Overwritten? Really? More people should try to escalate their work. Not easy with such an amazing reputation to uphold. Striving for betterment is a better term than Overwritten

My theory of the MCU's early success is less on the grounded bits, but what the MCU did right was that the earlier phase films was that they were very much in the conventions of whatever pet genres they're aping of - Guardians as space opera, Ant-Man as a heist story, Cap as political thriller, or Hays Code pulp serial. While part of a cohesive, singular universe, each character and setting and tone and story therefore creates a special "flavour", or otherwise a siloed mini-world, so one could enjoy it as a franchise and world that could stand in its own right - or as a side-story in a larger universe. In my head, if I was to adapt Thor as a trilogy, I would've aped a little more Lord of the Rings and Beowulf and Conan as a fantasy epic, with more Surtur, Mjolnir's Song, Son of Asgard, Tales of Asgard and Twilight of the Gods, and enjoying the Nine Realms a lot more and the uniqueness of "Thor's world", and saving Midgard, Donald Blake and the meeting with Jane Foster for the Avengers series for Thor to better tie into Midgard. You could probably tell that I'm not exactly the biggest Frog-Thor, Beta-Ray-Bill kinda fellow. But then again - that's just my preferred flavour of Thor in my head.

Since I can't leave comments on your copyright video, I just want to add something interesting. German theatres have long favoured Jesus Christ Superstar because of the freedom of interpretation compared with other Broadway musicals that are more or less set in stone by the licensing company. I suspect that the copyright has been tightening up recently because of the 50th anniversary tour, but the amount of JCS productions with diverse staging and acting choices is stunning. I recommend checking out a few that are available on KZbin, such as the 2005 Amstetten with the phenomenal Drew Sarich as Judas and 2012 Avondale, which although being a school production is incredibly well-polished and daring in its premise. It is amazing how far you can take the Biblical parable and extend it into different circumstances.

This is somewhat related to my comment about Homeric Poetry in your video on classical education in theatre, but in essence I see the same strengths and pitfalls between oral storytelling and one-person plays. A big advantage one-person plays have over larger productions is the lack of distance between the actor and the audience. Compared to dialogue-driven theatre, the actor is able to facilitate much more intimate interactions with the audience. However, this depends on the story, and by extension the actor telling it, being compelling. If the story doesn't engage the audience emotionally, there's nothing else to distract them from boredom. I think it takes a lot of skill to write a compelling one-person play, and even more skill to deliver it in a way that the audience can relate to. When you're left with the bare bones of theatre (no music, no costume, no spectacles), you really want to make sure that your story is worth telling.

Jesus Christ Superstar is a prime example of this, as it was first released as a concept album about the Passion of Christ as a rock opera, but staged as a musical after it gained wide commercial success. A more modern phenomenon is Epic the Musical, which started its life on TikTok and is now releasing concept albums after the following it gained. If the material is good enough to stand on its own, it is entirely possible to achieve success without a staging in place. I for one look forward to the various staging ideas for Epic and JCS that doesn't rely on a prior successful production, but instead harnesses the creativity of the director and the designer to bring their own interpretation to life.

Have you explored Homeric Poetry and the tradition of oral storytelling around the world? I am fascinated by how the common storytelling elements within the epic and tragic art forms still manage to evoke the same feelings of awe thousands of years after their creation. I find that many of modern theatre have lost that emotional intimacy with the audience, who are not just spectators from a distance, but active participants who live through the story being told.

