Does this make anyone else mad???

[TheatreJunkie3]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 6:40pm

Does it make you mad when broadway shows get turned into big screen movies?? I know some people like it because they don't have to spend so much many to go to the theatre, but that is part of what bothers me... Theatres are going to start losing money because all their shows are being turned into movies! And worst of all the movies aren't even set on stage and to me it TOTALLY loses the effect. I have seen the movie versions of both "The Phantom of the Opera" and "RENT" and was highly disappointed by both. I'm not a big fan of Rent to begin with, but I felt that Phantom was completely ruined. I feel bad for anyone who has only seen the movie version of Phantom and never the play (I've seen the actual show 2x, but the first time I was five so I don't know if that time counts...). Basically, in my opinion, the movie version does the show no justice.

So...does the whole "from stage to screen" ideal upset anyone else, or am I just weird??

~Brooke

[Dancinqueen123]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 6:58pm

I agree that it kind of looses something when you take a musical away from the theatre. When you have a show like RENT or Phantom that's already brought in TONS of revenue, it's nice to get it out there for others to see. I don't live in New York or anywhere near there, so I find it nice that I can still see a broadway show without actually going there. I also see the movie as kind of an advertisement for the show. If people love the movie, then maybe they'll get interested in other broadway shows or they'll want to go see the stage production of the movie they saw. I love the theatre, and I always have, but I knew nothing about broadway musicals until I saw the RENT movie. The movie led me to these boards and now I know about so many more musicals and shows that most people know about in a lifetime. Yes putting a musical on the big screen does loose the effect, but making it for everyone to see is something truly extraordinary!
~Kelsey

[broadway_baby_17]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 7:02pm

yea i agree with you but i believe chicago movie version is better than the broadway version

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 4/26/06 at 7:17pm

"I love the theatre, and I always have, but I knew nothing about broadway musicals until I saw the RENT movie. The movie led me to these boards and now I know about so many more musicals and shows that most people know about in a lifetime."

That's exactly how I was. I loved musicals and such, but I did not become obsessed until I saw the Rent movie, and now I've opened up to a wide variety of musicals. I personally don't see a negative effect from stage to screen.

Posted: 4/26/06 at 8:58pm

i'm getting worried about the wicked movie rumors w/ reese witherspoon as glinda.

i absolutly loveee reese, but i think she would make a horrible glinda.

wicked would totally sell itself out if it was made into a movie.

[Pippin]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 1:32pm

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Wicked sold out when they put it on Broadway. have you read the book?

and films do great business for shows. the last four films that came out are based on shows that are still running and will probable last another five years each. well, maybe not the producers.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 1:32pm

I don't think would make a good movie musical. However, and I know this has been mentioned before, I think it would do good as a dark fantasy movie based on the book.

[dramatothemax]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 1:48pm

The Rent movie killed me. I absolutely hated it. Except I love the musical. But if I get started on why I hated the movie, my post will go on forever.

I think that Wicked (the book) is very similar to the movie. There were things that were different, but when you take out lines and songs that everyone loves...I don't know. It ruins the effect of musical theatre.

And so does Las Vegas. And yes, I live in Vegas, but honestly...it's where Broadway shows, go to die. hahaha poor Avenue Q

[Zyla]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 3:08pm

I think this is an interesting topic. Most of my exposure to musicals has been through movies; I've never lived anywhere with proximity to Broadway or that gets a lot of tours. The differences in principle between movie and stage musicals has only recently struck me; I'm sure that I'm not the only one guilty of considering film and stage as similar media because both involve acting. Still, as I've said, it's only recently that I've realized that they are completely different forms of acting, and film and theatre completely different forms of media.

One difference that I find intriguing is the fact that we tend to expect reality from film, which I find ironic, since film allows for the use of more fanciful special effects. Plus, live theatre is just that, live; the actors are standing right there, in front of the audience. In theatre, however, we tend to be more accepting of the unrealistic. I think that a break from reality (or creation of a new reality) is key to the concept of musicals. In real (hah) life, most people do not communicate through song and dance - one of the worst disadvantages of reality, as we all know. On stage, we accept spontaneous song and dance routines. We accept minimal settings and actors playing multiple roles. Strangely, audiences seem to expect movies to be an extention of real life; there has to be a reason for the characters to burst into song, the scenery has to look real.

[ldysngsthbls]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 3:48pm

I think reese would actually make a decent glinda..

To be honest, I wouldnt care if they made it into a movie because I dont have any attatchment to the musical.

