Maybe Happy Ending has been a remarkable Broadway success story. After beginning performances last year to grosses that had many concerned the show wouldn't make it past New Year's, Maybe Happy Ending slowly became an audience favorite, and all of us fans—which creators Hue Park and Will Aronson call "the Fireflies"—watched along happily as their fortunes slowly climbed week after week, culminating in an incredible Tony nomination day that almost immediately put the show in The $1 Million Club.

Maybe Happy Ending is currently tied with Buena Vista Social Club and Death Becomes Her as the most Tony-nominated show of the season, up for 10 categories including Best Musical. Park and Aronson, both making their Broadway debuts with the musical, also had a triumph of their own: the two are also nominated for the show's book and score, and Aronson's orchestrations are also up for a Tony nod.

The musical follows Oliver (Tony-nominee Darren Criss) and Claire (Helen J Shen), two HelperBots living in an apartment building that serves as a retirement home for discarded robots. When Claire's charger starts to malfunction, a chance meeting kicks off an adventure that prove both might be more human than they could have ever expected.

Its futuristic storyline isn't the only unusual thing about Maybe Happy Ending. Not only is the show the rare truly original musical on Broadway, not based on any existing story, the show actually began life in another country and in another language. Park, who is Korean, and Aronson, who is American, wrote this lovely little show simultaneously in English and Korean when they both lived in Brooklyn. It premiered in South Korea in 2016 where it was a massive hit; South Korean musicals tend to play in limited runs, but Maybe Happy Ending has been revived there five times since 2016. And there will be a sixth: the musical will return to South Korea in the fall. 

Usually when shows get scripts and lyrics in other languages, it's the work of a translator. How did Aronson and Park manage this incredible achievement, which necessitated both writing an entire musical in languages that weren't their first?

For the answer, we went directly to the source, taking a deep and nerdy dive on this Tony-nominated musical with Aronson and Park. We got to find out more about how the duo juggled two wildly different languages, what changes for the Broadway production shocked the show's devoted Korean fanbase, a fan conspiracy theory that is shared by both the Korean and American fireflies, and more in the 90-minute conversation (emphasis on the deep and nerdy.)

And you've been warned: our talk does include plot spoilers. We have marked which questions to skip if you want to avoid this.

So sit back, relax, throw on the recently released Broadway cast album (currently available for streaming from Ghostlight Records, with a physical CD release due May 30 and a vinyl edition dropping June 13), and get ready to learn everything you wanted to know—plus lots more—about Maybe Happy Ending with the artists who created it.

WATCH: The Making of Maybe Happy Ending's Original Broadway Cast Recording

The conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

First of all, a huge congratulations to you both, newly two-time Tony nominees, some of you three-time! What was nomination day like?

Hue Park: We were so sleepy! We had The Today Show in the morning, so everyone had been up early. The day felt very long because I think we were up for 20 hours. By the end I felt delirious with all that joy and anxiety and everything combined. It was a very special day in many ways.

Will Aronson: I was also short on sleep, but we were just amazed, shocked. It’s very hard to describe. Grateful, can’t believe it. We’re still digesting. It seems more theoretical than actual.

Well, if I may say so, I wasn’t shocked. We really love this musical at Playbill. And of course it’s already been such a big hit in South Korea. What does it mean that it’s been equally well received here in New York? Did you expect that?

Park: We expected nothing. Our goal was to just open the show on Broadway, because so many people have been working on it.

Aronson: It’s a four-person show. It was our dream that someone would put it up anywhere, I think we thought, hopefully, a regional theatre.

[Editor’s Note: Skip the next two questions if you’d like to avoid spoilers.]

What’s the audience reaction been with American audiences compared to Korean audiences?

Park: It’s been surprisingly similar. They react to the same jokes in the same spots, in both languages, some of the same emotional things. And the fans online, which we call the Fireflies, they are very similar in both territories. It’s interesting, and encouraging.

Aronson: There’s a lot that could be said about the Fireflies, because I think they’re the people who kept the show open during the very rough start until now. And that is similar to Korea, too. Something that happened early on: This  online discussion began about the ending, about Claire specifically. People online would say, "Oliver didn’t erase his memory, but did Claire?" When we wrote it, according to the script, Oliver clearly did not erase his memory, and Claire seems to have erased her memory. But it doesn’t say she definitely did or definitely didn’t. So it became this thing of analyzing whenever she came in the room—if she looked at where HwaBoon used to be and see if he’d moved, showing she has a memory. And it’s become a thing here too, which was fascinating.

