Dave the Musical - Page 2

[devonian.t]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 5:33am

bk that's a very fair point, but it doesn't negate the fact that it has always been the case that musicals have adapted other source material.

If we were to eradicate all adapted material musicals we would lose She Loves Me, Fiddler on the Roof, Cabaret, Sweeney Todd, The Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables (the last 3 all keeping the title of the original sources).

But the key point is about writing a new piece, rather than transferring slabs of the original screenplay and chucking in some vaguely suitable tunes.

If the writers of Dave are RE-CONCEIVING it as a musical, maybe it will be great,  And it certainly shouldn't be written off just because a film was the source material.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 3:46pm

But the creators back then wanted their musicals to survive on their own, not be dragged along by some movie brand.  They wanted to create something NEW and they did. 

Well, it really sounds like you're more hung up on the title than anything else.  And there has been much on the subject about how the distancing from the source material actually inhibited a lot of the musical adaptations of the golden age, such as with Here's Love, Take Me Along or Breakfast at Tiffany's.  A new title doesn't mean a better show, just as leveraging a popular title doesn't mean they aren't creating something new or different.  Such as the case with The Full Monty, Billy Elliot, Kiss of the Spider Woman, La Cage aux Folles, Grand Hotel, Sunset Boulevard, The Producers, Thoroughly Modern Millie or Hairspray.  And for the record, I loved Legally Blonde (especially the superior London production) even moreso than the film.  Despite using the same title, to me, it played like classic musical comedy.

[bk]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 3:58pm

devonian.t said: "bk that's a very fair point, but it doesn't negate the fact that it has always been the case that musicals have adapted other source material.

If we were to eradicate all adapted material musicals we would lose She Loves Me, Fiddler on the Roof, Cabaret, Sweeney Todd, The Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables(the last 3 all keeping the title of the original sources).

But the key point is about writing a new piece, rather than transferring slabs of the original screenplay and chucking in some vaguely suitable tunes.

If the writers of Dave are RE-CONCEIVING it as a musical, maybe it will be great, And it certainly shouldn't be written off just because a film was the source material."

Sorry, what's really being talked about here is the need and proliferation of musicals based on films of the late 80s, 90s, and even into the 2000s.  They are done for venal, crass reasons - to capitalize on brands, on titles - everyone who produces and/or creates these things goes into them with the same thought: "Ooh, everyone remembers that film from (whatever 90s or 2000s film) and so we have a built-in audience."  That is the reason those musicals exist.  That's what people are going on about and enough already, seriously.  Of course, they fail much more often than they hit but why do you think shows like The First Wives Club, Secondhand Lions and on and on and on and on and on exist.  They exist for the reasons stated above.  You can't equate Les Miz or Phantom or Sweeney to what's going on now.  The latter two were not really based on film versions, they were based on the source novels, and Sweeney was based on a play, not the film version.  

[bk]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:05pm

Mister Matt said: "But the creators back then wanted their musicals to survive on their own, not be dragged along by some movie brand. They wanted to create something NEW and they did.

Well, it really sounds like you're more hung up on the title than anything else. And there has been much on the subject about how the distancing from the source material actually inhibited a lot of the musical adaptations of the golden age, such as with Here's Love, Take Me Along or Breakfast at Tiffany's. A new title doesn't mean a better show, just as leveraging a popular title doesn't mean they aren't creating something new or different. Such as the case with The Full Monty, Billy Elliot, Kiss of the Spider Woman, La Cage aux Folles, Grand Hotel, Sunset Boulevard, The Producers, Thoroughly Modern Millie or Hairspray. And for the record, I loved Legally Blonde (especially the superior London production) even moreso than the film. Despite using the same title, to me, it played like classic musical comedy."

I'm glad you like Legally Blonde - I found it dreadful in every way.  And of your list, how many are based on movies of the last two decades?  Hmmm.  But I'm not "hung up" on anything - You think Take Me Along should have been Ah, Wilderness, The Musical?  I don't.  And funny, ain't it, about Here's Love, which is now called Miracle on 34th Street, The Musical - why?  Because NOW they want the BRAND.  Then they didn't.  NOW they call Sugar Some Like it Hot, The Musical because NOW they want the BRAND.  And what is your point about Breakfast at Tiffany's?  Originally called Holly Golightly, they changed it because they mistakenly thought the title would get butts in seats.  You know the outcome.  

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:15pm

"Ooh, everyone remembers that film from (whatever 90s or 2000s film) and so we have a built-in audience."

You honestly think Dave was that wildly popular?  That the title alone is the reason investors will be eager to line up to produce it?  I don't remember it being a pop culture phenomenon or even considered an enduring classic.  I could see it being a trivia question, a list item under the name "Kevin Kline" or perhaps pop up in a discussion of favorite forgotten films of the 90s, but let's not pretend this particular title is some desperate attempt at a huge money grab.  It actually could be that someone thought the source material would lend itself well to a musical adaptation.  I've always felt that way about Heart and Souls since the first time I saw it back in 1993.  Does that mean I only wish to leverage a brand?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:36pm

And funny, ain't it, about Here's Love, which is now called Miracle on 34th Street, The Musical - why?  Because NOW they want the BRAND.  Then they didn't.  NOW they call Sugar Some Like it Hot, The Musical because NOW they want the BRAND.  