[WiiCKED x3]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 4:34pm

Kinda. I loved RENT when i saw it last year on broadway. But the movie was not that great because just when your getting into a scene, there's a song. And i know what the term 'musical' means but i mean come on there was too many songs in a movie. A movies not just supposed to be about songs but more dialouge between the charecters (sorry if i spelled that wrong, my keys aren't working right)

[TheatreJunkie3]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 7:38pm

I guess I can see your points too...I guess my main problem is that with movies they change a lot of things from the musicals. Words, even songs, are changed and it takes away from the original effect. For example, in the movie version of Phantom some of the songs were changed and it really bothered me. It got to one point of a familiar song and I was like..."WHAT?? That's not how it goes!". LOL.

So yeah, you guys did make valid points. I guess I didn't take into consideration that a lot of people are only able to be exposed to these shows through movies. I suppose I'd like most of them better if they just filmed the show being performed on stage...I have seen that done before and it (in my opinion) is much better than trying to actually make the show into a movie...but that is just my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I highly respect film actors/actresses too!! It is still a form of acting and has it's definate challenges...I just get a bit disappointed with the final result of many "musical movies". :)
Updated On: 4/27/06 at 07:38 PM

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 8:07pm

i'm waiting for a director with an intense and unique vision to make a GOOD movie musical.

i don't dissaprove of them. i just don't like the watered down crap that they're feeding us.

GAH

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 8:25pm

It only makes me mad when they turn out really bad like the Rent movie. Because then you have a very poor representation of a great show, and a completely blown creative opportunity.

What I love is when you have these films turn out like The Sound of Music and West Side Story. Those films are magical.

[Dancinqueen123]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 10:01pm

"It only makes me mad when they turn out really bad like the Rent movie."

That's probably because you know the show and have actually seen the stage production. Most people have not. I personally fell in love with the Rent movie, but that's only because I didn't know any different. I bet if I saw the stage show now I would despise the movie. It's all a matter of what you know and don't know.

[pemberlee]

Posted: 4/27/06 at 11:44pm

I think it's best to view movie musicals as a new interpretation of the original, just like movies based on books. The new Pride and Prejudice, for instance, changes several things about the book, but it's a good movie on it's own and if it inspires people to read the novel then so much the better.

I feel the same way about the RENT movie. It may not match your own vision of the show, but I think they tried hard and if it leads to more musical theatre fans then I am all for it.

[TheatreJunkie3]

Posted: 4/28/06 at 5:59pm

^^^ (good post)

[catstagestud]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 8:17pm

Here's my gripe about the movie musical: With three of the last four films (RENT, Phantom, and Producers) the artistic vision that is needed to translate a stage production to film was lost.

The Producers was simply the stage version on a huge screen. Phantom lost the majority of its merit in the direction. Schumacher didn't bring anything new or exciting to it. In addition, ALW lost his marbles when he gave the go-ahead for Gerard Butler to play the Phantom. Casting was probably the biggest mistake in Phantom's case. I enjoyed about two things in Phantom: the costuming and the cinemetography.

What Chicago had that the others lack is a creative prospective; the film is through the jaded eyes of Roxie Hart. The reason that all the songs worked was because it was an extension of Roxie's imagination. Luckily Bill Condon wrote this amazing script and hopefully has applied a vision that will make Dreamgirls pop out to audiences. Even with Beyonce and Jamie Foxx the movie could critically/financially bomb due to a lack artistic merit. However, I whole-heartedly believe in Condon and think that Dreamgirls could boost the movie musical genre up a notch.

Cheers,

Christopher

[smiles]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 9:53am

honestly I love the idea of movie musicals.....only because not everyone lives near the theatre. I'd have to have alot of money and travel at least 9 hours (by car) to go to an actual theatre (regional or broadway).Conidering I'm a poor student flying is out of the question. Seeing the movie defninitly does not replace seeing it on stage if anything seeing the movie just makes me mad that I don't live anywhere near broadway. But seeing the movies are all I have now. Planning on taking this huge trip to NY in 4 years. You have no idea how excited I am.

[TweetyBird]

Posted: 5/4/06 at 10:20am

I also live far away from NYC so it's not really possible for me to go see the Broadway productions of the shows. I’m glad when they make musicals into movies because it brings in so many more people to appreciate them. Maybe it will create sparks in people to want to do musical theater. On the other hand I do resent when they put in big named stars (and most of them say they have never sung in their life) to play the lead roles instead of actual singers/Broadway people.

Over all I like the movies because not everyone lives near Broadway or a regional theater so it gives those people a chance to see some interpretation of it. But I don’t like it when people who have a name, but can’t sing all that great, get put in the lead roles.

PS- Even thought I adore her, I don’t think Reese should play Galinda in Wicked if they make it into a film. She doesn’t have the vocals for it and if Kristen Chenoweth was good enough to do it on stage why not film?