case: ([ Zell; Puppyface. ])
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2007-10-07 04:57 pm

[ SECRET POST #275 ]


⌈ Secret Post #275 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.



Notes:

Hey! We're now affiliated with [livejournal.com profile] fandom_memes. If you like to do/are looking for/like to randomly come up with fandom-type memes, go check out the comm! (:

Secrets Left to Post: 08 pages, 196 secrets from Secret Submission Post #040.
Secrets Not Posted: 0 broken links, [ 1 ] rant that belongs in fanficrants not!secrets, [ 1 ] not!fandom, [ 1 2 ] too big, [ 1 ] waste of time, [ 1 ] personal attack.
Next Secret Post: Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 7th, 2007.
Current Secret Submission Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: 4

(Anonymous) 2007-10-08 02:59 am (UTC)(link)
OC here. In their animated form, I would not call them musicals - although they are certainly more so than Moulin Rouge because their scores are original. For me, calling something a musical implies that it is a staged production, that it takes place live. Maybe they would be screen musicals, just like a play becomes a screenplay? Although similar, the two concepts are not quite the same.

In their staged forms (Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, etc.), I would class them somewhere similar to Mamma Mia and Moving Out, because they no longer have original scores. They would be stage adaptations of a screen musical, in the same way that you'll occasionally get a movie adaptation of a musical or play.

Does that make sense?