So I think your viewpoint is completely off base in terms of utilizing faithfulness to the source material as reason why this film was good. As someone who has read and followed comics my entire life, and who is very familiar with Thor since his initial comic appearances, I cannot fathom how you would view this movie as faithful in any regards. It comes down to tone being the major issue. Thor was never a comical character. While his stories were less hard hitting in terms of moral lessons compared to many of his other Marvel mainstays, his persona itself was always vastly more serious. His adventures were fantastical and less realistic, sure, but never comical and his character fit that as well. He felt like a character out of this world, out of place in human affairs and that's why many of his solo series journeys involved more space faring adventures than his earthbound compatriots. His upbringing brought about a very different mannerism to his speech and demeanor, and while you are correct in his hedonistic and violent nature, that is not what has been portrayed throughout his movies. The closest we got to a genuine comic accurate Thor were the first 30 minutes of the first Thor movie. Both Ragnarok and Love and Thunder took a more comical approach to his behavior, and also made all of his mannerisms and behaviors feel far more in line with humanity as opposed to his mannerisms in comics. Which has persisted throughout his comic runs to this very day. The character felt nothing like that of his comic self, and I don't just say that for Love and Thunder, Ragnarok was guilty of this too. The directorial style of Taikq Waititi would have fit moreso in a more comical hero than Thor, a character who is only a comedian when his mannerisms just don't mesh with those he is set against. While in the movies he actually feels more behaviorally human than even most of the other Avengers than that of an Asgardian god. The Valkyrie in both Ragnarok and Love and Thunder is not Brunnhilde, it is a fellow Valyrie that was a lover of Brunnhilde. Her flashback in Ragnarok actually shows Brunnhilde die. Not a major gripe, but just another area where your argument for comic accuracy slightly falls flat. And again, another character where they alter her behavior drastically from any comic iteration to fit more in line with the tone of the films. It wasn't a bad portrayal for the role it was made into, but certainly not either Valkyrie comic readers would be familiar with (the other being Jane Foster who currently serves as a Valkyrie in the comics). You'll notice a theme in where many of the issues come to play with these characters and how accurate they are based on the tone of the films they star in. I have no qualms with Zeus in the film, despite again it focusing more heavily on comedy value than feeling like a comic book accurate portrayal. No issues there majorly despite the jarring tone of the movie itself. Now the major character issue with the film beyond this was Gorr the God Butcher. And not because Christian Bale did poorly with the role, but because again, the tone of the film did not fit with the villain of the film. The arc in the comics was one of the darkest and most serious runs of Thor ever put to page. Each issue felt more hopeless and down than the last, and readers were gripped through wondering how anyone would handle such a terrifying threat as what Gorr posed. His character was understandable, but not relateable. He oozed that evil and horrific feel with every page he was on, his menace was felt with every encounter both the characters and readers had with him. There was no space for levity or comedy in that arc. And he never gave the feel of someone who could be or should be redeemed in the end. He was someone that through his hardships and experiences developed a hate for all gods and that was built into his very core forever. When you mix this darkness with moments of comedy throughout, it takes away the feeling of threat, the tone goes out the window and all menace gets ruined with the next one-liner delivered by whichever character gives one next. Including Gorr himself, who sometimes in the movie is even given mild comical moments. It lessens his character drastically and while Christian Bale did his best, it was the script and movie that did the most injustice to Gorr. We never even really get to truly see his threat or how scared the gods truly were of him. I can't even recall a single kill of a god except when he first gets his sword and seeing the corpse of one giant beastial god well after the damage was done. While the comic versions cut swaths throughout the pantheons and made them all truly fear his existence. Jane Foster was well portrayed when viewing her as her iteration of Thor, and again, while the performance was good, the script did no value to her character. Thor was always a serious character and with her in the comics, even moreso. She felt a need to prove herself even more to show how worthy she truly was and didn't have time for jokes or light hearted fun. And while that comic accurate portrayal was certainly there in the performance given by Natalie Portman, it was lessened with the need to have a joke tossed into the script every minute or so. Including with her character. Eternity was morphed from the embodiment of the universe, a being constantly overseeing the fabric of all that exists within him to a wish granting MacGuffin that exists only as a plot device. A waste for a cosmic entity many fans had been waiting for since the first mention of him in Dr. Strange. I think you mistake what construes as being faithful to the comics. Yes, it shows off far more of his space faring exploits Thor was known for in his comic books. And sure, it has the bombastic and fantastical feel of his comics with the locales and settings. But not in the tone portrayed in the comics. Thor is not a character meant for outright comedy. It has never been a mainstay in his stories and rarely occurs. That was the issue with this film, the tone was off across the board. It was slightly jarring in Ragnarok, but still enjoyable as a film itself. However this movie took that comedy aspect and dialed it up to 11, which ruined the feel. Especially when adapting a comic run known for it's dark and brooding story, the hopeless feel given. This movie didn't allow for the characters to feel as they should because it was always situating the next joke instead of allowing the characters to develop as they truly should. And I'll end my rant by saying, there is nothing wrong with you enjoying this film. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I know many others that agree with you that it was good. But when using comic accuracy as a major point of your argument, that I have to call out as outright false. This was not a Thor comic accurate movie by any stretch. And it lessens your argument tremendously. "Comic weirdness" as you described is not the same thing as a tonal focus on comedy aspects. You can be fantastical and "weird" without needing an obession with endless waves of jokes and comedy

