Is it awful that I didn't notice LOL - I didn't note down the songs on the opening night, I just took it all in. I really think that The Future Aint What It Used to Be should be in the show. I'd even push for a We're Still the Children/Future number.

I think that the pace of Act 2 is great!

Bringing my sister tomorrow :)

that was a good song in the show why have they cut that for? each time i go i will see a different version of the show lol i suppose they want to get it right for the 14th march all these changes dose this mean the original programs are going to be worth more later on ;)

Well, that was amazing. The amount of time and thought gone into the set is amazing with all the special effects, the water, the bike ;), the car, the bats, live action being filmed on different levels onto screens, this like no other musical ive ever seen and ive seen all the top ones. The songs are obviously amazing, my only criticism is some of the vocals are not as powerful as I'd like, Strat (Andrew), and Sloane (Sharon) are the strongest imo.

I was sat front row and couldn't actually see half of the stage due to the set coming right forwards, also the dialogue was quite quiet as was the whole thing? There was a lot more talking than I expected, not a bad thing. I do feel some of the choreography needs taming, the songs and their narratives are powerful enough without 10 people doing the macarena in the background. Good Girls go to heaven wasn't missed, id rather that was cut than Dead Ringer. I think Lemon should be in, its listed on the song lists in the foyer with the top hits? Was Making love out of nothing at all ever in?

Anyway Andrew is amazing and this musical has to be a hit! I will be going back ASAP :p

so thats cut too? :(

Seems that way, theres no need to cut anything else, if anything I want more in!

Which is a shame as I would have liked to hear the stage arrangement/version of that.

Oh no! I loved Good Girls and especially Making Love Out of Nothing at All - I've had that stuck in my head for the past week. The lines "I know just where to touch you" from there on was incredibly moving and sent tingles through me. It made a huge impact seeing/hearing those lines been sung to RavenI thought that scene was beautiful. I loved the intimacy that came with it. Was looking forward to having that on the soundtrack.

It's very strange they are cutting songs...if anything I think the show could have done with another 10 mins in the second half.

Good Girls and Making Love plus Lemon could all still be on the soundtrack or at least bonus tracks.

Most cast albums include the cut songs. Little Shop, Hairspray, Sweeney Todd to name a few

If we included every song that's been in and out of this show in writing, pre-production, and rehearsals, you'd have an album at least four hours long.

songs that made it to the stage in front of an audience tho is a different story

BFG and Lemon were cut late game so they could very well be included on a soundtrack if its already been recorded

i saw it week it first opened and it was amazing and i saw it yesterday afternoon and loved the new graphics at the beginning and opening of all revved up introducing the characters i knew before going about the songs what were cut but once i was watching totally forgot about it and i dident miss them not being in even though i love them songs

Oh I hope so! I guess I just felt that the Making Love scene brought to light more of an emotional connection between Strat and Raven. It's late at night, the moonlight is glowing, they are all alone... It brought a sense of maturity to the relationship and gave their relationship more depth. I think every woman/girl dreams of hearing such honest yet emotional words come from someone they love and at the same time it can be difficult for the man to bring himself to say them ... so when he does it's like YES!!! :)

*Spoilers and opinion*

Making Love should go back in please! PLEASE! Really looking forward to what show the team choose to present for press night. Act 2 is phenomenal! Act 1 still has some work to do IMO.

Also I'm very sorry to admit this but for me the choreography in Act 1 just doesn't work at all. The only dance number that works for me is Took the Words - it has a clear storyline.

This Capoeira-style doesn't work for me, the meaning isn't clear in most of the pieces and in Act 1, it's distracting from the amazing vocal performances.

The solo before Just Won't Quite needs to go - it looks like bad break dance.

*I'm getting critical - I love it so much - these are just my opinions. Fully aware that I didn't get the directing gig this time LOL. As Jay said to me. The show is BANANAS*

I think that the set up in Act 1 could do with a bit more clarity.

I went with two people who were musical regulars, they liked Meat Loaf music but weren't real fans. They enjoyed the musical but I asked how does it compare to Lion King, Wicked etc. They smiled and both said the show isn't as good as the top musicals.

This is the problem the show has...it can't just rely on Meat Loaf fans because in all honesty there isn't that many of us!

Yet they charge the same/more than those shows. :?

Well, when you can finance a musical inexpensively, we'll be glad to hear what you have to say about the price of stalls seats. :-P

That's interesting! I've seen Lion King and to be honest, while it was good, it didn't blow me away - and the film is my second favorite Disney film. I've seen Wicked twice, once in NY and when it was last at the Lowry. Again, enjoyable but it lost me along the way and neither of them made everything in my life vanish for those 2.5 hours like Bat Out of Hell did.

I am a big ALW fan and am usually very impressed with the staging and the whole production of his shows (so maybe that's why Lion King and Wicked didn't quite do it for me), and I think Bat tops that - with the camera work and the staging, it was just a new element that I've never seen before.

I do agree re: ML fans. I desperately want to go again, but finding someone to go with is proving difficult because none of my friends are Meat Loaf fans, and people seem to have the idea that this is a Meat Loaf tribute show and don't realise that it is a full theatrical production that features songs that Meat had once performed. Big difference! I've noticed on FB that even people who are fans seem to be going into the performance not realising what they are actually going to see. Perhaps more theatrical aspects need to be promoted rather than just the Bat Out of Hell cover. I have one friend who just sees the words "bat" and "hell" and I think she's convinced it's some sort of dark cult show. :)

Bat out of Hell is a top musical - Wicked, The Lion King (I've worked on the UK Tour of both of these) didn't become great musicals over night. They were in development for years. Bat isn't finished. The music is better than both Wicked and Lion King IMO.

