Talk:Legally Blonde (musical): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:05, 26 February 2019

Legally Blonde (musical) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
February 24, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Musical Theatre B‑class

	Legally Blonde (musical) is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Edits

This read as if it had been written by well-meaning enthusiastic fans of the film who never had read a theatre-based Wikipedia article. The facts were presented in an incohesive jumble, and the article was littered with inconsequential details (ensemble players, understudies, dance captains - this is an encyclopedia article, not a Playbill), unnecessary trivia, and POV, all of which I have removed. In addition to restructuring the article, I have added a brief synopsis (previously it had none at all), a list of the Drama Desk Award nominations, and a photo to the infobox. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important information in the article

- The MTV airdate was changed to October 14th, time is TBD. The show will not air on September 29th. ** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanadubroadway (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to support this? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I just haven't heard this, and the source cited in the article says otherwise. —Mears man 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Press release will go out Monday.

Love and War

"'Love and War', the deleted song from the San Francisco run, will not be on the CD."

Thank god this vital issue has been cleared up! ;-) Can we delete this trivia please? -- Ssilvers 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of this song at all in the article. I'm unfamiliar with the source material, so it's a little frustrating because I came here to find information on this track, but there's no explanation on where it was once used, what happened to it and why. Annie D 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this confirmed? What is the source?

-Anonymous

Character table

Why do we have that 'original name' thing when only one name changed? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply mention that one change somewhere? (Also - Elle WOODS, Emmett FORREST - coincidence?) 72.131.11.47 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annaleigh Ashford

I thought I'd make a note that, if I'm not mistaken, she is no longer with the musical. She was originally taking a 3 month leave of absence to star as Glinda in Wicked, while Kendra Kassebaum was away, but for some reason, Kendra was unable to return, and Annaleigh's engagement has stretched from 3 to 8 months. I'd make the edit myself, but I don't know who replaced her.

If I'm wrong about any of this, just ignore me, but last I heard, this was the case. JellyFish72 04:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Broadway Cast Recording credits changed

I changed the credits to that of the back cover of the OCR instead of people's perception of how the songs should be credited.

Apparently, on the back cover, the artists are credited by "fame". The more famous/prominent the singer, the earlier they're credited in the song credit. It could also be that they're credited by role significance... or both as Laura Bell Bundy is almost always credited first, except for in one single instance where Kate Shindle gets first credit. I'm unsure.

But this is the "correct" way of crediting them. ---FallenAngelII 14:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "correct" way of crediting them is by going by how it is in the Playbill, NOT the OBCR. Ibdb's listing would reflect what was in the Playbill. The OBCR is but one incarnation of the show; how the producers chose to credit things in the program is more correct.

Now, I don't know if there's a discrepancy between what's on the OBCR and what's on ibdb, but I have seen an INORDINATE number of changes to the listing. I'd have to say that it should reflect what's on ibdb. — Music Maker 5376 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't really know anything about this Playbill/OBCR conflict, but I consider the changes FallenAngelII made to be an improvement to the article, and I think the section is fine the way it is right now. —Mears man (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the credits, I agree. — Music Maker 5376 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the original credits the way they appeared on the playbill, though? I kinda doubt it judging by how certain songs were credited, like "Legally Blonde Remix" where Enid was credited before Elle. "Serious" credited Warner first, probably because of chronological order of singing, but "Serious (Reprise)" credited Elle first despite Warner singing first here as well. "Omigod You Guys" credits "Shop girl" despite no such character being credited in the musical (AFAIK). The actress who portrayed her was credited as "Courtney/Mom/Whitney/Ensemble". And all of the Harvard headmaster/teachers are credited for "What You Want", though I doubt it. I don't know how the playbill credits the songs. If someone actually has it and there are discrephencies, please, by all means, edit them in. I doubt the original credits were taken straight from the playbill, though. ---FallenAngelII 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that, across the board on Musical Theatre articles, we have to have some sort of standard. Ibdb is staffed professionally -- meaning that, unlike its cinematic predecessor, it's written and compiled by people who work for ibdb and not by any Joe Sixpack with a smelly t-shirt. Therefore, while only slightly, it's considered "scholarly". More so than your average OBCR. You have to keep in mind that the packaging on a CD is for two purposes: 1) information on what's on the CD, surely, but 2) to sell you a product. It's marketed differently than is the show itself. That's why I've reverted on several occasions the addition of the words "the musical" from the infobox -- just because it's on the OBCR doesn't make it part of the title. They have to put those words on the OBCR to distinguish that CD from the soundtrack of the film, and both ibdb and Playbill list the title as simply Legally Blonde. So, short of having a copy of the playbill (which I have no intention of ever getting...), we use the next best thing: ibdb. Ibdb can be trusted to get things correct, and, instead of editwarring over what different sources say, we can look to it as the standard source for just about everything Broadway-related. — Music Maker 5376 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the IBDB-credits page as I write this and while I can't prove it, I still think something's fishy with it. "Serious" credits Warner, then Elle, while "Serious (Reprise)" credits Elle first, despite Warner going first both times. I doubt the crediting for the MTV broadcast was done by random people or on random, though. For one thing, the actors would find it horribly insulting were they to be wrongly credited just because someone credited on random. For another, I don't think the showrunners would allow that. Oh, well. ---FallenAngelII 21:02, 13 December 2007 (GMT+1)

