Talk:Cinderella (Rodgers and Hammerstein musical)

message: Can someone verify which version of this musical the song list in this article was taken from?  I know it can't be the 1997 (Brandy) version because it doesn't include the songs from other R&H musicals that were added to that version.  However, I couldn't confirm if the song list was from the 1957 (Julie Andrews) version or the 1965 (Lesley Ann Warren) version.  --RBBrittain 01:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version is the song list from?  

message: By the way, surely I'm not the only one who has noticed that although Cinderella was billed as being an authentic Rodgers and Hammerstein musical that just happened to be produced on television instead of on Broadway... nevertheless, the R&H Broadway musicals were never pure fluff and frivolity. They tended to deal with serious themes in a serious way; You'd Got To Be Carefully Taught elicited negative audience reaction during the Boston tryouts of South Pacific, Oklahoma and Carousel had portions that were quite dark in tone, and several of them edged up to the topic of race prejudice. Sexuality is not too far from the surface (when Nellie Forbush was saying she was going to "wash that man right out of my hair" what, exactly, was she washing, and out of what hair?)  In sharp contrast, Cinderella has not the slightest trace of any serious theme that I can detect, nor the faintest hint of sexuality.
Another observation is that "Cinderella's" reference does not really appear to be to the Perrault story but, well, to the Disney version. When they start singing about "Fol-de-rol and fiddle-de-dee" surely I'm not the only person who thinks "Why didn't they just come right out and say 'Bibbidy-bobbidi-boo?'" Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is a response, better late than never.  First, R&H were writing for television, a family show.  So they adapted a famous folk tale in a very family friendly way, with a sentimental, happy ending.  Although they did not include their usual dose of serious social commentary, they did emphasize the theme that the oppressed, but good-hearted, can triumph.  Second, both the R&H version and the Disney version are definitely based on Perrault.  Look up Cinderella to see the other versions, which are very different.  Frankly, I don't see much Disney influence on the R&H version, although I can see what you mean in your example above.  But the Disney movie was only 7 years old and had been a big hit, so maybe it did exert some influence, even if only subconscious.  Note that the 2013 Broadway version has a new book that will, supposedly, incorporate some additional elements of the Perrault story.  You can see that theatre historian Thomas Hischak has much admiration for what R&H did: See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoidance of controversy 

message: I removed Robert Penn, thinking there was no such character as "Lionel." I put him back upon seeing he was billed as the Town Crier per IMDB. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057950/) If it turns out his name was Lionel in that production, I hereby apologize in advance. :) -- RayBirks 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Penn 

message: I changed the name of the singer for "Falling in Love With Love". It is sung by the Stepmother--played by Bernadette Peters, to her 2 daughters, who sing in the last few lines. Ref: [], and, I admit, original research.JeanColumbia 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Song list and singers

message: I suggest renaming this article to "Cinderella (1957 musical)".  This would be consistant with the format used for Peter Pan (1954 musical).  Cinderella was written for television, and although it was recorded on kinescope, it was not exactly produced as a "telefilm".  Comments? Thomprod (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article was called "Cinderella (musical)" before.  Telefilms seems weird.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. --Thomprod (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article 