I think the show is treading the line between Opera form and Musical Theatre and it needs to choose which one it is. It's more an opera to me. I think that the whole thing should be sung through.

I'm confident that this show will stand next to Tanz Der Vampire (for me the best musical in the history of Musical Theatre)

Why is a ticket so expensive? Because the producers have invested millions in the show and need to recoup the cost for their investors. Why is the show more expensive than Les Mis? Because in 25+ years Les Mis has made millions of pound of profit, now it has lower running costs than a brand new show and has a better profit margin.

Theatre set up costs are MASSIVE. I worked on a Panto in 2008 that cost a million pounds to put on.

It's ok the ticket price is worth every penny to see this, only problem is drawing in the non-Loaf/Steinman fans. People may think its more of a We Will Rock You/Mamma Mia type cash in.

I agree about the choreography, the songs are that strong they dont need a cast of people waving their arms behind. It adds nothing, if anything it takes away from the songs imo!

Can't discuss -- but some of the points above -- you're not wrong :cool: Just so glad that everyone is enjoying it (last week people we re-booking on their way out -- the response has been incredible).

i also have experience in theater and producing and writing my own play it took my not as long has jim to get it put on and when i did it ran for 3 nights and the the first night was okie over ran but the 2nd night had a few changes and the 3rd night there was a lot of changes and theater shows dose cost a lot of money to put on and thirs factors what an audience's dosent think about too from room hire for the auditions to set to light sound costume rehearsal space getting all equipment pat testing and venue hire to and thirs the electricity of the building to what the company/show uses and any other things a show need and a hell a lot of work has gone in to bat out of hell and thats why tickets are so expensive and i saw lion king and that dident impress me i have seen over 50 musical shows since 2004 and my first being whistle down the wind another jim steinman show and out of all them bat out of hell is the best ever i have seen you know why they have gone so far out from the start to announcing the big launch in london and manchester witch i attended i have felt i have been on the same journey with the cast from day 1 of rehearsal to now. they have been doing post in rehearsal showing fans whats going on make fans feel part of their rehearsal process to giveing us live facebook videos to pics of the get in in manchester and thats very rear for a show to let the fans be part of the whole process thats why this is different to any other show what has been staged o is being staged

more... now there's a song I didn't expect to appear :twisted:

(Only messing)

Just got back from seeing it tonight and I'm delighted to report that the musical is an absolute blast. The set is genius, the songs of course sublime and brilliantly performed, it's colourful, loud, fun, and inventive.

Body is awesome and it was a real treat to see that live. Bat is staged superbly. Paradise ends with something I've never seen before or will again.

Seeing the songs I / we love interpreted in this way was an absolute joy and brings new insight and meaning to the songs. And as opposed to e.g. mamma Mia where you think oh that song works surprisingly well in that setting, it is clear that these songs were designed for these characters and situations. You know like a REAL musical.

Any constructive suggestions? Well only a very small number of very minor things, being really picky. I have no expertise in musicals either so I may well be talking out of my arse lol. But just some thoughts as an audience member.. oooh and I will try and avoid spoilers.

1. Agree with the comment on some bits of choreography in Act 1 especially on Paradise. Either needs a big injection of energy OR to maximise the quirkiness of it to make it a feature. It reminded me and the Mrs of Rocky Horror in style a little. I guess either play it large for laughs or dance the hell out of it. It just came across as a bit under done. Loving the swim wear though 😍 oh and the song itself is delivered brilliantly with a hilariously cool thing that happens at the end.

2. Tink. I wasn't entirely clear what sort of relationship he had or has with Strat, and why it was so important. A little bit more back story would really add oomph to later events. Don't get me wrong it worked well but could have been given more impact.

3. Objects. Difficult to describe my thoughts without spoilers. But umm I think it would make more sense for them to finish singing before their situation is resolved. You would imagine they would beat a hasty retreat rather than hang around for one more verse. But it is a superbly emotional and beautiful performance of the song which almost brought me to tears. Awesome.

4. Not entirely sure why Falco turns up at the end? I mean I know he has to, but maybe he should get a line or two trying to explain why he came and getting shushed or something.

5. 2 out of 3. Maybe show those characters arguing in the background of various scenes so that they have a legitimate reason to sing the song? Stellar performance of the song though 😀

6. Some of the songs seemed a bit chopped short. No need. Jim's songs are designed long. Sing em long.


That's it, really tiny bits that occurred to me.

Oh by the way please do NOT get rid of Dead Ringer. Yes it's a little gratuitous, but it's brilliantly done and a cracking tune to boot.

Anyway I am delighted that Jim's work is finally out there, and in such brilliant hands. The show is an absolute blast and worth every penny.

Congratulations to everyone involved and I wish you and the show a super long extended run!

After revisiting and experiencing many ongoing changes - which i.e. brought much more "Frying Pan" in 😀 - I couldn't agree more with your praise!

And your constructive suggestions especially have a point about Tink.

