Cats on DVD

[potterrules93]

does anybody have the 2-disk edition on dvd?? i am highly considering buying this version and want to know how good it is..
~Ryn~
i am a big fan of this play by the way.

[littlefuzzy]

The Ultimate Edition is the best way to go. I think you would regret getting another version.

All three versions are out of print, and I think the Commemorative Version is the only one available at retailers.

[Isidour]

considering I doesn't live in the US and the only edition I could got was the 2 disc, I think is fare enough
Besides...it costed me just 7 dlls

[Anthony]

I was hoping once this DVD was released, other broadway producers would follow with their own. Shows like Hairspray, Wicked, The Producers, heck even Phantom, would be so cool on DVD. Alas, it never happened.

[SpringHeelJack]

Isn't "Cats" onstage bad enough?

Anyhow, as long as screaming 12-year-old girls will continue to pay $100+ to see "Wicked" on stage, there is no way it will be on DVD. Heck, I doubt you'll ever see it on DVD.

[Anthony]

Anyhow, as long as screaming 12-year-old girls will continue to pay $100+ to see "Wicked" on stage, there is no way it will be on DVD. Heck, I doubt you'll ever see it on DVD.

So true.

[Princess Stitch]

I was hoping once this DVD was released, other broadway producers would follow with their own. Shows like Hairspray, Wicked, The Producers, heck even Phantom, would be so cool on DVD. Alas, it never happened.

Phantom is available on DVD....If I remember correctly, it was even in theaters a couple of years ago. Rather new release....

[carter1971]

The movie is on DVD, and it's very good, but I'd still like to have the stage production on DVD as well, espcecially an older one with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman.

[Anthony]

The movie is on DVD, and it's very good, but I'd still like to have the stage production on DVD as well, espcecially an older one with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman.

Exactly!

[PixarFan2006]

I don't understand what people see in this play. It looks so boring and stupid.

[SpringHeelJack]

I don't understand what people see in this play. It looks so boring and stupid.

See, I can see kind of why it's appealing, in a way... It has some sharp choreography, and the score, while pretty banal, has pop sensibility and some decent tunes. I mean, lousy lyrics never stopped a show from being popular (see "Wicked" and "Miss Saigon"), plus it was a big attraction in NYC for tourists who didn't speak English, since it's essentially a revue. However, as to why it lasted for 19 years is anyone's guess. If any show deserved to play that long, "Cats" certainly wasn't it. I can deal a bit better (a bit, mind you) with "Phantom" being the longest running show, but it would be nice to have a show with some artistic value run for a long period of time. I think the closest we have to that is "A Chorus Line" or "Rent".

[Billy Moon]

If any show deserved to play that long, "Cats" certainly wasn't it. I can deal a bit better (a bit, mind you) with "Phantom" being the longest running show, but it would be nice to have a show with some artistic value run for a long period of time. I think the closest we have to that is "A Chorus Line" or "Rent".

As much as I like Rent, I would hardly say it's music is as good as Phantom's, or that the story is as well put together as Phantom's. I haven't seen either on stage, mind you, let alone on Broadway. But I'm curious to hear your opinion on why Rent's artistic values are higher than Phantom's. Or, what show would you prefer to have been played 19 years? Again, just out of curiosity.

[SpringHeelJack]

If any show deserved to play that long, "Cats" certainly wasn't it. I can deal a bit better (a bit, mind you) with "Phantom" being the longest running show, but it would be nice to have a show with some artistic value run for a long period of time. I think the closest we have to that is "A Chorus Line" or "Rent".

As much as I like Rent, I would hardly say it's music is as good as Phantom's, or that the story is as well put together as Phantom's. I haven't seen either on stage, mind you, let alone on Broadway. But I'm curious to hear your opinion on why Rent's artistic values are higher than Phantom's. Or, what show would you prefer to have been played 19 years? Again, just out of curiosity.

Well, I would probably hold "POTO"'s music in higher esteem had Puccini not already written many of in "Phantom" some 80+ years before Andrew Lloyd Webber ripped many of them off. Regardless of that, though, the music is still not as solid as, say, "Rent" (which is turn not as solid as "Sweeney Todd", etc.). Webber seems to have a vague idea about things like leitmotif, but struggles to use them, and instead winds up using the same melodies for other songs with for no reason (a similar problem plagues "Les Miserables").

This is not to say I think Andrew Lloyd Webber is a bad composer, I think he clearly has an understanding of the pop/rock idiom and how to put it on stage. I mean, "Jesus Christ Superstar" is very good, and "Evita" is probaby the best thing he's ever done, not to mention a thrilling piece of theatre. Even in "Cats" he knows how to write songs with a pop sensibility, but then he started to get pretentious circa "Phantom" and it sort of blew up in his face. I wish he would go back to his pop/rock roots instead of wasting his time with past glories by trying to write a sequel to "Phantom".

I would concur that "Rent"'s story is not 100% there, but I chalk that partially up to the writer dying before it hit Broadway, which made people almost afraid to tamper with it, which would have been done normally. Plus, seeing "Rent" onstage really helps, as opposed to just trying to make sense of it from reading a synopsis and listening to the music. Also, "POTO" works as a story moslty because ALW simplified the novel considerably.

As for what show I'd like to see on Broadway for 19+ years, that's a tough one. I'd say maybe a show like "Company" or "Sweeney Todd", but my brain's not working too well right now, so I can't really recall all the shows I would praise as such. Mind you, I think that if "Phantom" did not have a chandelier slowly descending at the end of act one along with a handful of Victorian parlor tricks grouped together under the always excellent direction of Harold Prince, it would not have lasted a fraction of the time it has. The chandelier is why tourists still go in, not the story.

[potterrules93]

thank-you all. i may be picking up the deluxe edition off ebay or waiting until christmas or when i get some more money since i am going to washington dc with my class soon.
~Ryn~