Sweeny Todd Debacle- Page 2

[IsolatingAge]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 9:55am

I think the real problem that we're all avoiding here... is that it's spelled Sweeney.

Carry on with your argument :)

[Chason]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 10:53am

"Your post is too long and to be honest I can't be bothered to read it. "


If your avitar is anything like your personality... no wonder!
Hell - the woman couldn't even finish her piano recital. LOL

[Chason]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 10:59am

"The Washington Post is reporting this morning that the film is now 160 minutes."

Good Lord - any way I can rent a time machine long enough to take back my entire post???
160 minutes? Thank you! That works for me!

[Roscoe]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 11:07am

Folks.

No one has seen the movie yet. It might be great. It might suck. We can't be sure until we've actually seen the damn thing.

My fingers are crossed. I'm more optimistic after having seen the trailers. But it wouldn't be the first time that a promising trailer was made for a bad film.

[Chason]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 11:08am

" Since there is a DVD of SWEENEY TODD as a stage musical you should get that version and just not worry about the Hollywood version. "

That is SO not the point! But a pointless argument now. At 160 minutes it's clear that Sweeny Todd will be Tim Burton's bizarre masterpice. The film he was destined to make. Thanks for the tip, though. I live in the real world, however. Knowing that there is some old DVD that has a filmed version of the stage show, is not quite satisfying enough for me. But I get where you were going.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 11:15am

The Washington Post is wrong. The film is about one hour and 50 minutes.

>I remember reading that Johanna was turned into a non-singing role so that eliminates "Green Finch and Linnet Bird", which is around 4-5 minutes.<

"Green Finch" is in the movie.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 11:15am

1) It's SweenEy Todd.

2) You haven't seen the musical or the movie, so how do you know you would've enjoyed the musical? Maybe that would change your opinion of the movie's length (even though now there are reports of it being 160 minutes).

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 11:17am

Good Lord - any way I can rent a time machine long enough to take back my entire post???


Show of hands?

[Pippin]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 11:18am

Chason, how can you get so upset at rumors, when you yourself don't even know the source material? please, know what you are talking about first, and then you can make these posts, but until then, you are just typing for nothing.

these other movies you mentioned- Hello, Dolly, Oklahoma, Oliver, they all took liberties and had to depart from thier stage counterparts. screen is an entirely different medium than stage, and certain things have to be changed.

It's like what Stephen King said about his books being turned into films, but I think you can also apply it to stage works being turned into film. "books and movies are like apples and oranges; they are totally different from eachother, but they are both delicious"

just calm down, first rent the Angela Landsbury version, then see the film, then if you want to complain, you have the right to.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 5:27pm

If you want to see Sweeney Todd as it was written go ahead and pick up one of the two DVDs that already exist of the show. They are quite good, except for the screeching of Betsy. There is really no need to complain about a movie you haven't seen, and of corse it is going to differ a bit from the original, if you put 50 million in to a product wouldn't you want it to appeal to the masses. An opera on the big screen won't pay off. Theatre fans are a very small portion of the movie going public, and lets not forget what happens to faithful screen adaptions, Phantom really needed some more cuts and to be streamlined in order to do well here in the states, instead they stuck to the original pretty well and it almost tanked. Then there was Rent... they cut the heart out of the show, left the rest in tact rather than trying to adapt it properly for the screen. Broadway shows HAVE to be properly adapted to make it on the big screen. Rather than complaining before it comes out, wait and see if it works.

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 5:38pm

Found in FAQ's...

8. <- See that? See how it's bold? Make it bold by inserting text in between < b> and < /b >, without the spaces.
So...bold would look like this

< b >bold< /b > WITHOUT THE SPACES.

Italics, would be < i > < /i >
Underline, would be < u > < /u >
You can also combine the tags, like so

Just thought I'd put it out there.

[bandit964]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 6:09pm

this is stupid. why can't a director re-interpret a story to be his own? when stephen sondheim wrote his version of the musical, it was his adaptaion of an already infamous folk-tale, or book, or whatever the hell it was before (i'm not quite sure) but i know he did not create the story of sweeney todd. so why when tim burton directs HIS version of the film, does he have to stick to everything stephen sondheim did in HIS version. it is stupid and selfish to expect the story of sweeney todd to have to stay exactly how it was interpretted in the musical version. john doyles revival was quite different from the original production as well. were you pissed about THAT production as well? or did you not care? or do you really not know what they hell youre talking about to begin with. youve never seen the movie or the stage version, so your arguments are in-valid. i am very excited to see what tim burton has done with the movie. he might take it in a vry different direction, but that doesnt mean it will be bad. plus, you complaiined that they dumbed it down by speaking more than singing. i dont see how that is dumbed down. some ppl would like that better. it is all to each's preference. if i liked dialogue more, i would be very offended if you called that being dumbed down. you are just ignorant and should stop now.