Though more back story and longer songs without cutting any sounds like mission impossible, all the changes they made so far worked for the better IMO.

Sorry it was very late and I forgot to add that it is also extremely moving in places, it has depth, so it's not just hollow spectacle. Far from it in fact.

Yes^^^! Someone's trolling Jim on Facebook saying it's worse than we will rock you, idiots!

Not everything is how it appears at face value. The person in question apparently has a history with Jim that didn't go so well; he's hardly the first person to have such a history, and by the looks of recent events (with Jim's people publicly badmouthing tribute albums as if they somehow interfere with the success of a musical currently too early in its growth to have had significant success that could be at all impeded), he's certainly not going to be the last. As I understand it, this person's particular grievances of a business nature may yet be aired in a courtroom. Further, Jim has been profoundly unkind (unprovoked, mind you) in public on Facebook to this person and his business associates in the past; my reading of the thread suggests Jim started with a jab at them and they responded in kind. But others may, of course, disagree.

Speaking for myself, I dunno. I've tried really hard to grok the Neverland thing, but it's always escaped my grasp. I think the person in that thread could hardly be faulted for saying that the show reads to them, at least on the surface, as "We Will Rock You with a Meat Loaf score." (Those, I believe, are their exact words; nobody said, or even implied, it was worse, though I admit it seems they didn't feel an approach like the one they described was particularly creative.) There are a lot of basic plot and character similarities (again, on a surface level). Others have made the same comparison, some even on Jim's forum (read the full thread for effect). I wouldn't necessarily say that's an insulting comparison either; say what you will about its quality, but WWRY has been a massive commercial success. One would hope Bat aspires to climb to similar heights.

Two things I can tell you:

1. BAT is nothing like WWRY, unless you mean that it's a story that has got songs in it. I'll give you that.

2. The story above RE 'an individual's experience with Jim' is more than a little 'biased', to say the least.

With regard to the first matter you raise, I don't know that I'd say it's "nothing" like WWRY: post-apocalyptic setting, teenagers rebelling against a totalitarian government led by male and female authority figures, love stories involving the teenagers, dramatic (one would almost say theatrical) rock music with complex layers and complicated arrangements, at one point it looks like the baddies triumph but it turns around by show's end, big curtain call performance of one of the most noted numbers associated with the artist from whose catalogue the show's score is derived... I mean, the specifics are different, but generally speaking, could one really call that comparison a reach? (And this is leaving out other similarities, like the fact that Jim once approached Ben Elton to work on the book, according to a past blog entry which inspired a Playbill story but was later removed from the blog; a poster referenced this in a thread on a theater board about the story at the time.) At the very least it's a closer match than that piece of dreck Tonight's the Night.

On the second point: how accurate the story is lies in how it looks to other people. I read it, and saw someone responding to a jab in that thread, and reported what I felt I observed. The rest is just what I've heard. One man's meat, as they say.

Yep, and The Lion King is Hamlet and Westside Story is Romeo and Juliette -- we could argue about plot vs story vs archetype until the sun comes up, but I don't have the time (which is a shame -- because there's more to say on this).

As for 'point B' -- hardly impartial or objective, given those involved :roll:

Are the management team happy with the ticket sales in Manchester? They have ran several TV adverts and invested massively in marketing in the local area.

Ticket sales have been great for previews. You seem to be fixated on this -- really, there's no need, enjoy yourself :cool:

I won't bother addressing your other point because we both know from past conversations on that count that it's a slippery slope to nowhere, but I will simply say in response to your first that no one was arguing plot vs. story vs. archetype, least of all me.

The question was a vague, general one of whether the show was anything like WWRY, and while the specifics differ, whether the tropes or archetypes are common or not, there are some general similarities, and since splitting hairs seems to be the point of your response, they are similarities in the vein of archetypal figures and common post-apocalyptic story tropes. It's not good or bad (unless you're not a fan of WWRY, I guess), it's just something that is. It exists. Saying they are nothing alike is inaccurate as long as these base-line comparisons of something alike can be made, in my personal opinion. You're welcome to disagree, as it seems you do.

(Worth noting: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying, "Okay, sure, you say that; I disagree with what you say, and here's why, but feel free to think how you like." As you well know, in theater as in any art, there is no right or wrong answer until the show opens. Then there are either right answers [if it was a hit] or, in hindsight, a few right answers and plenty of wrong ones [in the case of a flop].)

I come here, and Jim's board, because of something real.

Soap opera's belong on TV.

Let's keep it about something real. Something you can reach out an feel if you prefer.

Many salutations and long nights to you all.

All I'll say is 'feel free to come back to me once you've actually seen it'.

I've seen both, all I can say is WWRY feels like a thrown together Jukebox musical, Bat has depth and does not feel that way.

I'd love to know more about this individuals business dealings with Jim

The time and place will come for that soon enough.

I went last night and to be fair, it was pretty amazing. Seeing What Part Of My Body brought tears to my eyes - in fact a lot of the second half did.

I'm not going to bore everyone with details but it was exceptional. I'm not too sure if this was because it was the final preview before tonight's 'opening'.

We were invited down by management so didn't pay for tickets but would have been more than happy to pay for what we saw.