Yeah, I’ve definitely met some Claire truthers. But are you saying the intention is that she does erase?

Aronson: Our truthful answer, that we’ve been giving in Korea for the last 10 years, is only the actress playing it that night actually knows. That’s our belief. I think you would have to ask, in this case, Helen [J Shen], or whoever’s playing it that night.

Park: [Claire is] a lot more advanced. She’s smart. She’s a good actor. So you never know.

Aronson: The real secret tea is that we recently dug up our very first treatment of this, and it did have Claire confirming that she hadn’t erased. But even by the first reading, that was out, because we felt it tied a bow on it in this slightly icky way. Now it leaves that feeling underneath of: Can you be sure what she’s done or not.

I think you’ve achieved that. The Claire truthers I’m talking about are very passionate on this topic. But speaking of that first treatment, take me back to the beginning. What are the origins of this story?

Park: I was sitting in a coffee shop in Brooklyn, and this song called “Everyday Robots” [by Damon Albarn] was playing in the background. I recognized the voice, because he was the frontman of a British band called Blur. The song starts saying, “We are everyday robots on our phones / In the process of getting home.” And it just resonated with me. I felt like, yes, we are all turning into more isolated individuals. And at the time, I had just gotten out of another long-term relationship and I had just lost a good friend from cancer. So I was thinking a lot of negative things about relationships and friendships and everything. This idea started coming out of that. I texted Will and he liked the idea. We started to shape the story together right away. We got to do a reading of it in both languages, in Korean and English, in the same year, by this non-profit based in Seoul. And we signed with [Broadway producer] Jeffrey [Richards] right after the reading.

Aronson: I think what made it interesting when he pitched it was, he was a little ambivalent about whether it was good or bad that we were living like robots, that maybe it wasn’t purely horrible that we are all isolated and living in our own rooms. Because the other option is to love people, and then you lose them. We didn’t want to go out and teach a lesson about how it’s horrible that we’re disconnected. We saw the appeal of it, because it’s happening for a reason, which is that it’s scary and uncomfortable to be putting yourself out there with people. That was really the starting point, and it sold it to me, the complexity of it.

What I get from this musical is this idea that to love anything—a person, a plant, anything—is to sign up for heartbreak because nothing is permanent. And that sounds so depressing, and yet somehow, y’all made a show that is really not depressing at all.

Aronson: We agree! That was a lot of the motivation in writing, that feeling. And we’ve thought a lot about that, why it isn’t depressing. But what appealed to us about writing these robot characters is that it would be very depressing if we were writing a story about a person going through a really bad breakup or losing a friend. We felt the alienating device of having them be robots allowed us to engage with this in an exciting way, and a more heart-opening way.

Park: It’s a coming-of-age story of this extremely innocent character, Oliver, and slightly less innocent, a little more jaded Claire. But she gets to learn the meaning of actually connecting with someone, of opening herself up to that. I think that’s why it’s not entirely just depressing, because we get to witness these human-like robots learning the meaning of life, basically.

I can’t get over that you two wrote this simultaneously in Korean and English. What were the logistics of that happening?

Park: It’s the most natural way for us to write. Will’s Korean is remarkable, like really good.

Aronson: Well, not at that time. This is almost 10 years ago.

Park: I guess that’s true. At the time, it was just easier for us to write our very first draft mostly in English. But since we were opening the show in Korea first, we fleshed everything out in Korean, including the lyrics, which I wrote in Korean first.

Aronson: The script started in English, but the lyrics started in Korean, and then they sort of crossed over. And each one becomes rather different as it goes into the other language. We had to move the Korean lyrics into English. 

We usually work story first. We’re creating the story along with musical sketches that are pure music, based on our different mutual influences and how we think the story is shaping out. So we came out of that with a first draft of the script in English, and these wordless musical sketches and paragraphs describing the songs in a certain flow. And then those became actual Korean songs that are fully fleshed out Korean songs. So then we would sort of develop them, re-adapt them into English.

Is that process part of where we get so many instrumental sequences in this score?

Aronson: Our rationale for that—and this is what our thought was at the time when we created it, which might not be its actual impact on the audience—we thought at the beginning, these are robots. We’re going to have this aesthetic that’s a bit tamped down emotionally. So we wanted to have a number of these big, instrumental sequences that would sort of burst out, like the firefly scene, the “Touch Sequence,” the “Memory Sequence.” From the first draft, those were already all in place because it seemed essential to us for the flow of the score, that there be these bigger moments of things they can’t express. 

We used to joke that those were our power ballads, that our power ballads would be instrumentals. An odd approach, but we thought it suited the robot setup a little better.

