Bill Condon Will Direct New GUYS AND DOLLS Movie

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/guys-and-dolls-remake-sets-bill-condon-to-direct-1234978734/

Hmm..

Updated On: 7/7/21 at 01:13 PM

I may be in the minority, but I find G&D incredibly boring on both the screen and the stage. I am interested to hear casting for this, though.

I think Condon is talented, but felt the live-action BATB missed the mark on several occasions - primarily some of the casting choices.

Updated On: 7/7/21 at 01:56 PM

I’ll believe it when I see it. This show would actually be a good choice for Fox to do as a live musical. While NBC has leaned toward more wholesome, family musicals (with the exception of JCS), Fox’s choices of Grease and Rent have put them in the company of producers who could do something really fun, sexy, and youthful with this material.

The likelihood of Bill Condon getting this made is significantly higher than Michael Grandage...but I'll still believe it when it happens. Its greenlight status and budget is all going to depend on getting a few real box office stars for principal roles.

GUYS & DOLLS deserves a new adaptation because the original is so terrible, so at the very least it can't be worse than the original film. Let's see what happens. Condon has worked with established stars, he's made stars, and he understands how musicals work.

I'd prefer a female director, but there are far worse choices!

pmensky said: "youthful"

These characters all need to be early-to-mid 30s unless there's some big restructuring –– Nathan & Adelaide have been engaged 14 years, and Sarah Brown needs to have "seen it" sort of like Marian in Music Man. The "oldest established permanent floating" crap game can't be run by a 25 year old :)

The original film is among the many "movie is abysmal--don't get your estimation of the show from it" adaptations, so a remake makes sense, though I think it will have almost zero box office appeal and, if Dreamgirls gives any indication, JBroadway is right that it will be an exercise in mediocrity.

joevitus said: "The original film is among the many "movie is abysmal--don't get your estimationof the show from it" adaptations, so a remake makes sense, though I think it will have almost zero box office appeal and, if Dreamgirls gives any indication, JBroadway is right that it will be an exercise in mediocrity."

I think the hope is that it will have box office on the level of La La Land or Chicago or Les Mis (this isn't going to get greenlit without some legitimate movie stars)...and we can certainly hope for a production quality closer to La La or Chicago or Heights instead of, say, The Prom or Condon's Beauty and the Beast.

JBroadway said: "I guess I've got my nostalgia blinders on - what do people not like about the movie? "

In my opinion:

– Both Brando and Sinatra are woefully miscast, for both vocals and acting. Without a loveable, neurotic busybody as Nathan, he becomes a "f***boy" who's been engaged to a showgirl for 14 years but won't commit. Good casting for those roles would have gone a long way, since the rest of the film's cast is pretty wonderful. Brando probably would have been better playing off a character actor like Sam Levene or Ernest Borgnine or Jackie Gleason.

– "Woman In Love" and "Pet Me Poppa" are awful substitutions for "My Time of Day/Never Been In Love Before" and "Bushel and a Peck." Joe Mank also cut "Marry The Man Today," a major moment of agency for Sarah and Adelaide, which doesn't help how it's aged in a post-MeToo world. The gender politics on a whole are something that Condon is going to have to grapple with and adapt here.

– Joe Mank's direction is pretty wooden, and he seemed to direct the cast to be understated in their delivery; it lacks the buoyancy and frothiness of good musical comedy. This isn't uncommon for Golden Age musicals (it works for My Fair Lady and The King and I) but it's brought down by the other weak elements. For someone who has directed so many wonderful non-musical comedies, he seems out of his element here.

Updated On: 7/7/21 at 03:36 PM

I was introduced to this show by the Jerry Zaks revival in the mid 90's. It gave the show a colorful, brassy, comic book vibe. It was easy to overlook the gender politics and wooden Sky/Sarah romance when Nathan, Adelaide and the gangsters were zipping around the stage like cartoons. I've seen several productions of the show since, played at varying levels of "realism," and none has worked as well for me as the Zaks one.

In spite of some adaptational issues here and there, I really did like Condon's film version of Dreamgirls so this should be promising. Plus, not all movie musicals need to be "important", "lavish", or "relevant" to work, sometimes a light, fun movie musical is all one needs to be. And Guys and Dolls fits the bill perfectly.

darquegk said: "I’m curious when in time the film will be set. The play is set nominally in the “Producers” era of the mid to late 1950s, but the cultural signifiers are all late 1920s: Al Capone, flying down to Havana clubs, the temperance movement."

Sorry but WRONG. It is set in the 20s/30s when Damon Runyon ,whose short stories these are inspired by, wrote. These characters are not from the 50s

darquegk, she's referring to 1848, silly. Adelaide is canonically 120 years old.

I'm in the disbelieving camp, sorry. Not only was this a go in 2016, the rights were supposedly snapped up when Chicago turned out to be the smash hit it was. Guys and Dolls, Damn Yankees, and several others - decades already. They just keep trotting out the same names with new directors supposedly attached.