Bat out of Hell: The Musical Review
 

Hi all,

Just posting the link to our official ★★★★★ review from last night's sensational Bat Out of Hell press night at the Manchester Opera House:

http://www.theartsshelf.com/2017/03/...se-manchester/

Adam G,
The Arts Shelf

All 5* reviews. A TRIUMPH.

And word has it that after Manchester there will be a cast album, some recording has taken place.

Naughty but fab - can't wait for the official cast recording, relive the night over and over and over again!

For me this has always been Jim's lost masterpiece - having never been fully realised with The Dream Engine group - but finally it's arrived.

They are just standing like sticks wtf.

great vocals

I'd love there to be a movie adaptation. If the best picture awards can go to La La Land in 2017, then there'll never be a better time is there to pitch the idea...

This really should have been graced by Meat's vocals between 2006-2010 :(

Except La La Land didn't win, or did it, or did it not, or did it? ;) IMO the director's previous film Whiplash was far superior (also nominated but not in as many departments). To me bizarre Oscar nominations to get 15 but this constantly happens. I doubt the technical nominations are so easily justified.

Always thought Original Sin could have formed the basis for a musical movie.

Not entirely true, but trust me, when you see it live, that's all that's needed. It was awesome.

Meat might have already recorded it back then and theyll use his recording possibly

I hope. otherwise, no

I would love to have heard what was worked on for Bat 3 before it all fell apart to see the difference, and I did always wonder if Body had already been recorded and abandoned - also the full Only When I Feel (Break It) considering Meat was singing it live as being on Bat 3 you would have thought they would have recorded something of before it got butchered.

As for the staging, I think it is the one song that speaks volumes with the need for anything other than two people and a whole lot of passion.

There is a lot of movement/dancing going on in a lot of the songs, this is one where it just needs to be sang passionately to get its point across.

Off to see the show in just over a week - very excited.

Was up in Manchester this past weekend for business and there is a lot of advertising around which is no bad thing.

Popped into the Tourist Information Centre, one of the staff there had seen it - her review

"There have been one or two technical problems, but you will understand why when you see it - the actual show is quite light on story but the performances are outstanding"

The Manchester run has been extended back to its original length with tickets on sale now for the extra 3 weeks until Saturday April 29th.

Someone mentioned a DVD release which I really don't see happening anytime in the next decade if the musical does well - based on the fact I know of only probably 3 stage shows that have had official releases on DVD like the anniversary Phantom performance, and there have been bootlegs/press copies of Tanz, WWRY, Wicked floating around.

The thing I always think is that is would be good for any new musical to make full professional recordings of maybe 5 or 6 shows from different angles and focussing on different things early in their runs that can be stored away so that if they do close at any point they can then release a full DVD. A bit like what Bruce has done with his concerts for the last twenty years, just recording everything so that at some point people might get to witness something they otherwise never would. With Bat, it could even just be to be able to see this cast again in a decade.

For me that has always been one positive about concert bootlegs, and in some ways recordings that have been done of shows in theatres. It might not be good theatre etiquette, but without it there would be a lot never witnessed and never seen.

Finally something I can comment on that TWG can't get all shirty about! :-P

We producers would love to make a regular release schedule of pro-shot DVDs of shows happen, but for it to work for us, and to keep going at a more steady rate, people need to buy these like they buy Hollywood blockbusters, and they just don't.

Don't get me wrong, some of the complaints that other producers make about such DVDs ("filming shows conveys a deadly idea, that the film version of a show is a reasonable substitute for the live show, and that's the exact opposite of the message we want to communicate; besides, given the rise in ticket prices, who's to say someone doesn't opt for the DVD instead and take money out of our pocket?") are bullshit. It's intelligent not just in terms of preservation, but in terms of revenue for live performances, as seen from the upward spike in ticket sales that long-running Broadway shows like Chicago and The Phantom of the Opera received when their movies came out.

(To be fair, some arguments from the "let's film everything!" side are bullshit as well. While such taping could expand interest in theater, from a purely economic standpoint, Broadway is not dying. Grosses last year increased in record numbers. Flop rates generally have remained the same for a long time. Some would argue that the giant ticket price increases in the past few years may seem a big reason for Broadway to buckle under its own weight, but the numbers indicate that the audience has simply shifted. Now, New York is a destination for tourists. The industry simply hasn't gotten to a point of "adapt or die" for media accessibility, even if your favorite shows are closing, and an "evolution" where we move more toward taped theater will only be necessary when theater-going as a hobby/tourist attraction falls in both ticket sales and gross.)

I digress. Let me redirect: most producers' arguments against taping are bullshit. However, the cost. THE COST, MAN. It's called show business (emphasis mine) for a reason. Allowing for the fact that theater is legally defined as a high-risk investment, most people who invest in a business venture generally want to see a return on their investment. And a video is a serious investment, both of time and money, with little chance of return, especially when it is a filmed record of a live performance. The bottom line, sad to say, is money. And the problem with filming and releasing musicals (or even plays) is that it's simply not lucrative.

(Before we continue, I should add I'm not talking about filmed theater by not-for-profit entities such as the Metropolitan Opera, Live From Lincoln Center on PBS, NTLive, etc. -- those groups have generous donors who are able to foot the bill and pay for shows to be recorded without worrying about a return on their investment. And notice that they often neatly sidestep such for-profit production issues as royalties, marketing costs, distribution, etc., by just doing an HD broadcast instead of a commercial release.)

