CATS Film Adaptation Thread — Page 19

You do realize it's not 1980 anymore? Now besides just box office, there are 4K/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital sales, (which includes library and rental kiosk locations) Premium Cable, Basic Cable, local networks, PPV, On Demand, Streaming and Soundtrack revenues too. It may never make a profit, time will tell, but will most likely break even.

SeanMartin2 said: "And I repeat: the fanbases for both are pretty small compared to your usual blockbuster film.

Here, let's run the numbers, shall we? CATS supposedly cost about 100 mil to make, although that probably doesnt figure in the last-minute work, which no doubt raised the overall budget to 125, maybe 150 mil, because of overtime and rush expenses. That mean for this to even break even, it has to clear a quarter billion dollars in receipts.

Let me repeat that: a quarter billion.

By comparison: THOR: RAGNAROK had a working budget of 180 mil and made a total US gross of 315 mil... and this is one of Marvel's more popular films.

Do you seriously think CATS is going to match the performance of that?"

No. And it doesn't have to. And wtf does Thor or any other blockbuster have to do with the comparison you made between Cats and Nine? No, don't answer. I don't care.

perfectliar said: "SeanMartin2 said: "And I repeat: the fanbases for both are pretty small compared to your usual blockbuster film.

Here, let's run the numbers, shall we? CATS supposedly cost about 100 mil to make, although that probably doesnt figure in the last-minute work, which no doubt raised the overall budget to 125, maybe 150 mil, because of overtime and rush expenses. That mean for this to even break even, it has to clear a quarter billion dollars in receipts.

Let me repeat that: a quarter billion.

By comparison: THOR: RAGNAROK had a working budget of 180 mil and made a total US gross of 315 mil... and this is one of Marvel's more popular films.

Do you seriously think CATS is going to match the performance of that?"

No. And it doesn't have to. And wtf does Thor or any other blockbuster have to do with the comparison you made between Cats and Nine? No, don't answer. I don't care."

Because it all depends on the number of tickets sold. It means gross income. It means whether or not the film succeeds financially. I realize you want this to be all about you, but there are certain very hard realities if you want to see any other musicals turned into films.

And if you cant figure out the comparison to Thor, then there's no hope. I'll make it simple: Thor had a HUGE market, and it made 318 million domestically. CATS, by comparison, is a helluva lot smaller and will probably only bring in, at most, about half that. That's only barely clearing the production budget. Think you might understand now?

Probably not, so let's put it in terms you might understand: it took HELLO DOLLY's film version 30 years to turn a profit. Thirty years, on a hit musical with a recognizable name and a huge star at the helm.

Sheesshhhhh. It's not rocket science.

Updated On: 12/18/19 at 02:32 PM

Yeah I don't think that if Cats flops then no more musicals will ever be turned into movie-musicals again.

Updated On: 12/18/19 at 03:52 PM

https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/cats-movie-review-1.39629221/

“Fans of the stage musical may swoon, but others will be severely allergic. It's as good a description as any of this extravagant but unsettling musical. Fans of the show, one of Broadway's longest-running, may feel differently about this adaptation, which is faithful in many ways. All right, all right, the movie has its moments. Dench mostly retains her dignity, Ian McKellen delivers a poignant version of Gus the Theatre Cat and Laurie Davidson gives Mr. Mistoffelees ("the magical cat" an appealing sensitivity. Jennifer Hudson, as the fallen Grizabella, belts out "Memory," the show's famous tear-jerker, with the vocal force of an opera diva and more snot than a 3-year-old. Love it or loathe it, this "Cats" will leave a scent you won't soon forget.”



https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/review-cats-is-a-bland-but-watchable-adaptation-of-the-smash-stage-hit

“Cats is a bland but watchable adaptation of the smash stage hit”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-7807527/Eight-ten-cinemagoers-love-BRIAN-VINER-reviews-movie-version-stage-musical-Cats.html

Eight out of ten cinemagoers will love it... and that includes me! BRIAN VINER reviews the new movie version of stage musical Cats

stage musicals being converted into memorable films. West Side Story, My Fair Lady, The Sound Of Music, Fiddler On The Roof… it’s an illustrious list.

And now we also have Cats, which is nothing if not memorable. Whether they are memories you want to hang on to, like Grizabella in the show, lamenting her lost glamour, is another matter.

The film is weird, rather in the way that dreams are weird. You emerge from the cinema just as you might wake up after a torrid night, piecing together bizarre images, some unsettling, some uproarious, some downright demented, that don’t seem to belong in the same story.

I can’t have been the only person who felt that dear old Lloyd Webber, that maligned theatrical genius, deserved better than to find himself in the same sentence as a hedgehog. But nor was I the only critic preparing lots of catty metaphors. It looked then as if Cats might turn out to be a cinematic litter tray.

It’s not. I actually think that eight out of ten cinemagoers will say that they’ve enjoyed it, as long as they go along prepared for what they’re about to see, which is essentially a feline-themed ballet.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/12/18/21027566/cats-review-movie-film-musical-memory-richard-roeper-jennifer-hudson-taylor-swift-judi-dench

‘Cats’ coughs up a hairball of self-indulgence and creepy human-feline hybrids

As the trailer suggested, the enduring stage musical is a bad fit for the big screen.