Park: It’s a lot of visual sequences. Not entirely without dialogue, but mostly visual. We sort of approached it almost like scoring for film. A lot of our reference points were film music when we first got together.

And for you Will, in particular, that must have been such a great opportunity to put a lot of feeling in the music that Broadway scores don’t always get to do.

Aronson: It’s a luxury, to be able to create these big, wordless sequences. Often with underscoring, people are talking over. But here, it was structurally built in that there would be these instrumental sequences.

Park: We have been really good friends long before we started to write Maybe Happy Ending, and that wasn’t our first show that we wrote together. I always knew that what Will does well is writing this cinematic, beautiful music, beautiful orchestration. That was one of the reasons, too.

From what I’ve been able to ascertain from the Korean lyrics, admittedly without being able to speak Korean but using Google Translate, is that Korean must require more syllables than English on the whole.

Park: Oh, God. That’s true. Yes.

So how do you handle that? Again, I don’t speak Korean so I don’t know how those words sit on the music. But I do think the English lyrics sit on the music so naturally. I don’t think you would ever know they were ever in another language, which is really not typical in situations like this.

Aronson: It’s an unusual process. I know Hue doesn’t like opining about the differences between Korean and English.

Park: I have to be careful with what I’m saying because I don’t want to say something wrong.

Aronson: I have no problem saying things that might be totally false.

Ah, spoken like a good American.

Aronson: [laughs] But we talk about this a lot, because we’re writing nerds and always making theories about things. We generally don’t talk about these things publicly, because even our own feelings keep changing. But certainly we have a lot of those internal, nerdy conversations. Like in Korean lyrics, structural rhyming is not a huge tradition. It’s not something that’s required in the way it feels like it is for English lyrics. So you have to do something else to make it lyrical.

Park: In Korean, we tend to try to make everything sound less conversational and more poetic, like literary. Finding different words to say something more poetically, more beautiful, more lyrical, that’s the number one goal as a lyricist. Maybe that’s the Korean version of trying to find the perfect rhymes. You wouldn’t use expressions like “Jeju or bust” in Korean lyrics, because it would sound too coarse, or crude.

Aronson: And in English, you have the rhymes, which makes it artificial to begin with, so then the lyrics want to be more specific and tangible and down to earth. Otherwise, if you get the rhymes and the poetry, it stops feeling like characters actually expressing their thoughts. I think that accounts for some of the differences in how the lyrics are approached, at least in our show in Korean and English.

I know as a listener, I want lyrics and melody to match in a way that is in conversation with the cadence of natural speech, which these certainly do. How do you think about that when English isn’t your first language?

Park: Well, I have to give some credit to Will. We work so closely together, and we have such a natural process. Often I would give him rough ideas, and he might find the perfect word, or make it sound better.

Aronson: [To Park] Maybe on a very deep technical level. But the heart and the ideas are really all you. I mean, it’s fluid. We’re sort of creating stuff together in English, right? And Korean is just…you go to town on the melodies and create these incredible lyrics. But yeah, in English, it’s a collaboration.

Park: I started as a pop lyricist in Korea, and in that world, it’s always music first. There will be a famous producer or songwriter or singer who sends out a complete demo, completely orchestrated and everything, with gibberish lyrics to, like, 15 lyricists. And then you pitch your lyrics. So I had to train myself to be good at music first, listening to the gibberish lyrics, realizing there must be a reason the composer chose this word or that word, even though it doesn’t make any sense, because it sounds good for the melody. And then I try to find the word that sounds similar, but carry out all the meanings that I want to put out. I think that was really good practice for me.

Were there any lyrics, any ideas that you found particularly difficult to express in one language versus the other?

Park: Not really. I guess I’m just lucky. Every time I felt like I hit the wall, I can talk to Will, find out what he thinks, and then we end up solving the issue. The moment that I found personally fulfilling, in terms of writing in both languages, was when we wrote “Sentimental Person” together. It was one of the songs that didn’t exist in the Korean version. I was still scared of writing in my second language, I think, because I have a higher standard of writing in my first language. I wanted to be able to do just as good, and if I couldn’t do it 100 percent, why even try? I don’t want to embarrass myself. 

But Will would encourage me, saying it’s about ideas. It’s about what you want to tell, not just about rhyming. When we were writing “Sentimental Person,” I felt good about the ideas, the sentiment. And Will really polished the rhyming and everything. That was the first moment that I knew we could do this in both languages.