message: I have re-written and re-organized the article in keeping with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure, adding previously missing sections on History, Productions, Critical Response and Recordings, while keeping most of what was already there.  I am working on a synopsis that will contain the song titles in the text, as well as as researching any awards.  Comments and additions are welcome. --Thomprod (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note, Thomprod; I'll take a close look at the article later tonight or tomorrow, just off-hand it looks good so far. Quite interesting that we need to follow the WP:WPMT guidelines for this article, as well, I guess, as some of the film guidelines (don't know them very well, do they differ?). [But now I'm off to the Revolutionary Road!]. JeanColumbia (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at this in a few spare minutes, I added the usual Awards and nominations section, altho if I've not done it the way anyone envisions, feel free to alter (oh yeah, this IS wikipedia, alter away!). Also added choreographers for all 3 versions, as is standard for musical theatre articles (which you know but others may not.) ♥ JeanColumbia (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The additional information is excellent, well done!  You need to indicate where you got the information, and I added  tags where cites are obviously needed.  I removed a little "exuberant" language (see WP:PEACOCK).  Where a person is blue-linked, you don't need to describe their background (e.g., "tony-winning").  Looking forward to the synopsis.  BTW, I think this article falls under the musicals project rules, rather than the film project, since it is a stage musical that just happened to be first prepared for broadcast.  It was played live, like a musical, rather than filmed on locations.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs in the Film project either.  I added citation where requested, although much of what I added came from a single source. --Thomprod (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: This article contains text copied directly from this website without quotation marks. This is plagiarism. I would suggest that the editors here return to the sources and check them against the article for this problem. All direct quotes need to be attributed and include quotation marks. Most of what is taken from the sources should either be paraphrased or completely rewritten in your own words. Awadewit (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Awadewit.  I have rewritten the material to avoid plagiarism.  Thomprod, please take note for future projects - this was a serious problem.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of the text I added to the article was paraphrased and/or rewritten.  Thanks to Ssilvers for rewriting some that I apparently missed.  As for attributions, I inserted 13 references to the website as footnotes.  As for plagiarism, that was never my intent.  The R&H Theatricals website has a wealth of reliable and officially-sanctioned information on the history and production of this musical.  I only included a small sample of information that I considered helpful to our readers. --Thomprod (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi.  Not to belabor the point, but intent is not the issue--I know you made the edits in good faith.  Cutting and pasting to Wikipedia is very dangerous.  You need to completely rewrite all information that you take from a website so that none of the original author's style comes through.  Just the facts in your own words.  Awadawit was actually very kind to us.  Some editors just put a big fat "copyvio" tag on the article, which hides the article and makes it completely unreadable.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I've checked everything except the descriptions of the 1965 and 1997 productions.  Can you take a look at those?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the 1965 production section to paraphrase the reference.  --Thomprod (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: The song has an interesting history because it has "almost been" in several musicals, but was cut before opening. The King and Queen perform this song in the first palace scene in some stage versions of Rodgers and Hammerstein's "Cinderella" (see YouTube), although it was not in the original 1957 TV production.  Richard Rodgers wrote in his autobiography that the 1957 TV version used the music as part of the waltz music at the ball.
* The song was originally written for "Oklahoma!" as a duet for Curly and Laurey, but was cut during previews. 
* MGM bought the song and used it in the 1944 film "Meet Me in St. Louis" as a duet between Judy Garland and Tom Drake, but the song was cut during previews, and the footage is presumed lost. (I have read that a small fragment of the missing musical number is included in the "Coming Attractions" trailer, but I have not yet verified that.) However, the song was released on the "B" side of a Decca single by Garland (the "A" side was "The Trolley Song"), which is mentioned in Wikipedia under Judy Garland discography. 
* MGM again attempted to use it in another musical film, the title of which I can not immediately recall, but it was again cut.
* It was also included in a 1996 stage version of "State Fair". See: State_Fair_(musical)#Musical_numbers . 
* It was used in a Frank Sinatra film.  Thanks!  LA Movie Buff (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Boys and Girls Like You and Me" by Rodgers & Hammerstein 

message: An anonymous editor added: "The 1997 version is the first multi-racial cast performance of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella, and  Brandy became the first African-American to play Cinderella.  This version broke viewer-ship records when it debuted, and it holds the record for the bestselling video for a made for TV movie."  Are there references to support all these assertions?  What viewship records?  Can you cite a WP:Reliable Source for each assertion here?  Some of this info seems dubious.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced info

message: Is the color version gone forever?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.70.231 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A videotape was made (see this), but apparently only the black and white kinescope copy survived. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the linked article says that the broadcast was recorded on videotape, this was only done as a time-delay for the west coast.  These tapes were generally erased and re-used and the article does not actually state that the recording was made in color.  We do know that the musical was broadcast live and in color in New York.  Since the videotape recorder had only been introduced in 1956, and the early models only recorded and played back in black and white, it is unlikely that a color videotape could have been recorded in March of 1957.  Live color broadcasts were rare in the fifties and the west coast stations had to settle for black and white kinescopes in most cases.  The surviving video of the live broadcast was made from a black and white kinescope, not a videotape. --Thomprod (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the article there now indicates that CBS only used videotape in 1957 for news broadcasts, not entertainment programming; the West Coast broadcast was likely from the kinescope, not videotape. It also confirms the first color videotape broadcast was in 1958 by NBC, so it would have been in B&W even if CBS had videotaped it. (Edit: Color broadcasts were also rare on both CBS & ABC until around 1965, when RCA's patents on NTSC color expired.) --RBBrittain (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I think that, for clarity, it is worth reiterating in the discussion of the 1965 broadcast (as we do), that a factor in creating the re-make was that re-broadcasting the original from 1957 was not feasible.  The recording from the original B&W kinescope (even if available at that time) would not have been of satisfactory quality for re-broadcast. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the color version? / 1957 Cinderella on videotape  