Ah, but with Oscar-winning director Tom Hooper at the helm, not to mention a budget approaching $100 million and an all-star cast including Jennifer Hudson, Idris Elba, Ian McKellen, Rebel Wilson and James Corden performing those infectious songs with the catchy melodies and the nimble lyrics based on the poetry of T.S. Eliot — plus the studio making some last-second digital fixes — there was hope “Cats” the movie might have us purring our approval.

Alas.

Despite the elaborate production design and the built-in soundtrack and the earnest efforts of the big-name talent (some of whom fare better than others in the singing department), “Cats” is a slick and tedious and weird-looking exercise in self-indulgence.

Whatever fixes were attempted in the overall look of the cat characters, it’s obvious from the get-go this is one of those stage-to-screen adaptations that simply works better via the original platform.

Miss Hayward is an engaging onscreen presence. Her standing as a principal ballerina at the Royal Ballet is clearly evident in the grace and power of her dance moves.

Laurie Davidson is underwhelming as Mr. Mistoffelees, an aspiring magic cat still developing his powers. Rebel Wilson and James Corden pull off some nifty physical comedy moves as the outwardly lazy house cat Jennyanydots and the upper-crust fat cat Bustopher Jones, respectively. Ian McKellen givers the most “cat-like” performance, in terms of physicality and facial gesture.

As the former glam-cat Grizabella who has fallen on hard times and has been ostracized by the Jellicles, Jennifer Hudson gets to belt out the signature tune “Memory” — twice.

Little surprise, Hudson sings the hell out of the song, but when it comes to “Memory,” I kinda feel there are but two camps — those who tear up every time they hear the opening chords and consider it one of the all-time classics of the musical stage, and those (such as yours truly) who would consider it cruel and unusual punishment if you strapped us down and forced us to listen to it over and over for a solid hour.

As Old Deuteronomy reminds us in unsettling fashion when she breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience directly, cats are not dogs. Humans have to WORK to earn the affection and trust of cats.

Certainly so, and duly noted. But it would help if the movie itself succeeded in warming us up to cats and to “Cats,” instead of delivering one “What in the world!” moment after another.

Updated On: 12/18/19 at 06:27 PM

Auggie27 said: "Can some one address the changes to the cat faces, post-trailer? It seems as if the look has been abandoned to allow the actors face to appear fairly unadulterated. I found Hudson's the most bizarre, with an almost unfinished look. The white under the eyes seemed un-feline. And then the head markings were tiger-ish but not attractive."

Yes; in reviews and videos Tom Hooper and the designers made it clear that they purposefully kept the faces intact as much as possible. They did not want to lose the physical and emotional expression or have it lost/falsified using CGI. The whole technology is basically an inverted mask where it's everything covered in fur and digitally designed, except the face.

Only 17 reviews so far, but it only has a 9% on rotten tomatoes. Yikes.



https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cats_2019/

Updated On: 12/18/19 at 07:31 PM

I saw the film yesterday and, well… it's Cats! If you hated the musical, you're not going to enjoy this. While it's not among my favorite musicals, I certainly don't dislike it and recognize it for its place in theater history. That said, I had a smile on my face throughout the movie. Yes, the cats look weird but after a while, you get used to it and accept them for what they are. In a way, they are intentionally silly, especially when you see how they did the other non-cat creatures in the movie. It's a movie for children and those in the audience certainly seemed to enjoy it, laughing appropriately at the hijinks on screen. It suffers from the quick-cutting many directors can't seem to avoid when filming dance scenes and the handheld camerawork was sometimes distracting. It is a dance musical and it's encouraging to see a mass audience getting to experience the arts, from ballet to tap to more modern dances though Lynne's choreography is sorely missed. The production design was beautiful and the bright colors really made it a magical fantasy. The CGI wasn't bad except for a couple of scenes involving the aforementioned non-cat creatures. The singing was a lot better than in Hooper's Les Miserables. Rebel Wilson was hamming it up a bit too much but she did make Jennyanydots a bit more prominent when I've always brushed her off in the musical. James Corden looked great as Bustopher Jones but his accent wasn't posh enough to my liking. An English accent doesn't necessarily make one sound posh. Judi Dench sang-spoke her songs but that was acceptable given the character and she brought a lot of nuance I had never seen done on stage before. Jennifer Hudson acted and sang beautifully though I still feel that they should have chosen someone of a more advanced age then Jennifer. I loved the idea of using Victoria to drive the events of the movie and while it is pretty much still the stage musical, the "story" was a bit clearer now with the added dialogue.

Was the film necessary? Probably not. But it was great to see that a studio would invest this much money on a show based on a Broadway musical. Never did I imagine I would see billboards and posters of Cats plastered throughout the city. That alone is reason to celebrate and support this endeavor.

From a critical standpoint, CATS is a FLOP!

In my many decades of movie-going, I have never seen or not seen a film based on a review. I will see "CATS" soon, and I have every expectation of enjoying it.

ACL2006 said: "So how many Razzies does this win?"

All of them x

Impossible2 said: "A Director said: "From a critical standpoint, CATS is a FLOP!"

Sowas Avatar x"

No it wasn't.