Aronson: But it makes for some weird situations. In the Korean version of “What I Learned From People,” there’s a pickup note on the melody (that in English is “Everything must end eventually"). It makes it so much easier to sing [in Korean], and orient yourself in the chord. In the English version, she has to pick out a note, that is not being played by the orchestra, cold at the top of the song. We ran through all these options with that pickup, but it just wasn’t saying what we wanted it to say. And we always choose saying what we want to say over anything else, which in this case meant losing that pickup note. It’s a flaw that will dog me to my grave, that we couldn’t solve that melody as we originally conceived it. Luckily, Helen [J Shen] can do anything. She makes it sound easy.

Well speaking of that orchestra, let’s talk about your Tony-nominated orchestration. It sounds like you got to expand the ensemble for Broadway versus what’s on the Korean albums, yes?

Aronson: Yeah. The Korean production had six instruments and this is 10. In Korea, it’s basically a string quartet, a piano, and some light percussion—no mallets or anything. In America, that percussion player is getting more of a workout, because we have all these mallet instruments, a vibraphone, a glockenspiel. We added a contrabass, and we added a reed doubler, a trombone player, and a trumpet-flugel horn doubler.

Was that always the dream?

Aronson: Yeah! We had actually planned on adding a bunch of instruments to the first reading. Hue had said we must have some real acoustic instruments at that first reading, because he felt that otherwise the tone wouldn’t come across. So, we had the strings. The goal was maybe to use a bunch of strings and some winds, but there just wasn’t time. And then it ended up working well, so in Korea we just stuck with that. It was affordable, so it’s been string quartet for years in Korea. Here it was great to fulfill the dream of having this bigger orchestra.

Something I’m hoping particularly Tony voters will notice is how little the Broadway orchestration relies or falls back on the piano, which can be pretty rare in musical theatre. Was that purposeful?

Aronson: Definitely. I was given good advice on that. We are both eternal students, and I’ve heard [I can't remember who said it] Jonathan Tunick or Michael Starobin or Bruce Coughlin say things like, "When I hear piano, it reminds me of being in the rehearsal room." If possible, I want to avoid that, unless the piano is making a gesture as a piano, not just filling in. I had that drilled into my head by all these great orchestrators, so that was already on my mind. 

But it’s our taste. We love film scores, which don’t generally feature piano unless it’s a piano solo and that’s the concept. But the thing I’ll say in defense of other orchestrations in this issue is we had a lot more time on this one show. It lived in our heads for a while, and then there was COVID. This show had a lot of percolation time by the time we did the Broadway orchestration, which really was for a workshop in 2022. But I had been working on it for much, much longer than your average Broadway show, which tends to be quite fast. I’m sure people have to take shortcuts because they don’t have the luxury of working on it forever.

Park: And most teams don’t have the luxury of having a string quartet for their very first industry reading, too.

Aronson: Yes, having that in mind for our first time out meant I wrote with that in mind from the beginning.

Hearing it on Broadway, I could immediately tell you weren’t coming at this as a pianist first, which is the bulk of musical scores. I was surprised listening to the Korean albums at how much more piano was in it then.

Arson: Well we also love Ben Folds, which is very piano centered. If you’re in a small group, that becomes necessary. The whole time we were trying to capture that indie-pop sound, but without guitars. Having the piano doing the motor rhythms kind of made sense, because it’s a little bit genre, but not too much. And in the Korean production, the music director is on stage, as is the string quartet. There are lines for the music director. And [the character of] James plays that same piano. So the piano was definitely a focus there, a bigger part of the Korean production.

Let’s talk about some of the specific songs in the score. Right at the top, tell me where the jazz influence of this score and story came from?

Park: That was one of the very first ideas I came up with, in the first email I sent Will.

Aronson: People always go, "If the pitch was so terrible—robots in love—why did you say yes when Hue pitched it?" And it’s because his pitch wasn’t robots in love. It was this image, of Oliver playing the trombone.

Park: A lonely robot lives in a studio apartment, isolated. And he loves practicing trombone at nights in the parking garage. Because it’s a big apartment complex, and he’s not allowed to make noise in his room, so he goes down to the parking garage at night and plays trombone sitting on a car. That was the first image.

Aronson: The idea of a lonely robot trying to play jazz trombone. He was saying he idolizes jazz because it’s improvisation, which is the most human thing. What’s more human that actually making up the notes over the chords? So jazz was embedded in the concept from the very beginning. And then as we developed it, one thing inspires another and another—we thought we'd have an older, out-of-date robot who’s trying to feel better about himself, convince himself that he’s still great and his owner probably still loves him. It made sense that he loves other sorts of outdated technologies that have been passed over. So he loves paper maps. He uses paper cup phones. And he loves LP players, and thinks they’re better than everything that came later.