Don't get me wrong, I do understand your concerns. (My response yesterday was a little short and snotty -- I was having a bad day....) I'm going to dragoon some of the editors over at WikiProject Musical Theatre to see what they think. The ramifications of this discussion will undoubtedly affect more articles than just this one, so I'm probably going to open a discussion over there. — Music Maker 5376 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been opened here. — Music Maker 5376 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Elle Woods

Although it hasn't been officially announced (and thus cannot be added to the article yet), there's news that the next Elle may be cast through a reality show. Article here: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/114246.html Annie D (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reliable source to me. — Music Maker 5376 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be the next Elle. But I think being 6'4" and male will hinder my chances. I saw the show when it premiered in SF and I could barely control my gayness. But anyway, here's another source if it's ever needed. Peace. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/tv/mtv_looks_for_legally_blondes_next_elle_22355.htm --AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Margot

On April 18, 2008, 15:51, an editor changed the name of the actress playing the role of Margot from "Haven Burton" to "Annaleigh Ashford". I changed that name back to that of "Haven Burton", who, according to IBDB, is playing the role from Sep. 26, 2007-May 11, 2008. Another editor changed my edit back to Annaleigh Ashford on April 19, 2008, 5:20. I do not like edit wars, and am also very aware of the WP:3RR rule. Therefore, I am writing this note, and also giving this reference as to Annaleigh's current activity--she is actually in Wicked, as Glinda. Reference [here]. Should other editors want to make the needed correction, or perhaps add to the discussion, much obliged. JeanColumbia (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the IBDB and the playbill article that you cited, and it appears to me that you're right. I'll change it back to Haven Burton. —Mears man (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cast section

Hi all, I'm new at this, so please forgive any breaches of WikiEtiquette/convention! Question about the non-Equity cast list: How are you defining "confirmed" versus "unconfirmed"? I'm the casting director for this production and not all of these people are confirmed (in my definition, "confirmed" means they've signed and returned their contracts). Thanks! Clemcast (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past week or so I've seen the cast section changed back and forth between "Original Broadway cast" and "Current Broadway cast". While I don't personally have a problem with listing the changes in the actors portraying the roles, I think that the Original Broadway cast needs to remain in the article. Add the current cast in separately if you will, but please don't remove the original cast information in the process. Well, that's my personal view at least. Feel free to comment. —MearsMan ^talk 05:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In musicals articles, generally, we only list the original principal cast on B'way or the West End (or if there has been no B'way or WE run, then the most notable production's principals. We never list ensemble or swings, except to say something like "Ethel Merman began her caree in the ensemble of this show." Notable replacements should be listed, but only for notable people who have or should have Wikipedia articles of their own. Also, for subsequent productions, we list notable names in the principal cast, but not a full cast list. Everyone else can be listed on a subsidiary article like the cast list article for this show. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb for adding content to musicals articles is: If I were an encyclopedia reader looking this up in 10 years, would this information be important? That keeps the fancruft out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssilvers, I'll try to keep that in mind in the future! It helps knowing that something is the general rule of thumb and not just how I personally think things should be done. —MearsMan ^talk 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to look at it is that we are not advertising musicals, rather we are describing the most important information that has been written about them. The skill in encyclopedia writing is to select the most important (i.e. notable) information. Hope this helps. Two of our best articles are Hair (musical) and Wicked (musical). If you don't see a type of information in the "Hair" article, it is probably because we have all considered it and decided that it is not notable. The WP:MUSICALS talk page is usually the best place to get a consensus on how to proceed on a policy issue. All the best! BTW, I don't consider the London production to be real yet. See WP:CRYSTAL. You've got to start selling tickets, IMO, before a production is encyclopedic. Indeed, I would have argued that you need to open, but I know that some others on the project feel that once a theater is chosen, casting is done and tix are on sale we can describe the production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

leagally blonde the musical is an inspirational and upbeat show. The cast was phenomenal and I had no regrets on buying my $190 tickets!!!! Everything is pretty in pink!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.228.217 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast Lists

If the anon user who decided to revert my edits has a problem with me undoing their revert, please note the WP:musical theatre guidelines: "For the original Broadway or West End production, there may be a cast list, with notable actors bluelinked, or the casting may be described in prose. Please do not delete such lists. However, there should not be full lists of replacement casts. Notable replacement actors can be named either next to the original cast list or in prose in the description of the production. Other productions should merely name the notable actors and production team members who have Wikipedia articles and can be blue-linked, unless their names are important to an understanding of the musical and its history. A citation to the full cast lists can be given so that the information is easily accessible to anyone who needs this information."Mark E (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Mark E has just asked for peer review, but this article isn't in need of major rework or correction. As a sometime professional editor, I'd suggest you be specific, Mark, about what it is you want comment about. When writing is very far from some standard or requirement, most of an editor's job is "knocking off the rough edges" and explaining to writers where they should focus improvements. But this isn't the case, here.

