This article is really all about GLEE, the hit TV show with a musical format, but it mentions VIVA LAUGHLIN as its forerunner --

http://www.star-ecentral.com/n...5383268&sec=tvnradio

quote:

New directions
By ELIZABETH TAI


entertainment@thestar.com.my

A bunch of high school misfits become a part of the school’s new glee club and dance their way into viewers’ hearts.

GLEE has become a pop culture phenomenon. The show’s fans call themselves “Gleeks”, mp3s of its songs are heavily downloaded over iTunes – a boon to the music industry – and the cast will even go on a concert tour around the United States early this year.

Critics say that television has seen nothing like it before – musical television with a cast of very talented actors and singers.


But that’s not exactly true. Hugh Jackman’s musical dramedy Viva Laughlin premiered in October 2007 in the United States, but was so widely reviled that it was turned off after a mere two episodes. Perhaps, TV viewers just were not ready to have characters break into song suddenly.

But with Glee, the musical numbers are an essential part of the story – a bunch of high school misfits becomes a part of the school’s new glee club (called New Directions) and the singing and dancing are part of the club’s activities.

Not having to watch characters awkwardly burst into song in the middle of a conversation does help with one’s enjoyment of a show.

It also helps that Glee is a very funny piece of television, all thanks to the eccentric characters and the capable actors who play them.

More...

I wonder what CBS thinks now? Also on hindsight, especially after Hugh's acclaimed hosting of the Oscars? Did it pull the plug too soon? There were two other filmed episodes of Viva Laughlin which were not aired.

Maybe the recent hit movie musicals HAIRSPRAY and MAMMA MIA! also helped rekindle the taste for the musical format among the younger generation. In both cases, the characters actually break into song, as music was not the essential focus of the storylines.

Or did Viva Laughlin not pitch to the right market because it was a more of a drama, spiced with musical interludes? Could it have appealed better to a younger audience - there were two teenaged cast members who were also important to the story.

Could it have had a better chance today?

Jo

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jo,

Here's something to remind us of his character, Nikki Fontana --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqmS7c1xii8

And the lead character, singing I'm Still Standing --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...9-zU&feature=related


Did the songs advance the story, as good musicals do



Jo

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jo,

And from the original British TV version, called BLACKPOOL, here is David Tennant singing ( he played the role of the detective) --


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Pdxw&feature=related


Jo

David Tennant sings?

Jo, I was thinking about it the other day. After I watched Glee, I thought that maybe if Hugh started this format, it might have been successful.

Maybe he could guest star on Glee, that would be awesome. Some singing and dancing on TV would be great.

Most reviewers, critics (yes, there is a difference) and especially bloggers--largely male--have an inbred distaste for any vehicle in which characters suddenly break out in song, or so it seems. Never mind that opera has been crafting that art successfully for centuries; and, of course, more recently so has classic American musical theater. It's "absurd" because it's just not "real," they complain. Yet the self-appointed cultural know-it-alls are the first to wax rhapsodic at something like STAR WARS or AVATAR, also decidedly unreal.

Sure, you find the occasional exception, especially for cult shows such as GLEE. But, they point out, the songs are performed as performances, so it's OK. MTV is OK, too, because it's all pure performance. Same deal as with the CHICAGO movie; it was received warmly because the numbers took place inside Roxie's head, not in reality.

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that it's generally just not seen as "manly" to start singing in a dramatic piece (hey, guys, remember opera and its parade of robust leading men including Nathan Gunn?). That's also why Hugh, an avowed lover of musical theater, is often suspected of being gay. It's all tied in to their discomfort level at the genre and deepest fears.

Am I ready to hang out my shingle alongside Lucy Van Pelt's in "Peanuts"? LOL.

Ellen

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mamaleh,

Right on the nosey, Dr. Mamaleh!

DREAMGIRLS was mostly in real time singing. Question: What did the critics/reviewers say about Glee? My guess is that a lot of young people identify with the geeky glee kids.

