Greatest Movie Musicals of All Time- Page 2

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 7:45pm

I have a soft spot for Meet Me in St. Louis as well, babygiraffeboots.

I also must add my undying love for STATE FAIR!!!!!

Updated On: 1/27/05 at 07:45 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 9:56pm

DON'T YOU MEAN "MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS?"


CLANG, CLANG, CLANG WENT THE TROLLEY
DING, DING, DING WENT THE BELL
ZING, ZING, ZING WENT MY HEART STRINGS
FROM THE MOMENT I SAW HIM I FELL
CHUG, CHUG, CHUG WENT THE MOTOR
BUMP, BUMP, BUMP WENT THE BRAKE. . .


:: RIDES AWAY :: Updated On: 1/27/05 at 09:56 PM

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 9:59pm

SUE ME BUT I HAVE A SOFT SPOT FOR THE 1962 VERSION OF "STATE FAIR". DIG ANN-MARGRET PUT A HIGHLY SEXUAL SPIN ON "ISN'T IT KINDA FUN"!
WOWZA!!!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 10:02pm

That is actually the first version of STATE FAIR that I saw and I really liked it, but alas I have never seen it again. And yes, I meant MEET ME and not TELL ME. I am drugged up on Nyquil so just be glad that I remembered my screen name to sign on.

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:13pm

is that the one with that "Jenny" song..?

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:19pm

Yes, the one with that "Jenny" song.

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:21pm

Yes, Spider recommended I see it, so I rented it. IMO it was boring and overproduced. Julie has a beautiful voice though, don't get me wrong but it's no "Mary Poppins" by any stretch of the imagination. Updated On: 1/27/05 at 11:21 PM

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:36pm

There is no such thing as an overproduced movie musical to me. I can see how someone could find it boring; and the fact is, that I couldn't care less about Gertrude Lawrence, I care about Julie Andrews. The film is a Julie Andrews buffet! And, yes, it is no Mary Poppins - few films are.

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:47pm

Off Topic: I see you're a big Julie fan Feodor. I like your avatar. "Tamarind Seed" was a very good movie.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/27/05 at 11:57pm

"even the wizard of oz - they cut the jitterbug and the over the rainbow reprise and that just makes me so mad."

CATS, do you have the DVD? The special features has the audio for these, as well as short video clips and stills from the scenes.

Sound of Music- actual Alps in the background are sooo much better than any set.

Peter Pan with Mary Martin- you know you were upset when the flashlight Tinkerbell drank the Red Poisoned Milk. My grandma taped it for me and I watched it constantly. Why isn't this available on DVD?

Updated On: 1/27/05 at 11:57 PM

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:02am

I don't think PETER PAN qualifies, unless it's Disney's version, which is a movie. Also, I'm pretty sure I DO have it on DVD.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:06am

the Mary Martin peter pan is on DVD. It's just out of print. but you can get it on Amazon for 279 bucks.

and yes I have the wizard of oz DVD. But both scenes (jitterbug and rainbow reprise) were filmed and put into the film and shown before preview audiences. but the footage was destroyed. shame on them. the movie to me, know, is incomplete. that's why I prefer to see the wizard of oz on stage instead of watching the film. Updated On: 1/28/05 at 12:06 AM

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:13am

"Peter Pan" doesn't technically qualify because it was shown on television. I think this thread refers to Movie (as in big screen) Musicals.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:21am

The Annie remake, the Music Man remake and CATS have all been mentioned previously and they were shown on TV as opposed to a theatrical release.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:26am

I did consider the TV remakes. I didn't consider the Mary Martin or Cathy Rigby PETER PAN's for the same reason that I consider SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE, INTO THE WOODS, etc. I consider them more of a taping of the actual stage production, which both PETER PAN's were - they were without original direction (for film,) etc.

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:34am

PETER PAN doesn't qualify, not because it was done for television (a film made for television is still a film); but because it isn't a film. It's a videotape of a stage show. Anyway, it isn't my thread, just my opinion. Also, regarding the DVD, I don't know anything about what the going price is, I was referring to your statement that it wasn't on DVD, and I was saying I was pretty sure I had it on DVD. I've never paid more than $20.00 for a DVD in my life, and I had no idea it was no longer available, until I read it here.

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:36am

With a quick search, I found the following site:
PETER PAN on video and DVD

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 12:53am

Web site reads: This product was added to our catalog on Sunday 10 October, 2004. And it's only: $25.99. Not bad considering e-bayers are charging $280.00 for it.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 1:30pm

Oliver .
I think that and The Sound of Music are the only cases where the movie is far better than the stage show. Updated On: 1/28/05 at 01:30 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 1:41pm

I fell in love with the 1945 State Fair in the 80s and therefore never liked the 1962 "hip" version with half the songs cut and/or replaced. The only thing I liked about it was the fact that it was filmed at the Texas State Fair. My family used to go every year in October for my birthday. It used to be so much fun and a very special event. Now, it's horribly expensive and mostly an auto show.

[HeresJohnny]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 2:04pm

I find it interesting that Phantom of the Opera is not on anyone's list. I'm not saying it should be, it's just interesting that it's not.

Secondly, I must say the Music Man. (The Shirley Jones one) what a perfect adaptation.

Yes, Oklahoma with Hugh Jackman can NOT NOT NOT be considered (even though I like it more than the Shirley Jones version)

Moulin Rouge is not a movie musical. It's a music video on crack **ducks**

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 2:16pm

Oh, my. You liked that girl (whats-her-name) better than Shirley Jones?!?!?!?! God, I hated her. She wasn't pretty, she couldn't sing and she was far too butch. Shirley Jones is definitive in the role to me. She simply cannot be improved upon. I would put Gordon MacRae, Gene Nelson and Charlotte Greenwood in that category, as well.

[HeresJohnny]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 2:24pm

well, maybe I was harsh.

I guess I just like the Hugh Jackman version because it has all the cut songs, etc. in other words, it's the Musical.

[Marquise]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 4:38pm

Yay! For Momma Partridge (Shirley Jones)...she rocks my socks!!!

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 1/28/05 at 4:40pm

Oh, okay. Sometimes I have an issue with cuts or changes made to movies musicals, and other times I don't. Film is a completely different medium, and as such, should be used to its fullest potential, when telling the musicals' story. Films are flat and dull, otherwise. Also, there are often numbers that are written, strictly, for the purpose of scene changes on stage (particularly for older musicals, that didn't have the high technical capabilities of today's stages). As this isn't a requirement for film, these numbers are often cut. Sometimes, new numbers are written because they work better in the medium of film (or at least somebody thinks so). Stage presentations that are captured on film or video are a wonderful thing, and I wish they did more of them; but, shows are meant to be experienced live, and while they may offer an opportunity for others to see performances (preserved) that, otherwise, might not have been, they cannot compete with a really well made film, for a pure visual experience. I saw the Jackman production of "Oklahoma!" on stage, and liked it; but I liked the film better. It just has a better cast to me, particularly the Laury!