I can, if pressed (for example, if being paid), didactically iterate various minor issues. The issues would have to do with a limited amount of WP:PEACOCK wording, and non-conformance with standard English, as with "Singer/Song Writer". To be honest, it would be easier for me to fix the issues, than to explain each explicitly. I'll do a copy edit, now, and you can probably draw your own conclusions from it, disagreeing as you please. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Piano non troppo. This article certainly doesn't need much work compared to many other musical theatre articles that desperately do. My only suggestion is to trim the overlong synopsis. LargoLarry (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Version

I have heard of a possible movie version to star Laura Bell Bundy. Just thought I would bring it up to see if anyone else has heard anything about this rumour cicrulation. Headstrong 345 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Headstrong 345[reply]

I think all you have heard is a rumour and just that. There is nothing that suggests it is true.

MTV DVD Release

Has anyone else heard of possible DVD of the mtv recording of the production? Headstrong 345 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Headstrong 345 Unfortunately, it probably won't happenMark E (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this rumour circulating around the internet myself and it has been proven to be false. The only thing that I have come across is that you can download the MTV airing and that is about it and a couple of made up dvd covers for it but other than that as stated above it looks like it is not going to happen anytime soon or at all for that matter. Midnightsun345 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Midnightsun345[reply]

Recordings

I noticed there is no seperate article for the original broaday cast recording. I was just curious as to why this is? I mean with the london live cast recording coming out I think that it might be a good idea that way people can see the differences and similarities between the two of them. I think it is a good idea but I thought I would see her if it would be ok to do cause I do not want to go through all the trouble of creating a page then it gets deleted. Midnightsun345 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Midnightsun345[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted; an album of this stature is certainly notable enough for an article. You are certainly encouraged to create an article. This section will help you get started. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. This is not the only musical I have noticed that doesn't have an article for the original cast recordings too. Midnightsun345 (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Midnightsun345[reply]

I must say I don't think there needs to be a separate recordings article for each of the albums, as there everything that will be contained is already in the main article, in the song list section, and the recordings section etc. I'd also imagine the OBC recording and the OLC recording will be practically the same with regards to what is included. Wicked (musical album)/Hairspray (2002 album) are some examples though of what the article could be expected to look like. I would think it may be better to create an article entitled (Legally Blonde (recordings) or something along that line, which will list both the OBCR and the OLCR, and also information about all the singles from the show that have been released, and maybe also the video recording for MTV. This way a detailed articled could be made up of all the media of the show, and be contained in one article rather than having several smaller articles that would likely be left under developed.Mark E (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo CD

I was just curious if it was important to incorporate the demo CD on this page. I recently found a copy and it is really cool to see what the show started out with and what songs they decided to use and stuff. I see some are mentioned on the musical number section. I just thought I would bring the thought up because I think die hard fans of legally blonde might be interested in some information on songs that did not end up making the final cut and into the show. Headstrong 345 (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Headstrong 345[reply]

Nikos's Role

In the article, it says "Nikos claims to have been having an affair with Brooke, giving her an alibi for murdering her husband". I think alibi is the wrong word, and should be replaced with "motivation", or something similar, because Nikos isn't defending Brooke, but rather giving evidence to support her guilt. 3Clara18,21 (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legally Blonde (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080410020106/http://www.tonyawards.com:80/en_US/nominees/shows/200705141179158911679.html to http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/nominees/shows/200705141179158911679.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Legally Blonde (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legally Blonde (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whatsonstage.com/index.php?pg=207&story=E8831238072469&title=Legally%20Blonde%20Sets%20UK%20Premiere%20for%20Savoy%2C%205%20Dec
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017115038/http://ibdb.com/productionreplacements.asp?ID=423552 to http://www.ibdb.com/productionreplacements.asp?ID=423552

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legally Blonde (musical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Characterising critical reception of Broadway production

Currently the lead and § Production history say the show opened to "mostly positive reviews". § Critical response says "mixed reviews". As much as I'd love to ♫ Keep it pos-i-tive ♫, the last section is the only one that provides evidence to support its claim (by quoting reviews from major publications, all of which are negative or mixed), so I'm going to unify on "mixed reviews". But happy to discuss if there's disagreement. Colin M (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
+== Characterising critical reception of Broadway production ==
+Currently the lead and {{slink|Legally Blonde (musical)|Production history|nopage=y}} say the show opened to "mostly positive reviews". {{slink|Legally Blonde (musical)|Critical response|nopage=y}} says "mixed reviews". As much as I'd love to ♫ Keep it pos-i-tive ♫, the last section is the only one that provides evidence to support its claim (by quoting reviews from major publications, all of which are negative or mixed), so I'm going to unify on "mixed reviews". But happy to discuss if there's disagreement. [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 03:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)