not logged in
| re: "TANZ" VS "BOOH" | |
Posted by:  |
Tremorlor 09:32 am UTC 08/23/10 |
| In reply to: | "TANZ" VS "BOOH" - steven_stuart 12:02 am UTC 08/22/10 |
| > I can't remember who but someone said that "Tanz" took > much less time to be produced than "BOOH: The Musical" is > taking. This may be true but there are some important > differences between "Tanz" and "BOOH". Like producers and investors that actually do something. > 1. "BOOH" is more expensive. Much more expensive. Just the > motorcycle ballet is going to cost a fortune (partly > because the bikes need to be modified for a theatre). Crap idea anyway. Drop it. > Then there's the animatronics, another example of > something that costs a lot of money. Then there's Hook's > SkyPod. There is a very long list of things that make > "BOOH" more expensive than "Tanz". Do explain what's so expensive about a pod in the sky. A globe hanging over the stage can't be that expensive. > 2. "BOOH" is going to be a West End show. The West End is > a much tougher market than Germany (just finding an > available theatre with a large enough stage is a nightmare Austria came first. And of course London is going to be more expensive than the theatre complexes that have been build in the last couple of years just on the edge of serveral cities borders. > - I'm not giving anything away because posters like > Scaramouche have already talked about this - but they were > hoping for the Apollo Victoria - nobody could have > predicted that "Wicked" would go on forever - although > finally they have found a really good venue that's going > to be available - finding a theatre that can accomodate a > really large show is another reason for the delay - "Tanz" > didn't have that problem - although I have great respect > for what "Tanz" has achieved on the continent). It did help that VBW owns a number of theatres in Vienna (Austria btw, not Germany) and that they produced it. > 3. "Tanz" was and is owned by the German producers. Jim > was brought in to write the music but it is not his show > in the way "BOOH" is. The correct title for "BOOH" is "Jim > Steinman's Bat Out Of Hell The Musical Spectacular". Vereinigte Bühnen Wien is not German. Get your facts straight already. And considering DotV it may be a good thing that it's not Jim Steinmans' Tanz der Vampire. > There > are very few musicals which are the complete vision of one > genius (take note all those who say that Jim is no longer > creative - Jim has written a fantastic book - other script > writers just couldn't get it - a bit like people not > getting the original BOOH album). It is naturally going to > take longer to mount such a grand vision (as most of you > already know it is set in a post-apocalyptic world called > Obsidan - that is going to take a long time to design and > build). No matter how fantastic, is it realizable? Does it work? Or is it going to be the Michael Bay of musicals? Huge and expensive effects with shallow or non-existant story that lacks any impact whatsoever? With added hurrah America patriotism thrown in for good measure? > 4. "Tanz" had no connection to an entertainment legend who > was not directly involved in the show (Polanski was of > course the director). Like it or not, "BOOH" will always > make people think of Meat Loaf (which is why I thought it > might be dangerous not to involve Meat at all - I actually > thought he would make a great Hook). Already the publicist > who announced Pixie Lott playing Wendy described the show > as "Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell The Musical". And so it will remain. > 6. I am guessing that the producers of "Tanz" already had > the budget raised when Jim became involved. Likely it was, considering a whole lot of it was paid by the state and not private investors. > The producers > of "BOOH" were unlucky to get a group of investors who > wanted to spend 50,000 pounds on an ad and a website. Can clearly see that the website was very expensive. A 5 minute job for a html illiterate. > They > talked Jim into thinking it was a good idea and this made > it very difficult for the producers to argue against it. > They just threw up their hands and said "okay, let them do > it" (but not after considerable fighting). The investors > got their way and went bankrupt soon after because of a > failed Beatles show and they were unable to pay to renew > their option. Wow, you can fail with recycling Beatles songs? Sweet. Won't feel particularly sad for never seeing a show full of Beatles songs. > This is why they disappeared. Although there > is a much better group of investors (a large and famous > professional company) and a new executive producer in > place now, so there is no need to worry. Getting all the > pieces in place can take a long, long time. Trevor Nunn > spent five long years getting his "Gone With The Wind: The > Musical" up in the West End and he is a very bankable > director. Then don't go ahead and announce crap 10 years before the first casting takes place. > If Jim and the producers were going for a lower > budget, less ambitous show in the German market, it would > probably be already up. Cut the bikes. Or go for a Spartacus arena spectacle. > I will just say that he will not > have the same kind of creative control over "BOOH" that > Polanski had over "Tanz" (another difference). Really comes as a surprise that Polanski had a lot of creative control over Tanz... Just a good thing that he didn't have much of creative control over DotV, right? | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | "TANZ" VS "BOOH" - steven_stuart 12:02 am UTC 08/22/10 |
| Next: | re: "TANZ" VS "BOOH" - steven_stuart 04:22 pm UTC 08/23/10 |
| Thread: |
|