Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/03
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.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/29/19
What a boring show. No clue how they’d make it feel fresh or interesting to today’s audiences
Broadway Star Joined: 3/27/19
MrsSallyAdams said: "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."
Co-sign. Not only were Lane and Prince pure magic-- touching, human, hilarious-- but Zaks kinda brilliantly made the whole thing a big silly cartoon so when there were touching moments (even from Sarah/Sky here and there) they punctured through just long enough to grab you. Looking back at the talent on that stage- Walter Bobbie, JK Simmons, Ruth Williamson, Josie de Guzman's soprano-- its just a remarkable collection of the perfect people for the perfect production.
I missed the revival from a few years back but from what I have seen, the talent was there (and the criticism of some of the performers was unfair) but it wasnt as zany or over the top- and so they all seemed to wither. I'm hoping Condon will avoid that trap.
Hugh Jackman for Sky is, I suppose, the most logical choice, maybe opposite Emma Stone's Sarah.
And I enjoyed the 2009 revival, although Lauren Graham was, I think, the most insane example of miscasting I've ever witnessed.
I love Emma Stone but...she absolutely does not have the vocal range for Sarah. Anne Hathaway would be great.
JDonaghy4 said: "MrsSallyAdams said: "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."
Co-sign. Not only were Lane and Prince pure magic-- touching, human, hilarious-- but Zaks kinda brilliantly made the whole thing a big silly cartoon so when there were touching moments (even from Sarah/Sky here and there) they punctured through just long enough to grab you. Looking back at the talent on that stage- Walter Bobbie, JK Simmons, Ruth Williamson, Josie de Guzman's soprano-- its just a remarkable collection of the perfect people for the perfect production.
I missed the revival from a few years back but from what I have seen, the talent was there (and the criticism of some of the performers was unfair) but it wasnt as zany or over the top- and so they all seemed to wither. I'm hoping Condon will avoid that trap."
Um, this material was ALWAYS a big, silly cartoon, as were Damon Runyon's stories (on which the musical is supposed to be, but is actually only kinda-sorta based). Have no idea why individual productions would go for "realism," but they just sound like lousy productions, to me.
1. I pray that Vin Diesel is still attached. That's the kind of stars they'll need to do this. Real tough guys who can fare alright with romantic scenes too. It may be more difficult to find actors in this mould with voices willing to do the material. If they really amp up the "dangerous" element of these men - even if only through subtext - is the only way this could play today. We do still have gangsters in this world, so it can be completely relevant through a re-imagining
2. What are they gonna do about Sarah Brown's "milk" in Havana? That would be completely appalling in the Me Too era. And Marry The Man Today HAS to be in this version.
3. Anne Hathaway as Sarah & Emma Stone as Adelaide sure sound like they'd be divine. Good suggestion!!!
I suspect Vin Diesel would be as big a mistake as Brando was in the original.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/17
Seth McFarlene should be Nathan, Zachary Levi should be Sky and James Monroe Iglehart or Josh Gad as Nicely Johnson
joevitus said: "As I adored Chicago and saw it numerous times in first run, I'm probably overestimating its popularity, but I thought the movie was a big hit, and to my mind it fit the mentality of the times enough for Mirimax to expectbox office success. But Guys and Dolls? Maybe when swing dancing was still a thing there might have been some box office potential in a remake, but nothing about the material, not even the gangster aspect, really connects to moviegoing trends or pop culture trends right now.
Of course, I still want a good film version of Carousel, which would have no matter how well-realized, would haveeven less chance of making a profit. For those who love Guys and Dolls, I can see why a new film version would be appealing."
Miramax actually didn't expect much at all. Honestly listening to some behind-the-scenes stories I'm still a little surprised they made it. Rob Marshall has said many times that the only reason Harvey pretty much left him to his own devices while making the film was that he had little faith in it. He was much more focused on Gangs of New York.
Swing Joined: 10/10/11
I remember years ago Channing Tatum and Joseph Gordon-Levitt were rumoured to being eyed for the film version.
I always wanted to see a Harlem Renaissance version of this show. Maybe that’s where Bill Condon is headed.
John Legend for Sky
Cynthia Erivo for Sarah
Taraji Henson for Adelaide
James Igleheart mentioned above could be Nathan, sure, but I’d rather seeing him as Nicely Nicely just for the pleasure of his “Sit Down You’re Rockin’ the Boat”.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/17
^ I rather see how Henson does as Miss Hannigan before I Dreamcast her
Stand-by Joined: 1/12/12
When I was in theater school back in the dark ages in Virginia, sometime after the Albright all black Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls There was a professional production mounted in our city where sky and Sarah were Caucasian and Nathan and Adalaide were African-American. I wouldn’t mind seeing it somehow along those lines.
I also was in the shell and one of our cast mates was later arrested and convicted for double murder. Not one of my favorite memories now.
Don't love the idea that white actors play the leads (the serious ones with the major love story and most songs), and the black actors play the comedy roles including a showgirl with a stripping number. Doesn't seem the best choice in 2021.
Stand-by Joined: 1/12/12
Well they can flip it. There could be no white leads but various people of color. Then would it be bad to have people of color as gamblers?
In the 70s in the south that was still fairly unique for for them not to cast all the leads white.
My college did a production of West side Story and no Caucasians were cast as Sharks which for someone studying directing helping me see things differently. When I moved to LA in the 90s I was interviewed to direct a production of West Story Story. The producer asked my concept and I said I don’t think any Caucasian actors should be cast as Sharks. She reacted as if I said the whole show should be done in the nude and after she recovers she spit out “it doesn’t have to be like that!” Needless to say I did not get the job.
Lady Gaga as Miss Adelaide. The only (floating crap) game in town for me.
SouthernCakes said: "What a boring show. No clue how they’d make it feel fresh or interesting to today’s audiences "
Love, if you think this show is boring you are clueless about theater.
Videos