ROCK OF AGES transforms from stage to screen

[darquegk]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 10:41am

It's looking like the Rock of Ages film is going to be almost a completely different animal than the stage version- different song list, lots of new characters, and the like, with only the main songs and basic plotline of the main characters remaining. In my personal opinion, this is probably a very good idea, as the script performed onstage is EXTREMELY stagey, and in fact embraces the conventions of the stage and lack of fourth wall for audience participation throughout, which would not work on screen (unless used jokingly, as in the Bill Murray monologue and song at the end of "Scrooged").

What are your thoughts on this? Do you prefer your movie musicals to be extremely faithful, or to find their own identity as films?

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 10:54am

I personally like them to remain faithful to the original stage production but adapted to fit cinematic terms. Enough with adding characters that weren't there to begin with.

NINE worked for me completely, as did CHICAGO. I wish DREAMGIRLS kept it's sung-thru form from beginning to end AND had been a bit more Diana Ross-ish flashy (what?! No huge and spectacular over-the-top Las Vegas production number for Deena and The Dreams?! -- are you kidding me?!). And in many ways, I wish MAMMA MIA! kept the tone of the stage production and not that goofy/silly Disney-esque tone.

Regardless of what the consensus has to say about it, I will always say that the original 1962 film adaptation of GYPSY is completely faithful to the stage version -- even with Roz Russell's narration. Same thing with WEST SIDE STORY, FUNNY GIRL and SOUTH PACIFIC.

THE SOUND OF MUSIC is a perfect example of how to IMPROVE from its stage source. They virtually rewrote the film adaptation AND made it work. It actually became BETTER than the original stage production... in many ways.

[JP2]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 11:15am

Well, Zeta-Jones and Will Forte are the only "new" characters in the ROA movie. I've also seen the song list, and it's pretty much the same as it was on Broadway, plus or minus just a handful of songs. But that really can be said about every modern musical adaptation in the last decade.
Updated On: 7/12/11 at 11:15 AM

[BeingAlive2]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 11:56am

I do not really have an opinion as to if it's better or worse to keep to the stage adaptation. However, if a show is popular enough to make a sustainable movie, then the production it is based off of must have some importance to the movie and its staging.

Then again, it depends on directors, casting, and movie scripts as well. There are some movies supposedly being made that if they are based off of the original production, I see them being complete disasters (not naming names...spring awakening...)

But back to RoA, the only problem I see with it is Tom Cruise...for some reason all I can see him doing is acting like he did in Austin Powers: Goldmember. I am not really sure why though.

[JP2]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 12:16pm

I get more of a "Tropic Thunder" vibe.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 12:23pm

True.

Anyone questioning Tom Cruise's talent, just take a look at him in TROPIC THUNDER and that whopper of a film: MAGNOLIA. He's more than capable of doing ROCK OF AGES justice.

[jpbran]

Posted: 7/12/11 at 2:17pm

"Cabaret" is considered a classic film despite being stripped of almost all "book" songs from the Broadway production. Like "Grease," several songs are played as instrumentals instead of sung. In all honesty, "Cabaret" really isn't even a true movie musical as most all of the songs are "performance" numbers in the club.

Can you imagine if BWW, Facebook, Twitter, etc. were around when "Cabaret" was in development and released?