And in the case of both, it was often thought that NOT leveraging the title was a mistake.  Here's Love was always a terrible title for a musical based on Miracle on 34th Street and Sugar was considered a fairly strong show that had trouble developing an audience.  Some Like It Hot may have brought in more advance.  It's not "funny", it's smart.  Because if you want to produce those shows today, you're going to have a MASSIVE uphill climb to sell tickets based on their original titles as they were never established as known hits.

And what is your point about Breakfast at Tiffany's?  Originally called Holly Golightly, they changed it because they mistakenly thought the title would get butts in seats.  You know the outcome.  

I do know the outcome.  Distancing itself by changing the title didn't change the quality of the material.  Criticizing a show based on your supposition of the motives of the creators with respect to "branding" is just a prejudice that disregards everything else about the product and process.

[tourboi]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 4:44pm

Mr Roxy said: "Why must every movie be made into a musical? This seems to be the new trend."

I wonder if back in the early 90s/80s there was a similar outrage along the lines of "Why must every classic book be made into a musical?"

Adaptation has always been a thing... whether a movie, book, play.... 

[bk]

Posted: 9/4/17 at 6:11pm

Mister Matt said: "And funny, ain't it, about Here's Love, which is now called Miracle on 34th Street, The Musical - why? Because NOW they want the BRAND. Then they didn't. NOW they call Sugar Some Like it Hot, The Musical because NOW they want the BRAND.

And in the case of both, it was often thought that NOT leveraging the title was a mistake. Here's Love was always a terrible title for a musical based on Miracle on 34th Streetand Sugar was considered a fairly strong show that had trouble developing an audience. Some Like It Hot may have brought in more advance. It's not "funny", it's smart. Because if you want to produce those shows today, you're going to have a MASSIVE uphill climb to sell tickets based on their original titles as they were never established as known hits.

And what is your point about Breakfast at Tiffany's? Originally called Holly Golightly, they changed it because they mistakenly thought the title would get butts in seats. You know the outcome.

I do know the outcome. Distancing itself by changing the title didn't change the quality of the material. Criticizing a show based on your supposition of the motives of the creators with respect to"branding" is just a prejudice that disregards everything else about the product and process."

 

Says you, my friend, says you.  They stayed away from The Miracle on 34th Street and Some Like It Hot because they WANTED to.  Was it a mistake?  Not back then it wasn't.  Neither of those shows would have done better had they used the movie titles.  But then you'd probably think a smash hit like Hello, Dolly! (some would say that's not a very strong title) should have been called The Matchmaker because people would have heard of that play and film.  No.  And you'd think a smash hit like Promises, Promises should have been called The Apartment, The Musical because, you know, it was an Oscar-winning film from a mere nine years prior.  No.  Neither of those shows wanted to use the movie title and both of those shows were massive successes without them.   Today is a different world and taking movies of the past two decades, no matter WHAT is ALL about branding.  That's movie crap, not theater, I'm afraid.  But let's add up the flop to hit ratio on this and let me know what you find.

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/5/17 at 9:10am

You sound like a lunatic.  A lunatic who pretends to know the motivations of others and who actually does not know what I would or would not think.  You say a musical adaptation of Dave is all about branding. That's funny, but not convincing.

That's movie crap, not theater, I'm afraid.

We get it.  If they keep the original title, it's all about branding because you can read minds. As long as they choose (preferably) a movie older than 20-something years (whatever arbitrary term you deem appropriate) and change the title, you're okay with it (but probably not because it was only okay back then but not now). Or something like that.  It sounds like you've decided that if you suspect a musical is about branding then it is automatically garbage.  That's wonderful for you.  Have a great life.

But let's add up the flop to hit ratio on this and let me know what you find.

Go for it and have a ball.  It wasn't my point, so there is no "let's" so, I;m afraid you're on your own, but enjoy yourself.  Okaybye.

 

[HiredMan]

Posted: 9/5/17 at 11:15am

Back to Dave, The Musical--

I hear it's happening at a regional theater (where it would make sense, given its subject matter) in the next season.  BUT who ever knows about these things.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 2/6/18 at 12:08pm

Does anyone know if this cast or any of them will be doing the Arena Stage run?

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/6/18 at 12:48pm

I actually find "Dave the Musical" less offensive in the adaption genre only because it's pretty obscure. It's one thing to adapt "La La Land" to a full fledged musical, but a small 90s movie most don't remember? Pretty obscure. I think the "hits" of the past decade have all been obscure movie titles or books - The Band's Visit, Light in the Piazza, Once, heck, even Wicked - so I'm not sure much can be said in terms of wanting the "brand."