Adam Shankman To Direct/Choreograph The Rock Of Ages Movie

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 10:11am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Adam_Shankman_to_Direct_and_Choreograph_Big_Screen_ROCK_OF_AGES_20091020

Really? I personally think its too soon.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 10:16am

Oh geez. NOT Adam Shankman. NOT Adam Shankman.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 10:20am

NOT Adam Shankman? Who gives a rat's ass about Adam Shankman? I'm concerned about a Rock of Ages movie. This is what really passes for a movie musical now? I'm very depressed.

[James885]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 10:40am

Uhh...good for Rock of Ages, I guess?

It doesn't really excite me or anything, as I have absolutely zero interest in seeing the show or any movie musical based on the show. 80's rock anthems aren't really my thing. I don't begrudge the success of the show though.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 11:03am

Snore.

[taylorPHENOMENON2]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 11:03am

Interesting. Make the trainwreck of a plot look even worse.

[Parks]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 11:31am

I actually think the movie will do well. While I'm not a fan of the show, there obviously is a market out there for the show and I think the movie could be done pretty well... well, by Rock of Ages' standards, anyway.

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 11:39am

I agree that is a little soon for the movie, but I'm sure it'll do rather well. Rock of Ages has a huge target audience and this will only increase the excitement for the up-and-coming tour.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 12:07pm

This is what really passes for a movie musical now?

A movie musical is a movie that is a musical. Nothing else is required for it to "pass". Sounds like you've not seen many movie musicals if you think a film treatment of Rock of Ages is so depressing. There is nothing depressing about a good idea such as taking a thus-far successful Broadway musical comedy filled with classic 80s rock tunes and attempt to popularize it further as a feature film. It's actually...logical.

The show is a blast on stage, but I don't see it translating well to film without a lot of changes. But who knows, maybe it could work. How many times did we hear that the show would be an instant flop on Broadway, hated by every critic, and laughed at when the subject of Tony nominations brought up?

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 12:20pm

If for nothing else, people will go see it for the 80's music, which is still popular. What I like best about the show are the musical numbers which sound great and are performed just as well.

I'll see the film for that. It's like a really good concert. There are millions of people across the country who are 80's music fans.

[snarkywannabedreamer]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 1:09pm

I don't understand the "too soon" argument. Why is it too soon? Why does a musical need a shelf life before it can be made into a movie? Just because it has taken other musicals a long time to find a home in the movies doesn't mean that this is how it SHOULD be done. I really don't get the relevance of that at all.

And Taylor, please tell me how the plot of ROA is any more of a trainwreck than Guys and Dolls, or Oklahoma, or any classic musical. Sure it's not deep and heart-wrenching, but the story works. It does exactly what the creators wanted it to do. Be a fun time in the theater. Why is that bad? What is flawed in their execution of what they wanted to achieve? Make a good argument. Here is a link that I think makes a nice defense for the book of ROA (which gets beat up on this message board all the time)

And just ask yourself if just a concert of 80's metal music would have really received a Tony nomination if it weren't for the enjoyable story that the show tells. This is a genre of music that the Broadway community was pre-disposed to hate and yet BECAUSE of the book they didn't hate it. They embraced it... not just the "dregs" but the critics and the Tony nomination committee. The first thing people say is "the show is funny!" not "Man, it was so good to hear a Warrant song live!"

http://www.broadway.tv/blog/broadway-blog/the-art-of-rock-of-ages/

[theironist]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 1:16pm

So Zac Efron as Franz? Shankman does love Efron.

[Devious]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 1:47pm

NO! NO! NO!
Stars in the movie? ESPECIALLY if it's stars like Efron.
I was so excited for this up until I saw he wanted "stars" because musicals are "in" now? What is that? Personally I think the OBC should be cast.. but obviously its not up to me.

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 1:47pm

I say too soon, because I still some a longer life for the show. When Hairspray came out, there was an article that spoke about how the movie versions of musicals affect the show on Broadway. Fiddler, Hello Dolly, and (*I think Cabaret) closed shortly after the films opened. I agree with the article. The one point they did make was that the film of Chicago had the opposite affect than stated.

[snarkywannabedreamer]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 1:52pm

I don't think there is any hard and fast rule as to the correlation between shows closing after the movie comes out. In some of those cases you could argue that the shows started jumping the shark with stunt casting and THAT could have caused the show's demise. Or maybe it was just their time to go, having run a long time. I personally think ROA is a show that would thrive with a movie out because I think a movie audience will see the film and want the live rock experience rather than feel that since they saw the film they have no need to see the stage show. But who knows. It's all a crap shoot.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 2:01pm

"I say too soon, because I still some a longer life for the show. When Hairspray came out, there was an article that spoke about how the movie versions of musicals affect the show on Broadway. Fiddler, Hello Dolly, and (*I think Cabaret) closed shortly after the films opened. I agree with the article. The one point they did make was that the film of Chicago had the opposite affect than stated."