message: I changed the Broadway cat to a West End cat, since the stage musical played at the London Coliseum long before it came to Broadway.  Correct me if I am mis-remembering this, but I think the Musicals project consensus was to add a cat only for the first major market, either West End or Broadway, where a musical plays. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary Poppins was a West End musical first before it was a Broadway musical. It has both the categories of a West End and Broadway musical. Other show like Wicked, Shrek the Musical, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King are listed as both Broadway and West End shows even though they premiered on Broadway first. And1987 (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I looked back in the WP:MUSICALS talk archives, and I see that this issue came up, but there was no consensus, so I guess you can double-cat this if you think it's helpful.  Personally, I think it would be more helpful, from a research point of view, to only cat the musical with the first major market in which it appeared.  For example, Blood Brothers is very famous as a West End musical, but had a much shorter Broadway run. My opinion is that double categorizing this makes the category less useful, probably confusing and possibly misleading.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: There should be a second page for the new Broadway version. This is the FIRST time it's been on Broadway and it's practically a completely new story-line.  There are new songs. New characters. New actors. It deserves a sister page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.125.143 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's premature.  If the Broadway production does well and heads for a long run, then I would agree that we should do a separate page for it.  If it does not take off, however, and closes in less than a year with the verdict that Beane's book did the show no favors, then I think it should not have a separate page.  Compare the 1958 West End production, which played very successfully for its limited run of several months and also had "practically a completely new story-line" – we do not have a separate page for it which is, I think, the right decision.  So, I would suggest waiting at least until the reviews are out and we see the box office and advance sales for a couple of months thereafter before we make a separate page.  See WP:MUS, WP:ORG, and, generally, WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the show is up and running, I started a sub-page for it.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I've been wondering - does anyone know why the show was treated as a revival for Tony consideration?  It had never been on Broadway before.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony category--this really doesn't answer the question why a revival, but here is a brief article from Playbill on the ruling by the Tony Awards Administration Committee: []. I think this actually goes back to 2002, with a Tony rule about a classic (it goes something like this: "A play or musical that is determined by the Tony Awards Administration Committee (in its sole discretion) to be a 'classic' or in the historical or popular repertoire shall not be eligible for an Award in the Best Play or Best Musical category but may be eligible in the appropriate Best Revival category, if any, provided it meets all other eligibility requirements set forth in these Rules.". I got this from huffington post, cannot link, my computer is about to crash.) I'll be quick--I'd guess (emphasize I am guessing) that Cindy was considered under this rule, as a "classic" and so was not eligible for Best Musical but was eligible for revival.  Flami72 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I was sorry that it was not considered in the "best score" category.  Oh well!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is a link to the actual language in the Tony Rules and Regulations (see page 5, sections (2)(g) and (h)): []. I don't know where, if at all available, I could find anything else on the Tony committee or Cinderella producers statements re revival or original, but this is interesting enough to me that I may add something general to the Tony Award article (but not before mid-July at the earliest, I am now on a semi-break). Flami72 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cinderella (2013 Broadway production)]] 

message: A user called TravBrady moved/renamed this article to (1957 musical) instead of using the composer name. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TravBrady  This strikes me as a bad idea.  Unlike films, we generally do NOT name musicals by year, since a musical can be written in one year, published in another, have a concept album in another, premiere in another, be broadcast in another, and then be revived over and over, with the most important production not necessarily being the original production.  I suggest returning it to "Cinderella (Rodgers and Hammerstein musical)".  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the two articles per the brief but conclusive discussion at Talk:Cinderella (Lloyd Webber musical)#Article name. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name