Ah Whit. You've just listed a WHOLE BUNCH of reasons why I HATE "these entertainment types."
I dislike most things Disney, including Snow White; I dislike The Wizard of Oz (such a poor rendering of the wonderful tale from the book).
Kiss Me Kate is shite, whereas The Taming of the Shrew is brilliant. Don't know what the book The Phantom of the Opera is like, but the Lloyd-Webber "operetta" is also shite. (Pardon me but being a theatre lover, I can't help but loathe and despise stage shows that try to be like movies.)
West Side Story's crap, Fiddler's crap, Chorus Line's crap, Camelot's spamalot.
The Sound of Music, Les Mis, Guys and Dolls and My Fair Lady are exceptions to the rule....Guys and Dolls is the perfect musical, with intertwining and very satisfying master and sub-plots, loads of memorable tunes, and people we can cheer for - characters that grow and change. It's fun and charming and witty and romantic, all without being the smarm-fest that a lot of the shows you mention are.
Sorry, that's the theatre critic in me coming out. I've just seen way too many shows to want to put up with bad ones. And like I said - maybe The Lord of the Rings would make some kind of phenomenal opera. But NOT a musical. Yes, Cabaret got away with a heavy subject (another wonderful show) - but I don't think a fantasy could get away with it - not without a light-hearted romance - and there is nothing light-hearted about the romances in LOTR.
What I object to, about what was outlined by the article in the OP, is filthy-rich egomaniacal entertainers deciding they want to muck about with much-loved favourites from the world of literature. They don't care about what the original material was about, or what the message was, or the atmosphere - all they care about is putting themselves in the limelight again and stroking their considerable egos. Tolkien was right to refuse the Beatles. Jackson did a great job. No, it's not the book. But it's a damn sight better than anything the Beatles could've done.
When, o when, will entertainers realise that just because they're good at one thing (singing/acting/dancing/etc), it doesn't necessarily follow that they will be good at another? Look at almost any model-turned-actor, and many singers-turned-actors....There aren't a lot of exceptions. Will Smith springs instantly to mind....
One thing I've always admired about Stratford (Ont.), where I used to work in the box office, was the large number of "triple-threat" performers. Most of the actors there could also sing and dance a treat. It made the musicals really great fun to watch - something that a lot of musicals on film just aren't, because the acting is sacrificed so that the singing will be good. What is required, for a compelling performance, is an actor who can sing and dance - not a singer or hoofer who can't act his/her way out of a paper bag.
My rant. Getting down off my soapbox now....