To explain why it's so hard and so expensive, I'll break down the process for you:

• Securing the rights. Film/broadcast rights are not automatically granted to the producers of the show, so one would have to work out an arrangement with the author(s) and composer(s), both in terms of an initial upfront payment and in terms of royalties.
• Pre-, during-, and post-filming union costs. Bear in mind I'm not just talking union salaries which get an increase due to filming, which is substantial enough; one has to contend with Equity (the actors' union), the Stage Directors and Choreographers Society, United Scenic Artists, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and so on when it comes to salary hikes. But then there's the copyright issue, where we're talking about royalties after the fact, in addition to the salary hikes, to the creative team for use of blocking/staging, choreography, production design, etc. The work of a creative team on each production is copyrightable. This isn't something we can avoid, and it gets pricy.
• The filming itself, and production costs. Filming of a really good pro-shot feature tends to be a three-day affair. Day 1 is done so that they can make sure all the equipment is working, and so the crew can see the show and get an idea of what they want to film, how best to shoot a specific scene or song, etc. Days 2 and 3 are actual recordings, and they do two days so they can cut together the best of what they get. As for the audience, on infrequent occasions at least one of the days is a normal performance where people have paid to be there, but the majority of the time, the audience for filming is chosen from a paper service like Black List or Black Tie (to rule out any of the conceivable unpredictable mishaps involving a real live audience), and tickets are free for all the shows, which is more money out of the producers' pockets. Aside from that, a fully realized filming costs real money, not only including paying everyone, but also for the entire bucket of what it costs to make a "professional" movie. These days, many shows only finally tie up enough capital to get past opening night at the eleventh hour; no way producers would take on the added burden. Whether released before or after a show closes, someone has to pony up the huge cost of filming, editing (and any other post-production), and releasing, which -- on the low end -- is at least $500,000 or more. Money they will likely never see back in their lifetime.
• Finding a distributor. That's a whole other bag of cats, as, especially in this day and age, theater simply doesn't have widespread appeal with the evolution of other entertainment media, which is still spreading. The only shows that could potentially turn a profit from these would be the mega-hits (name brands like anything by Cirque du Soleil, or shows like Les Mis, Phantom, Rent, Cats, etc.), which hardly need it. Releasing a recording of a newer, comparatively obscure piece, no matter how much one loves it, would never be anything but even more money down the drain. Here's an example of an artistically-successful-but-commercially-D.O.A. Broadway show that got filmed: Passing Strange. Exceptionally well-filmed (by Spike Lee, no less), well-reviewed, a fine film recording of a show. So explain why the interest level is such that the video cannot be found among the top 10,000 titles on Amazon. One can point to newer distribution platforms, like online streaming (iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, etc.) or made-to-order DVDs, both of which sound like safe bets for profitability to the layman, but the problem with those is mainly that the technology is too new for theater as a whole to catch up with, and especially so with regard to unions (who haven't even begun to split hairs over royalties and other issues on digital platforms).

What all of this boils down to is that, after all is said and done, the relatively few people who actually purchase the DVD don't constitute enough revenue to create a good profit margin. There are always exceptions to what I've said above, but they also always have a reason that they are the exception and not the rule.

For example, Shrek: The Musical was part of a franchise propped up by DreamWorks, who can afford to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on a DVD because they see it as an important, long-term investment, the accepted "price" of increasing exposure for its film/merchandise franchise to a larger audience.

And then there's the live DVD of Rent, which was already a popular property with a guaranteed audience base that had just made a fairly successful film only a couple years prior (or at least successful enough for Sony to sign on to distribute), the one which had the added "X factor" of being a special event (i.e., closing night). (In fact, the "special event" branding can be helpful -- special events or limited runs, for example the Les Mis anniversary shoots, get some degree of priority because that means the already limited buyers' demographic might increase.)

An example of avoiding what I'm talking about is Legally Blonde. Notice how it was never made available for sale, just broadcast on MTV a few times. It costs a ton more money for retail/direct-to-consumer distribution than to just have MTV pay you a fee to broadcast it on their channel. In this case, the producers of Legally Blonde, who likely covered some (or most) of the filming production expenses, were guaranteed a set amount of money from Viacom for the broadcasting rights. It's likely that they were then privy to additional fees if certain ratings benchmarks were achieved. That is cash in the bank, as opposed to waiting to see what the sales numbers on a DVD are and ending up "in the red."

Now, Bat in particular has a lot of things going for it (brand recognition in the form of the title and a recognizable score, to name two) that a lot of other examples of potential musicals filmed for DVD don't. But it still faces the same costs, and the same issue of potential profit. In the UK and Europe, it might go like hotcakes (let's face it, shows with brand recognition that only exists in mainly those areas have been filmed, like Elisabeth, Boy George's Taboo, Our House, Jerry Springer The Opera, etc.), but this needs to have universal appeal to approach serious profitability, and let's face it -- in America, Meat and Jim are mainly remembered by the broad public as those guys who did that one song back in '77 and that other song in '93 that get played at school dances and weddings every now and then. It's a niche interest. Only Jim fans (and to a certain extent Meat fans) know or care that this exists.