In the recent past, movie adaptations of Hairspray, The Phantom of the Opera, RENT and Chicago all contributed increases to the box office of their Broadway counterparts (Chicago even re-launched a tour). The only film that had no effect (or possibly even an adverse effect) was The Producers. The film did nothing to help the show. Mamma Mia! hasn't seen any ticket sales decreases since its film adaptation. So it seems unlikely that a Rock of Ages film will have any negative impact on the stage show.

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 2:08pm

The live music and concert vibe are one of the major draws of ROA. A movie can reproduce the jukebox feel and fun, funny plot, but people will still want to hear the music live, because it's a rock show of that sort.

[Trish2]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 2:31pm

The most shocking thing to me is the fact that any "suit" at a major film studio would allow a man that behaves the way Adam Shankman behaves on So You Think You Can Dance, behind a camera. Let alone, allow him past the gates.

[noradesmond]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 3:00pm

Why all the hate for Adam Shankman? I thought he did a wonderful job with HAIRSPRAY.

Although I think ROA is a questionable project.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 3:11pm

Mister Matt: The show is a blast on stage, but I don't see it translating well to film without a lot of changes.

The show IS a blast on stage [agree with Mister Matt on many things].

The challenge -- first and foremost (don't you think?), will be to make it a BLAST on the screen.

Film will make it easier to move close to the more intimate moments in the show, which, if done correctly (I'm thinking casting, here), will increase the power of the "story." [I know, please, don't nail me with "what story?" I know there's no story.]

And film can make the Big Musical Moments really BIG -- if done correctly (thinking Director here). I'd love to have a Rock Concert Sized version of those musical numbers; better than any tonic for a melancholy mood.

Why Shankman? Is it because he hit a home run (I don't think so, but $$$$ count) with Hairspray. But other than the criticism that he embarrasses himself when he's playing "Himself" on a reality show, why NOT Shankman?

I'm happy for anything that will allow me to have a copy of this extremely FUN evening at the theatre at home to play again and when the spirit moves me.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 3:48pm

How shocking. I can see it ripping off Chicago & NINE with the musical numbers being done at a rock concert.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 4:20pm

The challenge -- first and foremost (don't you think?), will be to make it a BLAST on the screen.

Absolutely, but I'm not sure zooming in on the story is the answer. And yes, I do believe there is a story, because all the characters exist as part of a plot that is told from beginning to end. But what makes the show so fun and exciting (for me, anyway) are the live performances of those classic songs. I'm sure the film will be funny, but I know I would feel rather deflated to hear the toned-down film scoring (which was my first MAJOR problem in Hairspray) and the absence of seeing the live band. Unlike most musicals, Rock of Ages, with its jukebox score, silly cliched book, and camp style relies most heavily on the live performance atmosphere. Take that away, and you remove about 60% of what makes the show work. I'm certainly not against making the film or Shankman's involvement, but I am definitely skeptical.

The most shocking thing to me is the fact that any "suit" at a major film studio would allow a man that behaves the way Adam Shankman behaves on So You Think You Can Dance, behind a camera. Let alone, allow him past the gates.

It's shocking to you that the director of one of the most financially successful musical films in history was hired to direct another film musical? The "suits" see $$$ and assume Shankman, as director, won't be on screen. I'm not sure why they would NOT allow him behind a camera.

[snarkywannabedreamer]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 5:16pm

you are assuming the film score will be "toned down." It could be possible that they will have the luxury of the finest session musicians in Los Angeles, the finest recording studios, layers of guitars and keyboards (like those that exist in those songs), heavy drums, effects, as many ensemble voices as they can dream of. There are MANY reason why it is ridiculous to assume that the sound of the film will be toned down compared to the live show. Yes, the band won't be there in your face but there are many really amazing things you can do in film that you can't do live. And the fact that this is a film about a genre that is right in the center of the Mtv boom, I think there is room for some really interesting cinematography and energetic dance numbers that could reinvent the live experience. like any film it's about execution so let's wait and see.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 5:23pm

Because all Movie-Musicals are.

[Marquise]

Posted: 10/20/09 at 5:27pm

"well, by Rock of Ages' standards, anyway."

Parks, what exactly is that supposed to mean?