Agree with you, Ellen, on all points. But seriously Glee is a far better written show with the dark comedy mixed with a spark of reality. I really don't believe there can be a comparison to the two except they both have singing in them.

And MM, I agree with you. Meanwhile, CBS just rejected a (very funny) ad that Mancrunch, a gay dating service, wanted to buy airtime during the Superbowl for. So maybe part of the problem was CBS being the wrong channel for VL. (Not trying to say that you need to be gay to like musicals! My point is that they're a network with a narrow point of view. "Glee," or "Flight of the Conchords," or for that matter "Cop Rock" probably wouldn't have lasted there, either.)

Did you see that ad it is inappropriate for many of the viewers

quote:

Originally posted by CarouselKathy:
DREAMGIRLS was mostly in real time singing. Question: What did the critics/reviewers say about Glee? My guess is that a lot of young people identify with the geeky glee kids.

As I recall, most critics gave GLEE a thumbs-up. Recently it won Best Comedy at the Globes and another award (was it Best TV Comedy Ensemble?) at the SAG Awards. It's a cute show, I must admit.

Ellen

GLEE is one of my favorite shows. I just wondered what the critics thought.

I'm not sure we can say that Viva Laughlin was ahead of it's time. I mean, it's not like it aired a decade ago or something. It aired a little over two years ago.

I think it was a thrown together slap dash affair with a most unappealing leading man and a story premise that was difficult to sympathize with. This guy already had it all, the American dream; a beautiful wife and decent drug free kids who loved him and just wanted to know that he loved them back, a thriving business worth millions (his string of convience stores), a beautiful home and still...it wasn't enough. He wanted MORE! I thought he was a self centered bastard and I didn't care if he got squat. I just didn't buy into his dream.

The audience had to love this guy right out of the shoot in order for such an unusual premise to stand a chance as we do with Matthew Morrison's character in Glee. And there wasn't much to love here with this character and so it failed. What I will say in it's defense though...it wasn't given enough time to work out the kinks. If they had, who knows what they could have come up with.

Honestly, I think the network was dazzled by a movie star who was willing to slide down a few rungs on the ladder to play in their sandbox and they said...YES before everything was thought through.

It could have worked but utimately, I'm glad it didn't. Had it worked, it would have taken more of Hugh's time away from his film and stage career and he would have killed himself trying to do it all 'cause God forbid he tells anyone no or lets them down in anyway. Oh honey, you ever gonna let yourself off that hook?

A lot of people don't remember it and that is a good thing and if would have been on longer there is that possibility. He doesn't need that negativity to follow him around. Move on, forget the past, look forward to the projects ahead. A guest spot on Glee would be awesome! Besides Kristin Chenowith, Idina Menzel is going to be on this season. Very excited. Bring on the Broadaway musical stars. Glee is the best!

I agree Barb-VL was a terrible show no matter how much I wanted it to work-I wanted it to get over fast so no one would remember it!!

I also fall into the camp that says VL was a bad show. Barb, I think most critics said the same thing as you. The big problem was the lead character and lead actor - very unappealing. Although I know I took a bit of ribbing when the show was the first to be canned, and unceremoniously after two episodes, the fact that it was so quick made it easier to forget. And everyone has their successes and failures. "It's a business of failure, kid."

Jennifer

I agree that the first two episodes of VL were disappointing. But given time, who knows how it would have developed? Hugh's cameos--aimed, I'm sure, at giving the show a visible kick-off-- were probably just a temporary maneuver designed to give the show some initial visibility. I'll bet "Nicky" would soon have disappeared and the main characters would have taken over. After all, Hugh's got bigger fish to fry.

While I didn't warm to the lead guy, leads don't necessarily have to be likable (see Dabney Coleman as BUFFALO BILL) as long as you have a quality product. Would VL have attained some quality? Perhaps with time, perhaps not. We'll never know.

Ellen