I would like it to be filmed professionally. I'd very much like to see it. And there is a good chance that at some point something will be filmed for archival purposes (the Theater On Film & Tape Archive at the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts makes inexpensive archival recordings of Broadway shows, only available for viewing to serious researchers, at minimal cost, but those tapings basically aim a camera at the stage, and pan occasionally, and that's it). But I don't know if a commercial release is on the cards unless or until the show gains more of a reputation and is a bigger success. (And sometimes not even then -- notice no DVD of Wicked or Hamilton is coming out any time soon. Why set aside money to professionally film even a hit, when it's hard enough to fund a show as it is without throwing in the additional cost of filming a video which is probably even less likely to be profitable than the show itself?)

In an era of HD and where they pretty much only now sell new TVs with 4K capability I'm astonished many still talk about DVDs and we still have so much SD broadcast channels. No point filming things professionally if you are then going to watch things in fuzzy SD on a 55 inch TV. :roll: They might as well film it with a potato otherwise.

If they were going to film the Bat musical at any point this year or beyond it should at least be done in 4K resolution and there shouldn't be anything less than a Blu Ray or by then 4K Blu ray released with particular focus on on demand movie sales.

And it would still be about as profitable as a shoeshine stand in a mudslide, for all the reasons listed above. (Hell, probably even less if one restricts it to formats that are still fairly new to many minds, like Blu-Ray. That people are still talking about DVDs and standard definition should tell you how behind the times the industry -- and the general public, to a certain extent, or else why still market the bloody things -- is. Technology is advancing way past some people's capability to keep up with it, and that poses a problem when marketing entertainment product.)

I've seen low quality non audience recordings of We Will Rock You and others...I think Jekyll and Hyde might have been one...which were never recorded to be released, but are more than just single shot pan and scan. I would also have thought with cameras already being used in quite a few scenes in Bat and put on the screens in the theatre, it would have made it easier to record something for posterity (I'm not talking million dollar blockbuster movie, just more if this ends tomorrow we have something to look back on...and that could be actors changing, the show changing etc)

I'm more thinking of the amount of shows that have come and gone that may actually have been enjoyed by people. I think technically now you have said it, is I'm thinking more of the broadway archive but much more accessible and known to the public. That's just something I've had a bee in my bonnet about for years, long before Bat, but I bring it down to the fact that without such recordings surfacing, I would never have seen Steve Barton performing as Krolock.

I have no links to theatre production and costing, but I have always thought that it is pretty common sense to see that film and DVD recordings of shows has no impact on the sales of tickets - as you said there are plenty of shows that have had various screen adaptations and still pack in the crowds. To me there are three different types of people when it comes to this stuff. People who will go to the theatre for the experience of live performance. People who wouldn't go to the theatre if they were paid, but would watch a film or recorded version in a cinema or at home. People who would like to see theatre shows but for what ever reason could never get to see them - for example if Bat opened in Manchester and had been staying there for good, there would be many in say America who would never have been able to see it because maybe they can't travel, or its far too expensive to come to the UK for it, whatever. Just my simple view of it.

As for HD/4k...it's all just overhype to me. I've got a 50" TV and have used HD on TV so much I cancelled the subscription I was paying for it. From across the room the difference is minimal unless you're watching something originally made in the 80s/early 90s and most times they can't do anything about that graininess, or you have crystal 20/20 vision which I don't think I've had since I was 6. I can still spot the clues on Sherlock, see the blood splats on Game Of Thrones and see the detailed innards of a zombie on the Walking Dead whether its HD or SD. Plus downloading HD stuff takes up too much room. I'd rather download 40 things in SD than 20 in HD. Again though, might just be me.

I just remembered, the Rocky Horror Anniversary show that was broadcast to cinema (and subsequently appeared on YouTube and is still there 18 months later) was the other one I was thinking of. Obviously there was the film, and there is that live broadcast out there for people to watch for free, but I'm pretty sure ticket sales haven't dwindled because of it on the recent tour. It was a special cast in a performance that wouldn't otherwise have been seen again, so I'm happy it appeared after the event ( I did go to the cinema when it was originally broadcast) because for me it was one of the best I'd seen, but it didn't stop me going to see it when it was nearby locally on the tour the next year. So, no I don't think it is right to tar everything with the "it's taking money out of my pocket" brush. If the show is that good, it will continue to thrive and if anything should gain even more interest from someone seeing it in another format if anything.

I think it's the same reason so many people say "I've video'd it". You just say what you're used to....and I can't be faffed on saying high resolution Blu-ray when DVD rolls much better. :D When I say it, I basically mean anything that comes on a disc that you play on a TV.

Just a quick one to say that Press Night was awesome and the show is in such a good shape now. Well done to all involved for a beautiful production! Not allowed to love, done simply is stunning!!!

One of the most extraordinary things about the musical is that now when I listen to Jim's other music, I imagine them being sung by the characters from and situations in the show. And everything works and everything has a deeper meaning. Evening something like Tyre Tracks And Broken Hearts which was from a different musical entirely!

Amazing

Tyre tracks? I dont remember hearing that in.

I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MUCH I LOVE THIS POST!!

