, BAT 2 updated the sound to the > eighties but that was about it. Got the feeling that Jim > is forcing a square peg into a round hole. Money people > tend to want something that sits well on their stomachs > otherwise they throw up. They are not stomaching this > futureistic concept (why does have to be set in the future > - is that so important?) so who is going to compromise > first or are they waiting for Jim to kick the bucket or > something. That would be very sad and then we really would > be letting the monster loose. Some compromise please > gents. I would like to proven wrong as well." | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Bela Lugosi Is Dead - steven_stuart 03:30 pm UTC 10/17/10 |
| Next: | The Three Bats Out Of Hell - steven_stuart 11:24 pm UTC 10/14/10 |
| Thread: | |