#51
Posted: 2/15/21 at 12:22am
The King and I is basically historical fiction/fanfic. But so is The Sound of Music.
A new THE KING AND I film — Page 3
#52
Posted: 2/15/21 at 1:08am
A Director said: "joevitus said:
Thanks! I'm really surprised by this. I would never have imagined the R&H catalogue owned by anyone other that R&H and their heirs. ButI'm guessing Mary Rodgers, the Hammerstein brothers, etc. must still be financially participating."
Mary Rodgers died in 2014. The Hammerstein brothers are dead. The ones financially participating are the grandchildren.
"
I'm really embarrassed I knew nothing of their deaths. But I didn't. And I appreciate your telling me.
#53
Posted: 2/15/21 at 9:05am
Heaven help us. Another classic ready for the trash heap. Ditto for WSS. So much for creativity in Hollywood
Poster Emeritus
#54
Posted: 2/15/21 at 1:56pm
A new film of The King and I in this climate?! I really hope they're serious when they say they're reimagining it and hire the right people on all levels of the production, otherwise there will be so much backlash. But I'm interested. If they can make it work from less of a white perspective, I'd love to see it.
To a lot of people R&H are defined by The Sound of Music, which is a great film but not their best musical.
#55
Posted: 2/15/21 at 2:25pm
It's still a white saviour story...the entire book needs to be re-written, but it still needs to be a period piece. It certainly would be very tone deaf for it to be made as a contemporary story. At best, it can be rewritten so the Anna Leonowens' views of colonialism and British superiority are constantly challenged by her life in Siam. But they'd have to completely eliminate any hint that there are romantic feelings between her and the King, as well as move Shall We Dance and make it a teaching lesson before the banquet.
#56
Posted: 2/15/21 at 3:38pm
Fosse76 said: "It's still a white saviour story...the entire book needs to be re-written, but it still needs to be a period piece. It certainly would be very tone deaf for it to be made as a contemporary story. At best, it can be rewritten so the Anna Leonowens' views of colonialism and British superiority are constantly challenged by her life in Siam. But they'd have to completely eliminate any hint that there are romantic feelings between her and the King, as well as move Shall We Dance and make it a teaching lesson before the banquet."
It is what it is, and if you re-write the book, you have a new show, not The King and I. But, look, EVERY culture does have narratives that make their races look superior, and if you know Chinese and Japanese culture, their depictions of each other makes The King and I look hipster woke.
#57
Posted: 2/15/21 at 4:37pm
A new film of The King and I in this climate?! I really hope they're serious when they say they're reimagining it and hire the right people on all levels of the production, otherwise there will be so much backlash. But I'm interested. If they can make it work from less of a white perspective, I'd love to see it.
That was my first thought, but I think this is the perfect time to do it correctly. The show has always been one of my least favorite shows because it's so problematic but if they had a great team involved that knew what they were doing, it could be great.
#58
Posted: 2/15/21 at 6:30pm
JSquared2 said: "A Director said: "A new version of The King and I is a ridiculous idea. The Anna Leonowensbooks are mostly fictional and the same is true of the Margaret Landon book. Don't forget the 1946 movie, Anna and the King of Siam with Rex Harrison as the King. Also, there's the Jodie Foster movie based on the same material. I think it was a bomb. Sondheim talks about 'why" musicals; a new movie of The King and I is a "why" remake.
Here are links to Wikipedia pages about the real King, his son and Anna's son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongkut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chulalongkorn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_T._Leonowens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Landon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Leonowens
"
Relax. It’s not a documentary."
Relax is not a synonym for laziness.
#59
Posted: 2/15/21 at 9:41pm
Thanks! I'm really surprised by this. I would never have imagined the R&H catalogue owned by anyone other that R&H and their heirs. But I'm guessing Mary Rodgers, the Hammerstein brothers, etc. must still be financially participating."
Don't know if this helps, but although Rodgers and his lyricists retain intellectual property rights in their songs and the shows that showcase them for a long time, it isn't forever. Songs written since 1978 retain copyright protection for 70 years after the death of the composer, or, if there are more than one combined composers or lyricists, after the death of the last of them. For musicals such "works for hire" lose protection after 95 years.
For songs written when R&H were in their late 40s and 50s prime, the maximum length of copyright protection was 56 years. Rodgers died inconveniently on December 30, 1979 (when New Year's Eve upcoming plans let his demise pass without the fuss you would have expected.) So it was in the interests of the family to sell the catalog while it still has considerable value and had not begun its plunge to zero, which would have been realized in approximately 2035.
#60
Posted: 2/16/21 at 3:00am
OlBlueEyes said: "Thanks! I'm really surprised by this. I would never have imagined the R&H catalogue owned by anyone other that R&H and their heirs. But I'm guessing Mary Rodgers, the Hammerstein brothers, etc. must still be financially participating."
Don't know if this helps, but although Rodgers and his lyricists retain intellectual property rights in their songs and the shows that showcase them for a long time, it isn't forever. Songs written since 1978 retain copyright protection for 70 years after the death of the composer, or, if there are more than one combined composersor lyricists, afterthedeath of the last of them. For musicals such "works for hire" lose protection after 95 years.
For songs written when R&H were in theirlate 40s and 50s prime, the maximum length of copyright protection was 56 years. Rodgers died inconveniently on December 30, 1979(when New Year's Eve upcoming plans let his demise pass without the fuss you would have expected.) So it was in the interests of the family to sell the catalog while it still has considerable value and had not begun its plunge to zero, which would have been realized in approximately 2035.
"
I appreciate this post. Thanks.
#61
Posted: 5/31/21 at 7:59pm
I can see Laura Michelle Kelly as Anna and either Daniel Dae Kim or Hoon Lee as The King. Honestly I'm wondering how they're going to do a new film adaptation of this musical with the idea of updating it; hopefully it will be done well by a director and writer who have the passion for doing a new version. Like how Steven Spielberg seems to be doing with West Side Story, hopefully it will be a passion project for someone who loves the original musical, but also has the guts to do some new things with it.
#62
Posted: 5/31/21 at 8:04pm
^ I’ve seen Laura Michelle Kelly on the national tour three years ago as Anna. She was wonderful
#63
Posted: 5/31/21 at 10:32pm
joevitus said: ""Concord, who acquired the Rodgers & Hammerstein catalogue in 2017, will also serve in a producing capacity." What's Concord, and how does this relate to the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization? I am so not looking forward to all the p.c. screeds and "cancelled" articles that shall accompany this film's release, should the film be made."
What kinds of criticisms? Sexist, misogynist? Re Concord, see link.
https://concord.com/concord-news/concord-music-announces-the-acquisition-of-samuel-french-and-the-formation-of-concord-theatricals-the-worldwide-leader-in-theatrical-licensing/
#64
Posted: 5/31/21 at 10:45pm
Jordan Catalano said: "Hope y’all are ready for James Corden as The King."
Hysterical.
Well, he did do interview and skits with Prince Harry!
Kinda makes him as qualified as him playing gay in the Prom.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95