It resonates strongly for me with Total Eclipse and Braver Than WE Are/Going All The Way

Exactly... Jim's OTHER music 😀

I think its similar to what i said after listening to and putting the story to the songs of Braver Than We Are - You could take that plot and insert pretty much any other song and it would fit somewhere to expand the story - like you can interweave the three parts of Paradise through Going All The Way, Loving You and Souvenirs, you can add It just Won't quit after Only When I Feel and on and on. The characters of the musical are the next advancement of that - the ultimate one probably. It goes all the way back to the quote Meat said on loads of interviews in the 90s. "Every song Jim writes goes into Neverland." The versions of those characters are now in the musical and they are the characters that everything Jim's done has be written for in some way. I have no doubt that if you had ten hours to work with you could make every one of the songs fit without needing to change much at all. No wonder there were so many in and outs with the song list.

In that case when the time comes I don't want a movie, they should do it as a 10 episode series on NBC :P

I don't want a DVD - I want a 7 hour NEVERLAND - the very best of Jim Steinman album containing ALL the songs!

OOooh could be a fan compilation album project?!

can anyone advise me on the runtime? Looking to book our coach tickets :)

Around 2 hours 40 with interval.

So finally went to see the musical this afternoon.

First here is my spoiler free, succinct review for those who still don't want details(where have you been to avoid them???).

Bat Out Of Hell The Musical is the most emotionally charged, stunningly executed phenomenally performed piece of rock and roll fantasy to ever hit the stage. Desmond Child said of Bat 3 "this is the future of the Bat Out Of Hell franchise." No. THIS is the future of Bat Out Of Hell.

Now, the detailed version.

I love a good musical. I love Jim's songs. I love Meat. There was pretty much no way that I wasn't going to like this. But actually sitting there, as the lights suddenly went out with a crash of thunder and a single shaft of light illuminates Andrew Polec as he shouts the iconic words “I remember everything!” I realised very quickly that there was actually no way I was leaving there without having the same feelings I had the first time I saw Meat as an 11 year old.

And so it starts. The first thing that I noticed was that those saying Andrew channels Meat…no. By pretty much the end of the opening monologue and certainly after around ten minutes, what I am actually watching is what would have happening when Bad For Good was released if Jim himself had the stage presence of Meat. Andrew’s Strat is the forever young Peter Pan that Jim has always been in the songs he writes and in the world he has created for them.

The opening number, a brilliantly crafted hybrid of All Revved Up, Break It, the instrumental piece best known as “God has left the building” in the Dance of The Vampires demos and Everything Louder rocks, and also works well as an introduction to many of the characters. The first act has a complete assault of spectacular vocal after vocal, as well as some good little nods to things to come, and the whole show is packed with more easter eggs than even the Easter Bunny can carry. The number of lines that to non fans would probably go unnoticed, but to me instantly stand out (It hurts only when I feel, The sea is whipping the sky). There’s tension, comedy, drama, melodrama.

Life Is a lemon gets a brief run out on Raven’s radio, Frying pan’s now expanded appearance now feels right. Songs like just won’t quit, the stunning duet of Two Out Of Three – which like so much of this show brings a completely new context and deeper meaning to the songs I’ve known so well for thirty years – and the comedic turns of Rob and Sharon on Who Needs The Young and what is possibly the most raucous, sexually charged and destructive Paradise put on stage – even beyond anything Meat put on stage and that’s saying something – all lead to the fitting first half conclusion as Andrew proves his worth with the cataclysmic vision of Bat, complete with a motorbike that splits itself in two, blood, confetti canons and a vocal tour de force that gets the audience reaction it thoroughly deserves.

Onto the second half, and for me there are two distinct parts of this musical. Part one is a rock and roll spectacular extravaganza about lust, rebellion, control and losing control. Part two sticks its hands deep into the chest to try and pull out the heart mangled by the first Act’s culminating crash.

The dark, sadistic opener of Land Of The Pig, with hanging bodies, electrocution and all manner of depravation under the command of Rob’s joyously maniacal turn, sets the tone for what is coming. However, it is the gorgeous, haunting and emotionally destructive version of Heaven Can Wait, the lighting on which chokes out whatever emotion you haven’t given up to that point, followed by a magnificent version of Objects are beyond words and brought tears to my eyes on more than one occasion. For Crying Out Loud is staged brilliantly. The previously teased “On A Hot Summer Night” monologue finally gets its pay off and You Took The Words works so well without the break that was originally in there during previews. The quiet, heart tugging Not Allowed To Love sees the song simplified from what was originally to feature in the Batman musical a decade ago, but it doesn’t lose anything for it. And then comes the song that I have loved for over ten years and have finally found my definitive version. What Part of My Body Hurts The Most is performed by Rob and Sharon with the most emotional performance I think I have witnessed in any context, any production or just anything. It has been mentioned that nothing much happens during the song. It does. What happens is you see and feel the moment in two lives when everything finally falls apart. It needs nothing more than it has, and for me cements my belief that Rob Fowler is for me every bit the show’s star as much as Andrew.

Crowd pleaser Dead Ringer For Love is a welcome break from the emotion, before Tink’s death leads to a divine version of Rock And Roll Dreams that again takes more from Jim’s Bad For Good version than the Bat 2 one, and the choral ending of it just sublime and again gets you right in the heart.

The dual finale of All Coming Back To Me Now and Anything For Love rounds of the show in a story closing epic that showcases the vocal talents of all the main case and then some.

I really cannot truly describe how I felt when the Bat reprise kicked in. I felt drained, elated, rocked, reborn and everything in between. Meat has always stood by the fact that you need to have a good character to truly bring a song to life and not just be another good singer singing Steinman songs. There is not a single member of that cast that doesn’t completely own every song.