[ByTheSea920]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 6:28pm

Dear lord.

How can you get so upset about a director re-imagining something you've never even seen?
No offense....but that doesn't exactly add a whole lot of credibility to the opinion you're ranting about...so to sum up my opinion of this thread....please, chill out.

And just to add my two cents, what is the big freaking deal about Burton making Sweeney into his own vision? Theater and art are meant to be reinterpretted. This obviously isn't going to be a replica of the stage version. Accept it. Who knows, you might even LIKE it a little bit if you give it a chance.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 6:58pm

Smaxie thanks for the correction.

[Chason]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 8:44pm

" when stephen sondheim wrote his version of the musical, it was his adaptaion of an already infamous folk-tale, or book, or whatever the hell it was before (i'm not quite sure) but i know he did not create the story of sweeney todd. so why when tim burton directs HIS version of the film, does he have to stick to everything stephen sondheim did in HIS version. it is stupid and selfish to expect the story of sweeney todd to have to stay exactly how it was interpretted in the musical version. john doyles revival was quite different from the original production as well. were you pissed about THAT production as well? or did you not care? or do you really not know what they hell youre talking about to begin with. youve never seen the movie or the stage version, so your arguments are in-valid.
_______________________________________________________________
BITCHY! BECAUSE Tim Burton is filming (DUH!!) the MUSICAL version! He's not re-interpruting the original "folk tale".
My argument about trunkating a musical from 2 1/2 hours to 90 minutes (though I now think that running time has changed) is VERY valid. Maybe someday some one will write an old "folk tale" about your hateful self! Not that anyone would bother to READ it!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 9:18pm

A friend of mine form the agency we are at together is in the film and shot for 24 of the filming days (its should have been longer but after the problems with depps daughter it was cut down)

They are huge sweeney fans and watched a lot of this been filmed and said that its very different from the stage show and a lot of the music has been cut,at the same time though they said it looks amazing.

[grnsmwhr]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 10:31pm

I loved the Phantom movie. Emmy Rossum was gorgeous.

[SDav 10495]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 10:39pm

Well when someone finally adapts this thread for the big screen, I know I want them to stick exactly to the hilarious source material.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 12:24am

I've never been more convinced that Chason is a sock puppet. I refuse to believe that this character would know the word debacle.

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 10:37am

How about we just forget movie musicals entirely. Is that what we want? Without reinterpretation or casting big stars, the average American, and by that I mean about 97% of us, WON'T SEE THE MOVIE! Do you think Hairspray was a hit because of the show? No, it was because of the cast! Did Chicago win the Oscar because it stuck so faithfully to the stage version? Hell no, if it did, even the die-hard fans would have fallen asleep! The Producers, which slavishly followed the show, bombed. Seriously, reimagining and recasting movie musicals are the life-blood of the art form as far as most of America goes (sad, but true). As long as a property isn't completely destroyed in the process, I say let a director do what they can. If it gets more people interested in theater, even if it's just a few, GREAT. If it pisses us, the theater geeks, off, oh well, we still have the stage version!

[Miss.Vanessi]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 10:53am

Can we just accept that Chason is a troll? I think it's pretty obvious now that he's fighting with himself and trying so very hard to make his grammar and sentence STRUCTURE appear DIFFERENT.

And for the argument- as long as Burton doesn't turn it into a nearly all-dancing film, a la MGM's treatment of Brigadoon, I'm fine.

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 10:55am

So you read another rumor that says the movie is 160 minutes and all of a sudden you're sure that this will be Burton's "masterpiece?" Seriously? I say go rent Sleepy Hollow and then tell me if you don't want to wait and watch the movie first before deciding it will be a masterpiece.

[worrell4077]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 3:11pm

CAN we all just RELAX about the SWEENEY todd MOVIE? THE film hasn't even been RELEASED to the GENERAL public yet, SO no ONE knows FOR sure how the FILM is yet.

Besides, SONDHEIM saw the film and he ENJOYED it and he said that he was FINE with it being DIFFERENT from the STAGE show.

[RetroBoy]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 4:16pm

*head - - -> desk*

[Pippin]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 4:34pm

I love Sleepy Hollow.