I’m a little relieved to hear you describe that initial pitch as the bad pitch. I hope you won’t be upset to hear me say when this show was announced, the plot blurb made me really roll my eyes. It wasn’t until y’all put out the music video for “When You’re in Love” that I fully understood this was something I needed to be paying attention to, that my interest was completely piqued. And every time I tell people to go see it and they ask what it’s about, I’m like, "I’m not going to tell you because you might think it sounds stupid. But you just have to believe me it’s not."

Aronson: I think that’s really the big problem and we’ve never solved it. We’ve often said that the only reason it took off in Korea was that we were able to put up a reading. We didn’t actually have to pitch it to anyone. If we’d gone around to producers saying, "Okay, it’s two robots, but they’re in love." They would have been like, “Yeah, no.” 

So both of you have talked about this idea of isolation. I’m guessing that’s how we get the true opening number of the piece, Oliver’s “World Within My Room?”

Aronson: In the very first treatment as we were free associating, we had the melody for “Goodbye My Room” as the chorus of the first number, a song called “In My Room.” We were trying to show this loneliness and isolation. But we realized that for the arc of the story, it was more important to establish what was appealing about having a world within your room. That it can be this sort of safe place, that there’s an attachment to it. He’s buzzing about keeping busy, always busy with something, so he’s not noticing what’s missing in his life. And that lets us go for a brighter sound. It has this motor rhythm throughout it, to show that you could really keep yourself busy and not notice the things you're missing for years, decades.

Park: And I think he probably learned that from James, because James is that kind of person who didn’t want to leave his room unless there was a real reason. There’s an irony in Oliver not knowing that he’s been abandoned. We left the slower, sadder version of this song that existed first behind for that irony.

That’s something that I’ve noticed about this score too, how few up-tempo songs it has. That’s something that tends to really scare people in the theatre. How did you do that and keep the show from becoming boring, or a downer?

Aronson: That’s, again, why we wanted those “power ballad” instrumental sequences. We had this self-imposed restriction in that they don’t yet know the pain of life, or the real joy of life. That implies that it can only go so far emotionally.

It’s one of those things that on paper seems like it shouldn’t work, but it does. Kind of like the next song, “The Way That It Has to Be.” This is a song about anxiety over one’s mortality, and yet it’s so upbeat. Tell me about that decision.

Park: She’s a robot. Isn’t that the most logical decision, to make peace with your own mortality? I don’t think, if I were a HelperBot engineer or programmer or whatever, I would have programmed her or any other to be screaming fear. That’s going to cause a problem. So it is actually slightly bleak, if you think of it. She is programmed to feel okay with her own mortality.

Aronson: There’s a double thing there. They’re robots, but they’re also us. It has to always be both. When we say something like, “They’re not programmed for it,” that’s the literal reason story-wise. But the emotional reason is, until you’ve had that personal thing—she’s closed herself off to it. She hasn’t yet met Oliver, which is going to make dying not quite the same.

Park: Maybe she’s okay with it now, because she doesn’t know what she’s missing. But she will.

I also hadn’t known until the cast album came out that the background vocals in this song are the other retired HelperBots, that all of these retired robots are going through this anxiety.

Aronson: The idea is that there are these other anonymous people-slash-robots, in their own places, the other retired HelperBots are singing along. In Korea, it’s more explicit, because it’s sung by the band, and the band is on stage in other rooms that look like HelperBot rooms.

Park: It is, in a way, a metaphor, for the other half of us, going through the same thing. They’re all going through this, their own mortality.

Next up is the “Charger Exchange Ballet.” I would love to know more about how these movement sequences came about. They seem to be, for the most part, the same in the Korean and English versions, but I assume they have different staging. Did you write them on your own irrespective of staging, or were they developed in the rehearsal room in Korea?

Aronson: They’re all music first. The “Charger Exchange” was a little different because we had a full scene written, so everything that happens is very similar in the two versions. Although I think the Korean version has an extra day. A lot of things were cut for the American version. So that was very meticulously written to our scenario of that scene. The other ones were all written on, like, a bullet point description of what the sequence was, and then existed as these big, giant pieces of music.

So what really struck me in “Where You Belong” is that both the English and Korean lyrics are all these phrases that keep coming back to Oliver’s name, and your ability to do that kind of blows my mind, like a magic trick.

Park: That song was music first, too. We knew what the song was, and what the scene was going to be about. We knew what the song should say.