A couple of things that didn’t get me quite raving; I couldn’t help thinking that the bats are sadly not as effective as they could be. I knew they were coming and love it, but I did notice that hardly anyone in the stalls seemed to notice them flying out. I don’t know if it is to do with the lighting, or just that actors by that point have everyone completely mesmerised, but it just seems to not get the appreciation it should. Whether having them actually fly around the stage then out would work better (I know the programming of them is set to do what they do and not sure how much that can be changed) but I think it just deserves something more because it is a neat gimmick.

The other thing, is the dancing. My dad, who I went with, said afterwards that he though the show was brilliant and he would definitely see it again (which isn’t something he says very often) but he also said the dancing was a bit naff. My sister has been a professional dancer, including junior tap champion three years running once upon a time, for 20 years and in that time our parents have travelled all over the country for competitions, events and shows, so have seen more dancing than I will probably see In my life, so my dad has seen his fair share. For me, I would put it a bit differently. The dancing in the main is forgettable at the time you are watching it. With the exception of Dead Ringer and a few other scenes when the stage is full of people dancing and it is part of the scene naturally, I actually kept forgetting the dancers were even there. I couldn’t tell you much about what they were doing during paradise (I remember them getting undressed at one point), the same during Objects, It Just Won’t Quit… That is why it doesn’t matter that there aren’t any during What Part Of My Body Hurts The Most. There is enough happening, even with just two people performing to hold the attention without the need for a load of random arm movements (there were a couple of times Raven was doing strange movements with her arms during some of her scenes that really didn’t need to be there.

And then there’s the camera use. I love the idea and the close use of the camera in the bedroom scenes and others. It is perfect for those seats that are slightly out of view. But there are a few that make the actual scene clunky because there is someone dressed in black with a huge camera blocking the actual view of the scene and the characters to get the shot for the screen. It was mainly the first scene that it was obvious, not so much after that.

But none of that detracts from the awesome two and half hours of sheer rock and roll heaven that is Bat Out Of Hell The Musical. Jim is a master of his craft, and I don’t think there is anyone else who could take a 40+ year old piece and recycle it into something magical, new, breath taking and awe inspiring in the way he has. I thought I knew these songs, but I had barely scratched the surface. This is JIM STEINMAN’s Bat Out Of Hell, and his inspiration and legacy is complexly contained within is content. Even some of the dancing can be linked back to his own performances and videos from Bad For Good. If this is his legacy, then I couldn’t think of any way it could have been bettered.

Great review, agree with it all. Now can someone turn up the PA :p

Saw this on youtube and is a decent copy of the second part of the musical apart from the crackly sound at times.

Two minds whether to post this on here but not everyone is fortunate to live near Manchester, London etc. And not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford the cost of the musical. Unbelievably they have put the prices up for the extended run of the Manchester shows. Very strange considering most of the shows are less than 50% capacity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRMH2ODa7Vk

Hmm, wonder who filmed/posted that :p

the price goes up to cover the cost of hiring the theater :) and cost of staff electric ect

and now part one also - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzq14kO_Dh4

Went to see this on Saturday. it wasn't Andrew Polac playing Sloane but Benjamin Purkiss and he was absolutely amazing! Aaron was also brilliant as Tink. In fact the cast were all brilliant.

Highlights for me were Paradise by the Dashboard light, Tink's song (the new one) and his exit, Dead ringer for Love and Benjamin killing it with Bat Out of hell.

The only thing I would have changed was some of the video bits on screen. In the first half it wasn't so bas as you could see into the 1st story bedroom. In the second half there was a screen up and both that and the TV quality made those scenes a bit hard to see. Despite this it was a great show and one of about 4 shows I've seen in my life that I want to go and see again (the others being Wicked, Book of Mormon and the Lion King).

You mean Strat? Sharon Sexton was Sloane.

Yeah sorry i meant Strat.

Perhaps not surprised to say both parts now taken down.

Yes by some whinging goody two shoes, I'd counter their claim but can't be bothered really.

I have one ticket for sale for the opening night in London... 5th June.. stalls E3... face value + booking fee (86.25) - offers may be considered :)

the cast album is being recorded this week. Who's going to buy it?

ME!!!!

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

interested...can you pm me please ??

I'll definitely be looking into buying it. Doubt I'll get a chance to see this performed so having that will be the next best thing.

Interestingly a lot of people are saying Ben Purkiss (understudy Strat) is better than Andrew Polec.

No, they're not.

I was gonna say, in a rare moment of agreement, that actually all the buzz I saw was pretty much that, were it not for vocal strain or exhaustion, Polec should be doing it all the time.

Yes they are and I agree

Yep Purkiss has grown into the role. Was a bit too "west end" at first but now plays the part great.

Ben is nowhere near Andrew, sorry.

I've seen it 3 times, twice with Andrew. Ben is a fine singer/actor but Andrew is perfect for the role.

Couldnt have said it better.......

couldnt have said it better.........

I think that the difference is this:

By 'a lot of people' you mean 'three people on the Internet', and by 'a lot of people also' I mean 'almost everyone who comes in and out of those doors every night'.

Finally made it to the final night in Manchester and absolutely loved it! Will definitely try and see it again in London.

I would post a detailed review but I couldn't do any better than the one a few posts above.