People felt the movie should've highlighted Valkyrie's sexuality? In a movie about Thor? That's weird. I mean, sure, but if anything, The Marvels could have done a bit more in that regard and write her into a relationship with Captain Marvel. After all, they've barely been on screen together and seem to have a pretty strong relationship in the film. As for the film itself... I can only really criticize the film's lack of Gorr screentime. We understand his initial motivation, which is further highlighted by the tonal whiplash throughout the film in having the majority of the comedy come from the Gods, and the drama from those who worship them (and in Thor's own confusion at the seeming carelessness of Zeus), but we don't quite understand how much of a threat he is. We see some of the aftermath of his slaughter, which is impressive, but we don't see the slaughter itself. And beyond that, we're just told that the Necrosword can kill a God. And that's it. Compared to Thor: Ragnarok, we actually got to see Hela being a threatening villain, who doesn't feel the nees to make people feel sorry for her, and the comedy and drama are also quite balanced. That said, Love and Thunder is still quite enjoyable, especially on rewatch.

i happen to exist at the crossover between theatre and comic book media, so this was a nice surprise to see from you lol. i havent seen this film since it came out, at the time i enjoyed watching it but felt it rang a bit empty. perhaps i should give it another look through your lens, this was a really interesting look at this film and comic book movies in general.

An amazing and insightful analysis! Congrats on the video and thanks for sharing.

Your criticism also applies to singers of musical theatre. I'm not speaking about (aspiring) MT professionals but about singers in general. I'm a voice teacher and I feel sad when a singer deems a song "done, got it, thank you, I'm moving on now" when they can sing the songs. To go beyond that, into analysis and interpretation - both necessary foundations to come up with an expression of a song that is not copied from another singer -is often viewed as something only (aspiring) professionals do. Sometimes it feels as if they are so stressed and overstimulated in their lives that they don't have any capacity to think beyond entertainment.

I only took a couple of theater classes in college and that rolling on the floor pretending to be a goose thing rang so true!

Hey Julian! Just wondering if you'd ever wish to dissect any of the works or the books that Frank Wildhorn does, and the how's and why's this guy, while being successful overseas, just doesn't have the same presence or his books don't have the same impact that his compared-to-counterpart, ALW, have? And related, maybe combine that comic stuff and intersect the how's and why's the "It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman (the original book, and if you've got some the ability to phone a friend, maybe the never-released Roberto Sacasa book rewrite, )", the Scarlet Pimpernel, Holy Musical B@man, and Turn off the Dark, and why superheroic-based musicals don't seem to work. Or an analysis on what seems to be a YA-based stories in theater, such as Be More Chill, Lightning Thief, Heathers and West End's Eugenius and why the NYT seemed to have a distaste for this subgenre (the former 2 happened to share Joe Tracz). Another idea that I'd be willing to listen to you about would be maybe a compare-contrast with Broadway-West End, French, German/Swiss, Korean and Japanese (in particular, Takarazuka Revue), and their theater and story traditions? Oh, and speaking of Camelot - The Lerner and Loewe book is bloated and chunks tend to be removed to cut time in typical performances. And the Sorkin rewrite seemed to be... divisive. How would YOU cut through this story of political/philosophical idealism, love triangles and discontent/betrayal and crack the code of this musical? It feels like there's a gem in there somewhere, waiting to be uncovered.

Suggesting that Sondheim has work that is overwritten is akin to saying that fractals are over-designed. If you want to know what fractals sound like, listen to Into the Woods or Sunday in the Park with George.

INTO THE WOODS is an AIDS musical. You are too young and naive to comprehend why.

Musical Theatre would benefit from more nuanced conversations too because the amount of people who have misinterpreted The Marvin Trilogy and mischaracterized Marvin himself is honestly tragic

I've made a comment asking Mickey Jo and Waiting in the Wings on the subject, but you might actually be the better one to get an opinion of it, if you don't mind me asking. It's not really a secret out there that the economics of making a profit for a Broadway show are... Pretty well stacked against them. A few hundred consecutive shows, minimum to turn a profit, and you damn well either be an adaptation of a pop culture work, or a Tony winner to last a run long enough to get there, and a dozen or so new musicals per year, and a score or so of new plays, all fighting for limited stage real estate. And when shows lose money, they BLEED it to the tune of thousands per week, or a total loss of six to seven digits at the end of run. So the question is - HOW should the economics of theatre change to make it not only more financially viable, but also potentially more quantitatively accessible? And that's before the critics crowd which seems to be the arbiter of a show's right to exist, want both mass spectacle AND subtextual meat on the bones, and won't accept anything less than their preferred ratio

Sometimes keeping something subtle and not "fully exploring" it is the correct way to approach a particular piece. Subtlety is one of the most useful tools in a writer's repertoire.