Aronson: Our very first demo had a whole dummy lyric, but it came back to Oliver, with a melisma that gives it a slight poppiness. In English, it’s denser and we had to make peace with that. But it’s in the same spot, and that’s from the Korean. The whole structure of the Korean one is “Thank you, Oliver.” In English, we really had to justify that idea of “Where You Belong” in the script by setting up that idea and dealing with it. In Korea, it was much easier to set up because “Thank you, Oliver” was such a running theme of the show. We were so used to it being that, which made it hard to realize there was no way to preserve it in English. We went through so many versions. But “Where You Belong” ended up working, because his room is like his little cocoon, but it’s really like a little pod that’s been shot out of the mothership.

How did you land on the names Oliver and Claire? Specifically, I would love to know why you chose to go with such anglo names.

Park: Wow, I haven’t thought about that in so long. So at first, Claire was Chloe, a little more contemporary name. Will and I both thought that it was too contemporary. And we went with English names because we thought they were almost like pets for the owners. I named my first dog Happy because that was one of the English words that I knew at the time as a Korean kid. Koreans are used to names like that, or coming up with nicknames in English. It almost felt like it would be too uncanny valley if they were named with Korean names. And James probably lived outside Korea for a long time and then he moved back there. That’s why he loves mid-century American culture. He loves American jazz. So James, he gave himself an English name. And it makes a lot more sense for him to name him Oliver.

Aronson: We also thought that James’ son, for many reason, is maybe rebelling about a lot of things from James’ life, one of them being the use of the English name. He’s stuck to his Korean name and didn’t take on an English name.

Park: Oliver just sounded like one of those names that’s classic. It’s not too weird. It’s familiar enough. But it’s not trendy. Oh, and we also both love [film writer-director] Mike Mills, and in one of his movies, the main character’s name in Oliver. I think that probably affected us too.

I noticed that the Korean counterpart for “Goodbye My Room” is also “Goodbye My Room.” Tell me about that.

Park: That’s a little bit of pop influence. If you listen to K-pop these days, like half the lyrics are in English and the other half is in Korean. Just saying one phrase in English is very common for Korean listeners. That was the hook, “Goodbye my room.” And then for the rest of the song, they say the same lyric but in Korean.

Aronson: That’s also something they say. In Korean, it’s sort of a stylistic mannerism, and I think we justified it because, even though they’re robots, they clearly have the capability of going into the equivalent of a stylistic gesture.

Park: They have the setting, right.

“The Rainy Day We Met” has another lyrical magic trick to me, in that both the Korean and English versions somehow both have the same Santa joke in them. How on earth did you do that.

Aronson: Well, we cheated though. The melody is different. That was for the sake of the line. They have different counter melodies there to make it. But, yeah, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Park: We thought it was important to keep that joke. We worked out several different versions of it in English—

Aronson: Yeah all the way through even Broadway previews. We kept wording it differently to see which was funniest.

Then we get to “Jenny,” which I believe is the first song fully unique to the English version. How did changes like that come to be? Do you think of them as separate shows, or just separate productions with different directors and slightly different focuses?

Aronson: “Jenny” actually came about before [director] Michael [Arden] got involved. I think it was a concert in Korea in 2017. The Korean version was a little ukulele strumming-type song, and we just thought we had an opportunity for  a bigger song, a real number in there.

Park: Especially when we knew we were going to expand the band.

Aronson: Yes, this was for a summer concert that was going to have a whole brass band. We wanted to write a new jazz song for that character. And when we did our first reading with Michael, we had both songs. We didn’t know what we wanted. He said just pick whatever is our favorite, and we went with “Jenny,” and then we never looked back. In Korea, we only did it at that concert. It never went into the actual show.

Park: At that point, everyone was really attached to the Korean song that goes there. We’ll just wait until we get to bring the American version to Korea in the future.

I was going to ask if that was in the works, if these will continue to exist as separate versions, of if you want there to be one version of the show, just in two languages.

Park: I think everyone who’s involved with the show in Korea is hoping to eventually bring the Broadway version to Korea, too, and maybe have both versions. If not simultaneous, maybe in one season we do the original Korean version, and the next season we do the Broadway version. I think that’s everybody’s hope.

The lyrics to “Jenny” are so great, and really mimic that wordplay of the great lyricists of the Great American Songbook. Who did you look to when modeling those?

Park: Oh I remember we talked a lot about “Orange Colored Sky,” that was one of the inspirations.

Aronson: “Polka Dots and Moonbeams.” Not maybe specifically for “Jenny,” but we listened to all those songs. We were consciously trying to write something that sounded like that.

