Pimpin' The Same Thinkin'

You hear it uttered all of the time about just about everything... "There are no new ideas anymore!" My Gramps used to say it...and that was way back in the 80s!

In our more rational moments, we know that not to be true. We can cite as evidence, technological advances like the internet, societal trends like social networking, the emergence of Rap and new Aaron Sorkin dramas...ok, ignore that last one. But at times, it sure seems like remake, retread and redux are the norm rather than the exception. And it's most glaringly apparent in the mainstream mega-entertainment-complex. I'm talking about the troika of TV, Movies and Theater. And the thing that's so confounding about that is that this is an industry where it's people's job to be creative...as in create...as in come up with new stuff.

I just came back from the Broadway adaptation of High Fidelity...yes, the cult novel (and yes, it was once a "cult" novel...back before the movie "About a Boy" made Nick Hornby a best selling author) which begat the cultish (and excellent) movie starring John Cusack.

The show was entertaining...well produced and well acted. The music wasn't bad either...by Broadway standards...but for a story which is rooted in one man's devotion to classic Punk and Indie music...there was, for me, something lost when the movie soundtrack that included The Kinks, Sex Pistols, Costello and The Clash was replaced by Andrew Lloyd Webber-esq performance numbers. With that switcheroo, regardless of the names of the characters or the plot line, it ceased to be Fidelity.

Most people would agree that most of the time the remake is rarely as good as the original, the movie rarely does the book justice and that theater is its own unique art form...more different than cinema and TV than like it. There's been crossover success for sure - Chicago the movie was a huge hit as The Lion King the show has been...but in both instances, they were musicals to begin with...it was logical...the adaptation would mirror the performance style of the original at least.

So if Fidelity wasn't a musical, it begs the ultimate question of WHY? Why even try to make High Fidelity a Broadway show? It's not like it was a franchise in and of itself with über-wide demographic market appeal like The Lion King. I kid you not - before the show started, the guy in his 60s sitting next to me said to his wife while reading the Playbill, "I didn't know this was based on a movie!"

And if the producers liked the classic premise of the story (man-child loses girl, grows up, wins back girl), why pimp Hornby's take? Why not just create a new story on that framework?

I know the answer - $$. A franchise - even a small one by the entertainment industry's standards is a franchise none the less and name recognition always helps ticket sales. Also, it fits perfectly with Broadway's attempt to become more mainstream in its offerings...because the middle-America and under 40 demos were apparently desperate to go to the theater but alas, there was nothing for them to see.

But to people who know the book and the movie, how can it not feel SO trite...and feed that generalized feeling that in the entertainment biz, everyone is just pimpin' the same thinkin'.