No it’s not

Your say music is the most abstract because it is "without any physical presence". However, sound is nothing more than particles bunching together (high pressure) and loosening up (low pressure) to form waves. How is that not physical? Just because we can't see it, that does not make it any less physical than something we can see.

A comprehensive presentation about the sensation of music on mind explaining complex details with such simplification. It's just amazing. Bravo

Well done. Could you tell me from what production is the referent Rock Island number that you use throughout the lecture? And it is available on youtube? I found it to be unusual and would like to listen to it in its entirety. Thanks.

Really great video! Would love to hear you talk about Assassins, one of the most underrated Sondheim shows imo

"Overwritten period?" How presumptious and judgmental. In my humble opinion, this "period" of Sondheim's work was his best. As he has stated himself (and I'm paraphrasing), he doesn't write complex structures just for the sake of it. I guess you would like Sondheim's scores to be more "hummable" as is stated in the song with the booking agent in "Merrily We Roll Along." I take personal offense at this aggregious statement of yours.

I think one issue is that any story that has depth *and* spectacle will always have people pointing out the spectacle first. It is true in musical theater - people will talk about Idina Menzel's singing or the loud musical numbers in Wicked over the discussions of politics and "popularity" that are nearly omnipresent, and people will talk about the laughter and jokes in Matilda without mentioning the way it portrays Miss Honey's broken life after surviving abuse as a child and how this contrasts with Matilda's refusal to break (although Matilda certainly has her low points where she nears giving up) - and it is true in any other medium. People will latch onto their favorite songs and things they can easily compare to other musicals. I watched the movie Furiosa last week. Most people are mentioning how it can't match up to Fury Road and how the action scenes just aren't as propulsive and the more epic, less streamlined narrative is necessarily more baggy. What many people fail to mention is that the movie's purpose as a prequel is to develop Furiosa's character: she has a full arc that I won't get into here as the movie is still new, but it complements the original movie, detailing how a woman who starts the prequel as a "survivor" ends in Fury Road as someone who willingly risks everything for the freedom of others (inspiring Max to do the same, even though he starts Fury Road as a "survivor" only out for himself). The trouble is that this is an extension of a (rightfully) beloved story and people can't help but compare the surface level, even though it is attempting to enrich the original story and make it better instead of copying it. This is true in video games as well. Dark Souls has a truly unique method of delivering its narrative - a method that is only possible in an interactive experience - but everything I heard about the game before playing it was that it was "difficult." Which is true in *comparison* to most games, but the main discourse was not about how the brutality of the world is illustrated by the difficulty of the game's combat, but the difficulty itself. (This almost scared me off from playing what is now arguably my favorite VG, as I've never been into difficulty for the sake of making the player miserable.) All of these examples do have deeper conversations in "the fandoms" of each. Dark Souls in particular has many KZbin channels and redditors that have examined the histories of nations and the various major players in Lordran, how this illustrates the game's philosophies, etc. Many people have spoken of how Matilda portrays child abuse and the scars it leaves. But these deeper discussions are not on the top layer of discourse, because subtext requires people to actually sit and mull over what the stories are trying to say. Which brings us to critics. I think the major issue with critical analysis is that this is their job. They have to get through a certain number of plays/movies/games/books and write a certain number of words, and it can be really hard to have much to say at times. So everyone gets a formula of writing about things that are easily comparable: Is the action in this movie as good as this other movie? Are the songs as showstopping and jawdropping as in this other play? Are the fights in this game as thrilling and difficult and fast as in this other game? Even if they are not making *direct* comparisons, they are inferring them. It is less work to do so. Sure, if a critic is passionate with either love or hatred for a work, they may get into the weeds and talk about whether or not deeper aspects are effective... but most of the time, their purpose is to be tastemakers: Tell the audience whether or not they should experience this. Does all that make sense?

Just a thought, but a contributing reason Hill can be considered an ideal American Hero is because he is a REDEEMED villain. He delivers a promise he didn't realize he could keep because he had no true belief in the transcendent power of love and music, but through the story, he finds it, and finds he unwittingly imbued it into the folks of River City. The USA's Christian ethos admires a "saved soul" I think.

Ecclesiastees back at it again. The future of theatre is the past of radio-drama lol. I do agree though. Hamilton definitely wouldn't have amassed a following without the concepy album. Exposure is key!

Really enjoyable video :) thank you!