So thinking specifically about “How to Not Be Alone,” as you’re writing this show about robots, but in a very emotional medium, how did you navigate what was and was not too emotional for a robot?

Aronson: We had a sort of meter. We would play the songs for each other, and if we felt it had tipped over, we just knew. Sometimes Hue would say, "We could go further, a little bigger, hold a note here." “How to Not Be Alone” stays pretty mellow. Even the high notes are not belted out.

Park: I remember that first, we were a little scared that maybe it was too mellow for that point in the story, because it’s midway through. Did we need to make a little more oomph. But at the time, we were embracing that. We wanted it to be like an indie movie. We weren’t trying to make a superhero movie with lots of spectacle. Let’s embrace the gentleness. That’s one of the lyrics that I was so proud of myself for coming up with. You don’t get to see that kind of gentle, whispery lyrics in musical theatre a lot in Korea.

Did you have a set of guidelines on how emotionally complex Oliver could be versus Claire because of their models?

Aronson: Absolutely, because of their technology, and also their personality type. We had little rules. Oliver says things more stiffly. And he goes step by step. Claire will speak in a much more human way, with emotion.

Park: It reminds me of the prologue in the very first Korean version that we cut later. It said that for HelperBot 3s, they program 300 different emotions. And for the HelperBot 5, it would be like 20,000 emotions. We were trying to come up with some sort of ground rule like that. But we figured out we didn’t need to say that. We can just show it.

Aronson: With “How to Not Be Alone,” what we talked a lot about is that it’s not actually a love song. Outside the context of this show, it might be. But in that moment, she’s like we literally have to spend time together, and it’s hard.

The other thing I really notice about this score that makes it stand apart from most of what’s on Broadway otherwise is the singing range. For the last few decades, Broadway writing has been pretty maniacal about keeping singers at absolute extreme edges of their abilities as much as possible, and Maybe Happy Ending almost never takes it there. It’s really refreshing. But was that character and story, or just your aesthetic and taste?

Aronson: I think you can look at it from both sides. Why did we pick a story about robots? Maybe it’s because we felt overstimulated. This whole discussion now about dopamine, that with overstimulation it starts to lose any meaning. I think we wanted to cleanse for ourselves, and therefore chose writing about robots. But then choosing to write about robots dictated all of those choices, so it’s a self-reinforcing thing. We want to take things down so they have meaning again.

So “Hitting the Road.” The third time that song comes in the show specifically, it’s new to the American version, replacing an entirely different song?

Aronson: The Korean song, “Driving,” Hue never liked because he thought it sounded too musical theatre. He had it on the chopping block forever. I mean we love it—it shows them annoying each other, and getting a little closer. But in the tighter American version, we thought having a charming, low-stakes bickering song was maybe not the most exciting or dramatic choice. In Atlanta, we cut out like half of the song, just to get through it quickly. But then it’s like, what’s the point.

Park: There’s a dramaturgical reason, but also a musical reason, a sonic reason. We realized we could just cut that song and bring back “Hitting the Road.”

Aronson: Partial songs are always disappointing, so why not just reprise something? They’re on the road. They are, in fact, hitting the road.

Park: “Driving” is one of the Korean audiences’ favorite songs.

Aronson: Yes, people are very scandalized that we cut that. But I love the new reprise. I love that it can be shorter because it’s a reprise. It doesn’t have to establish itself. And we can check in with how they’ve changed since the last time they sang it. Now she’s concerned with him.

Then we get to “Chasing Fireflies.” Tell me why this comes back to “Where You Belong?”

Aronson: I’m glad that you noticed it does! A lot of the music you’re hearing, we think of it as reflecting the emotion that the character receives from the situation. One could say why is it James’ theme, but to us it’s not. It’s how Oliver felt when he was where he belonged and had a place, a purpose. Here, he’s kind of sharing Claire’s purpose. He left his own purpose behind and is on board with hers, which is to find the fireflies. Ironically, he feels this sense of positivity and warmth and feeling like he’s where he belongs, now on her journey. That’s the link. It’s not that it’s James. I do love that in the staging, it’s James playing piano. Everything comes together in that moment really nicely, staging-wise. But that was the musical reason.

It strikes me that this is a production, at least the Broadway iteration, that has a lot of spectacle­—Darren Criss of course famously told us specifically we should expect Phantom of the Opera-level spectacle—and it delivers that. But then there are these fireflies, which are relatively low-tech, lights on batons. With those projections, you could have had bazillions of fireflies. Tell me about that decision.

