A recording? Are you mad? Let's face it, this is "Rodgers and Hammerstein's CINDERELLA"(TM) in the same way that last year's disaster was called "The Gershwins' PORGY AND BESS"(TM). And I DO mean (TM) - corporate disasters.
Didn't last year's "disaster" get a 2-CD recording and take home the Tony for Best Revival of a Musical? I'd aim for those sort of disastrous results, personally. Regardless, "Cinderella" would most likely sell more tickets than "Porgy and Bess" regardless of the appearance of a preface in the title anyway. In the same way "Sleeping Beauty" would probably sell better than say, "Mack and Mabel".
I found Sondheim taking offense to "The Gershwins' Porgy and Bess" a little silly, but now that it's happening to a title I'm more familiar with, and remember fondly from my childhood, I sort of wish they would be honest to the public. At least the book I'm familiar with was still based heavily on the original. This is something completely different. They should call it just "Cinderella" or "Douglas Carter Bean's Cinderella." If they're so hellbent on the Rodgers and Hammerstein brand contributing to ticket sales I wouldn't mind if they removed the apostrophe and the "s" and just had Rodgers and Hammerstein above the title, but not specifically refer to it as theirs, because it's not.
Having a show recorded doesn't necessarily speak to a production's worth. Explain WHOOP-UP and ANKLES AWAY. And winning Best Musical didn't help HALLELUJAH, BABY!
In any case, my point is that recordings and awards alone are not the measure of a show's value. I love HALLELUJAH, BABY!, but Tony or not, I wouldn't cite that win alone as proving the show's worth. Those kinds of arguments are built on sand.
"Now I'm hearing about a wink-wink political agenda being brought in too. May seem to be a positive to the folks on this board, but not to those who have grown up with it on TV and who will want to buy ticket to see it on stage."
^ This.
THIS.
What could be more obvious, more plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obvious? To any rational person, that is, but obviously not to the curdled, dimwitted iconoclasts on this board who wouldn't know their assets from their liabilities.
"they're so hellbent on the Rodgers and Hammerstein brand contributing to ticket sales I wouldn't mind if they removed the apostrophe and the "s" and just had Rodgers and Hammerstein above the title, but not specifically refer to it as theirs, because it's not."
I wonder if the title is an obligation from the estates? If anything, it let's us know it's Disney's Cinderella.
The continued discussion about using R&H in the title of the show to borders on the ignorant. There are TWO musical versions of Cinderella. The first was the Disney animated feature, still incredibly popular with kids, which features such well known songs as "Bibbity Bobbity Boo." This was followed several years later by the first R&H production, the TV production starring Julie Andrews, and which, as we all know well, has been remade several times.
If "Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella" was NOT the name of the current Broadway musical, there would have no doubt been boundless criticism that would have alleged deceptive marketing, as many might well have expected to have seen the Disney version brought to the stage. So by using R&H in the title, the producers eliminated any possibility of confusion. THEY DID THE RIGHT THING. But I guess on this board, no good deed goes unpunished, as they say. And by the way, did R&H not write every bit of music and every lyric for this show?
To answer the question about Les Mis, the students do seem too liberal for my taste. Hugo was a liberal too, though maybe not socialist although socialist/communist do love his work. Of course we don't know what would have happend if the 1832 revolt seceeded, but historically socialist/communsist governments have turn out awful, though it is uncertain if France would have ended up with that faster(it is basically socialist now) . That is all I will say about that,so we can get back on topic.
Is this true "If "Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella" was NOT the name of the current Broadway musical, there would have no doubt been boundless criticism that would have alleged deceptive marketing, as many might well have expected to have seen the Disney version brought to the stage. So by using R&H in the title, the producers eliminated any possibility of confusion." ?
They sure did go the Disney route with the logo.
And despite using the R&H moniker, the show is very different from the original and the logo suggests the traditional tale here (and is VERY DISNEY)
My initial criticism for this show was why bring this show to bway? Now it's about the marketing for the show. It's all so strange.
To be honest, anyone who thought that this musical would go on Broadway without a vast expansion of the book is incredibly naive. In the end, it is STILL Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella. All the songs are still there. It is still the basic Cinderella story. So, why would you think it is false advertising? There is literally nothing in the original book or remakes that make it significantly different from the basic & other Cinderella tales, so why would you think people would go in expecting what they've seen on-screen? Also, there are THREE different versions of R&H's Cinderella, and each has a different beginning, middle, and end. Which one would people be expecting to see? If it's more like the 1997 version, you would displease people who were expecting the previous versions. If it were more like the 1957 version, you would displease people who would say it was too traditional and simple. Therefore, the happy medium is taking the best out of each version and expanding it with new characters and new motives.
degrassifan, I agree with your points. When I posted earlier that there were two musical versions, I was referring to two versions with completely different music, the Disney animated Cinderella and the R&H Cinderella. I was defending the use of R&H in this show's title from the absurd criticsm that this "is not Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella." I was making the point that the use of R&H in the title would put everyone on notice that this was not a staged version of the Disney animation.
Don't worry, RaisedOnMusicals, I understood what you meant. Others were just being difficult. If it were Disney's Cinderella, it would say "Disney's Cinderella." And, they did not go the route of the Disney film with the logo like finebydesign suggested. The glass slipper pictured in the show's poster is different than the one from the Disney film anyway.
I wonder how much they've cut out. Because from what I've read, it seems like the political twist is pretty integral to this "new" take on the story. Does the "revolutionary" (or whatever he is that the stepsister is pining after) still play a major role? I would imagine the show is a little discombobulated now...
If anyone sees it in the next few days, please report back!
I love this idea! I always thought that the plot was too thin for an entire show. And Cinderella needs a moral besides the obvious mysoginistic one "find a man"
Bea Arthur Nude Sells For Nearly $2 Million At Auction
Drama Desk Award Winners - MATILDA, VANYA AND SONIA, PIPPIN, VIRGINIA WOOLF & More!
John Bantay Talks to Richard Jay-Alexander About Musical Mondays Farewell
STAGE TUBE: Join Them! Watch the PIPPIN Cast on Letterman!
CHUCK Star Zachary Levi and Krysta Rodriguez Set to Lead FIRST DATE
RECAP: And DANCING's Mirrorball Goes to...
VIDEOS: New Clips from Seth Rogen's THIS IS THE END Released
Rooney Mara is the Face for New Calvin Klein Scent
VIDEO: She & Him Release Music Video for 'I Could've Been Your Girl'
EA Announces Battlefield 4 for Xbox One and PlayStation 4
BWW Blog: Leah Edwards - Practice. Perform. Repeat
BWW Reviews: Blue Lapis Light's Encore Engagement of HEAVEN-EARTH-ONE is Heavenly
Regional Orchestra of the Week: Reno Philharmonic, NV
joined:1/23/08
Posted: 1/31/13 at 09:27pm