Thank you for this video, it touches on something I've struggled to express for a while. As a young, aspiring actress myself it didn't take me very long to realize that my education was lacking something. Reading older plays, I always find myself taken aback by the language and expression and the thrill that can be experienced when watching/listening to a performer with a mastery over the language. But I wonder what it would take to achieve that myself? Really being able to understand and appreciate poetry? Understand rhetoric? I'm drawn to it but intimidated by how much of a mental task it is, just how far back do you have to go in terms of basics? (I hope this makes sense)

"Something like that", looking forward to it.

Another excellent analysis, really!

Thank you so much for explaining the differences between Patter and Rapping. I always get angry stares from people when I point out that LMM isn't actually rapping, he's using Patter to emulate it. I think that's the price of having contemporary audiences also engage in Broadway and vice versa

Great video! I always love finding channels who analyze theater and I grew up loving the Music Man so this was a fun watch

9:52 - 10:08

My guess is that the problem is how commercial the musical theatre industry is. It’s also a self-perpetuating cycle. Broadway musicals are extremely hard to turn a consistent profit on, based on their scale. So for people to get their moneys worth it feels like they have to turn on the spectacle, because if there is no spectacle why justify paying exorbitant prices? And if you don’t pay exorbitant prices, there’s no way to sustain a Broadway musical financially. And what happens on Broadway largely sets the tone for the general public’s view of musical theatre because it’s the most visible (because it has the most money and is presently the most socially significant). The meaningful content takes a backseat because producers are more concerned with what sells tickets regardless of quality, and having poor quality Broadway shows encourages the idea that musical theatre is all fluff and no substance. And this impression will stop people from looking deeper into the medium and assume the most visible presence is the most representative presence. (Not to mention certain movie musicals, but I could go on about those forever) It’s also more difficult to have more in depth conversations on certain aspects of musical theater because it’s more difficult to access. We can talk about staging, design, and directing, but it will never be as predominant because not everyone can see every show. At that point, it would be up to the critics to make more in-depth analyses, but there’s nothing any of us can do about that except for support journalists who write pieces we want to see more of.

I've seen a slight shift in this direction of taking musicals seriously as pieces of drama recently! One of my biggest examples is when I was looking at textbooks for introductory college literature classes, some of the textbooks included sections on musical theatre in the drama chapters. One textbook even included the text of the musical Fun Home as a work that the class could study!

Would you do a video about Sondheim’s contribution to the movie Dick Tracy? “What can you Lose?” is one of my very favorite songs; it expresses my mind over a long period.

I am a music teacher and I suggest that “Rock Island,” the opening number of The Music Man, is an early example of rap. I’m curious what you think.

Hi! Might I suggest Deconstructing Harold Hill by Scott Miller as an excellent text that expounds upon many of your thoughts. Check it out if you are not familiar.

great analysis, you say so much so concisely!

algorithm comment :]

Could you maybe use some kind of background music with your analyses? Without it the video seems a bit bland at times, even though its content ist nice

I should warn you that looking down your nose at tiktok doesn't help your argument, it kind of made it lose its power. Talking about what influences have made musicals deemed superficial in the past and then continuing your argument by making tiktok as a platform sound like a superficial community is kind of counterproductive. It negates the role tiktok and similar apps have in society. There are whole fan communities on tiktok discussing their favourite musicals and diving into its depths and taking inspiration and being passionate about musicals in general. Yes there are plenty of memes but it's not all there is to it. Also, why is having fun with the medium of musicals somehow detrimental to the entire medium? The people within the musical community already have an affinity with musical theatre and know how much depth there is, the people not in the community can either be encouraged to check it out via a jokey tiktok, or they were the type of people who weren't going to take musicals seriously anyways. I don't know it just feels odd to make tiktok sound like some inferior platform while talking about how musicals are always seen as the inferior medium. It's a weird choice. I'm curious, though, what are your thoughts on the depth in Starkid musicals and similar productions like Spies Are Forever? Because those have young and active communities that do engage in media discussion, but from your video I get the feeling maybe you'd call them too silly to be taken seriously. Happy to be proven wrong on my assumption, though!

wait? only 647 views? before i checked i thought this would have like 200K-1M views because of it's quality

"Musical Theatre Deserves a Deeper Conversation" Musical Theatre deserves a special place in hell.

Every actor brings something unique to every role they're in, but i feel like hadestown really lets those choices breathe and flourish. I love how confident damon daunno was as orpheus versus how naive reeve was, and Jordan Fisher plays him with so much beautiful passion and explores orpheus's anger from what I've heard. I got to see hadestown live for the first time last week and saw Brandon Cameron understudy orpheus, and I think he brought such a beautiful balance to all of those characteristics above, he was phenomenal, I think he handled the space for interpretation so well.