Aronson: That’s totally Michael. One of the things he’s such a genius about is finding the spectacle that fits the show. He doesn’t impose it. Here it was putting them on the tips of batons to have jazz embodied visually. But that’s spectacle too, because it’s beautiful. He finds emotional spectacle that comes out of story, out of the ideas in the story.

Well as I’ve already gushed, “When You’re in Love” is really what made me love this show the much. We did a round-up of our favorite new theatre songs of the year last December, and that was my pick, and for the nerdiest of reasons. It’s because that modulation into the final verse-chorus, whatever you want to call it, coming out of that dissonant bridge, is so transcendently beautiful. It gives me goosebumps every time. How did you do that?

Aronson: It’s a mutual aesthetic. We listen to things together a lot. I think of that as our Adam Guettel song. We both love The Light in the Piazza.

It’s totally that moment from the title song, the “I see it / Now I see it / Everywhere, it’s everywhere / It’s everything and everywhere” part. Totally.

Aronson: That is the highest compliment. We love that moment. We both felt we’d been holding back so long. We’re an hour and 15 minutes in, and they’re just now falling in love. We felt we had to finally deliver something that felt like an arrival. We were so inspired by “The Light in the Piazza,” which is so love- and emotion-embodied. It has that same kind of indie-pop mélange, but there it has more the harmonic language of the Adam Guettel world. The shape of it is not from a pop song, because it has that big, really specific, transitional build. It's Adam Guettel plus whatever our sort of pop influences were.

Park: And the orchestration for that song is so beautiful.

[Editor's note: The remainder of the conversation discusses the ending of the musical]

So I noticed the end of the show is where the American version differs the most from the Korean version.

Aronson: Yeah. There were several big songs that got cut from the Korean version, which is shocking to Korean audiences. The first big consideration was just condensing things. In this version, once they’re back from the trip, it feels like it needs to move towards a conclusion. In the Korean version, there’s a whole extra 10 minutes of Claire breaking down and how they deal with that. We were trying to portray the life cycle and using the journey in the middle as the thing that brings them together. But a journey has so much kinetic energy to it, which makes it hard to recover from the excitement of that and then settle in for the end-of-life section. 

So because of that cut, we had to find different songs to tell the story, often in a shorter form. We have much longer song sequences in the Korean version. Speaking of upbeat numbers, we cut one of the few upbeat numbers there, “First Time in Love.” And then two others, “Nevertheless” and “It’s Okay to Remember,” all of those are the most heartbreaking songs in the show. But we replaced those three with two, and they’re more condensed. That was the motivation.

I know this is tough but do you have a favorite version, or do they both exist in their own world?

Park: Theatre is like a living creature. It’s hard to say which version I like better, because it’s so much about the chemistry between the audience and the actors onstage every night, and their own relationship with the show. It’s just different. I’m going to say it, and I think Koreans are going to hate it, but I’m slightly more in love with the American version, because we are in the honeymoon period now. It’s the freshest. I’m also very proud of the extra work that we did after opening the show in Korea, for this version. So I guess for at least now, I’m more proud of the American version. But we’re going to go back to Korea in the fall and there will be a new run of the Korean version. I’m sure that will refresh my love for that version.

Aronson: I think I’m on the same page. I like all the tightening and how we slightly elevated the stakes. I don’t think it lost its emotional heart. That’s all still there. It just happens quicker. I feel bad for the actors, because it puts a lot of burden on this one scene where she has her breakdown. That scene has to sell you on everything that comes after it. In Korea, there’s more time to get the audience and the characters there. In America, it’s all one scene. I have a little bit of a guilty conscience about that, the burden on the performers.

What has surprised you the most in the process of bringing the show to Broadway?

Park: The support. Writing is very weird in that it feels so personal for the writers, and it’s almost embarrassing to put your writing out there, your emotions. We didn’t really think it was going to be a flashy Broadway production. It was coming from a personal place, and in both countries, it’s getting so much support. When the show was not making any advance sales, everyone in the theatre community worked so hard to save the show and build its audience. Seeing that support just felt like a miracle, to be honest. That’s been the most surprising.

I can tell you the Playbill Edit team was very aware of what grosses the show was turning in, and we all love it so much so we’ve been trying to give it as much love as we can. It’s been such a nice trajectory to watch, because it totally deserves where it is now. We have to see so much, and it can make really make even a huge theatre fan like me fatigued and protective of your evenings. And then you see something really good, and it just feeds you for years. Maybe Happy Ending is definitely one of those.

Park: Well don’t make me cry!

It’s only fair. You made me cry both times I saw it.

Aronson: Right! Payback time!