CATS Film Adaptation Thread- Page 23

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:38am

TheatreFan4 said: "Also, is it fair to call Andy Blankenbuehlera hacky one trick pony yet? Because his Choreography in place of Gillian Lynne's was a **** show."

Calling it choreography is being very generous. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:39am

spiderdj82 said: "I can say I saw it opening weekend on the big screen years from now when the next generation of film buffs talk about and dissect this movie."

No generation will every be dissecting this movie (except looking for the symptoms that lead to death), and no one will envy you your experience. It's like having bragging rights to seeing the film version of Song of Norway on opening weekend.

[sbflyfan]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:51am

Major spoiler about the end of the film ahead.

Why, why, why did they....

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

...interrupt the Journey to the Heaviside Layer with Macavity jumping at Grizabella? Totally ruins the moment!

Also... that's what they came up with? She just floats off in a chandelier weather balloon like she's going to crash-land in Oz?

 

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:51am

This isn’t even camp, or so-bad-it’s-good. It will be quickly forgotten for the piece of crap it is.

[sbflyfan]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:52am

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Conte

Double-post. Sorry.

Updated On: 12/20/19 at 12:52 AM

[sherie_worshipper]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:55am

I absolutely loved it. Cats is an acquired taste. This movie is not for everyone. And it could never be, animated or not. I’m glad it exists. I’m glad they had the balls to make it. It’s easy to mock this movie, but it EXISTS and, as long as there are people like me, it has an audience, even if it turns out to be a small one.

The entire cast is brilliant. I’m in love with Robert Fairchild, Judi Dench commands the screen like a goddess and Jennifer Hudson is a Grizabella for the ages. I knew her singing would be powerful, but her acting blew me away. She’s even better here than in Dreamgirls, and had it been a different movie, she would be on her way to win a second Oscar.

People will keep trashing it. That’s okay. If you want to see this movie, don’t feel ashamed. Art is subjective. Cherish the things that touch you.

[BWNUT]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:55am

Reading the reviews is so much more fun than watching the movie. Some of them are laugh-out loud hilarious. LOL!

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 1:04am

Haven't seen it yet, but listening to the film soundtrack, it sounds beautiful... "Beautiful Ghosts" sung by Francesca Haywad is much more effective then the Swift version.  The new orchestrations are so crisp and fresh - Jellicle Songs especially.  They probably should've released the album earlier to help build more positive buzz 

[BWNUT]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 1:37am

TheatreFan4 said: " .... Tom Hooper should be nowhere near a musical ever again, why someone allowed him to after Les Miz I will never understand. I swear to god... Jennifer Hudson's THREE close ups in THREE separate scenes of snot running down from her nose... NO. BACK THE F*CKING CAMERA UP!"

Yeah. What is it with Hooper and snot?  Those were Eww moments in Les Mis.

 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 2:32am

joevitus said: "spiderdj82 said: "I can say I saw it opening weekend on the big screen years from now when the next generation of film buffs talk about and dissect this movie."

No generation will every be dissecting this movie (except looking for the symptoms that lead to death), and no one will envy you your experience. It's like having bragging rights to seeing the film version of Song of Norway on opening weekend."

And yet there are some queens who brag to this day that they had the good fortune to see Miss Florence Henderson (may she Rest In Peace) in all her 70mm Super Panavision glory - Color by Deluxe....

[bk]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 3:55am

There are people who love the film of Rent, of Nine, of Les Miz - it happens with every movie musical - there's no accounting for it, really - but people LOVE what they LOVE.

[SeanMartin2]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 6:22am

Impossible2 said: "SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "Gorlois said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?"

Why would they spend more money when this thing is already expected to bomb? I could see Hooper wanting this to happen, but why would Universal ever give him more money?"

It may have come in way under budget so there is still money to spend."

They have gone way past the initial budget of 100 mil, especially with all the last minute work. I wouldnt be surprised if, after the dust settles, this thing came in at closer to 150 mil."

How do you know this?"

Because we all have our hobbies. Some people obsess over casting replacements. I find the funding of Hollywood films to be fascinating in their Byzantine logic. Trust me, this thing has long blown past its initial budget.

[SeanMartin2]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 6:34am

Gorlois said: "You’re right, nobody really cares about dance choreography in animation (I *think* the only time I’ve seen it used extensively is Don Bluth’s Anastasia).But oftentimes the best movie musicals are radically transformative. Perhaps the ideal Cats would have been an animated version that abandoned thedancing and instead focused on producing stunning visuals? Maybe they could have turned Cats into a modern day Fantasia?"

Well, I suffered through it last night. And "suffered" is probably the right word.

Face it: CATS is a dance revue more than anything else. It's like watching the second act of The Nutcracker, where everyone gets a solo and a moment to shine as a dancer. If you abandon that, you gut what makes the play so wonderful to watch... and it's a huge part of why doing this movie with non-dancing "stars" makes it so dreadful.

Would it have worked as animation? Maybe... but it would require a core concept that makes the animation seem organic to the material, more than just a stop-gap solution to what's already a close-to-unfilmable play. The biggest conceptual sin for this film, IMHO, is the lame attempt to turn it into a reality TV competition. Out of all the approaches they could have used, they opted for this? Sheesshh.

[Det95]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 7:34am

Here’s my friends review. He hasn’t seen the stage version.

“ The lights dim for previews proceeding our 9:30 showing of Cats. I had seen the reviews and thought I knew what I was in for, clearly I was mistaken, and clearly the rest of you are wiser than I. As the lights dim for the feature presentation, my thoughts are confirmed: we are the only two people who showed up to see Cats. I'm sure you want a review. To be honest I have seen worse films, but simply put, Cats is the worst experience I have ever had live in a movie theater, and I once went to see Stuart Little 2 where the movie cut out halfway through and we watched a black screen for 20 minutes waiting for it to come back. Characters faces often do not track properly to their overly sleek CGI cat bodies creating one of the most uncanny effects I have ever seen, additionally bodies don't seem to carry momentum as they should, making everything feel incredibly stiff and incorrect or at times stretching body parts to tween their way to the next key frame in inexplicable ways (those necks will haunt my dreams). Collars seem to render incorrectly at times, bouncing around like clipped objects in a Bethesda title, lit by unknown light sources not present in the rest of the scene (imagine the melon composited into that one scene of Food Fight in post). The scale of the cats is inconsistent at best, and the 3D modeling on the backdrops is at times lazy and laughable. Memories, arguably the only good thing to come out of the actual Cats is drowned out by a mix so incomprehensible I actually screamed in the movie theater. You can often tell that characters are being swapped for CGI dummies as their quality will quickly drop in the background. Characters jumping accelerate at a normal pace then maintain a constant velocity to their landing spot where they accelerate back to the ground, it looks terrible. No film should be this reliant on mixing CGI with real world scenery and actors. It feels this movie was sold on shots from the chest up as those are generally the most presentable shots in the film. During Taylor Swift's appearance, there are times when it looks like her head is melting. Also Rebel Wilson removes her skin as a plot point, twice. I haven't seen the musical, so I don't know if that's even real. There are anthropomorphic rats and cockroaches too, how they made them look worse than the cats is honestly beyond me. I was swayed to see this movie by the comically bad reviews, and I realize I am contributing to this issue, but I did this for you, please, do not repeat my mistakes, do not go see this movie.”

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 10:34am

joevitus said: "spiderdj82 said: "I can say I saw it opening weekend on the big screen years from now when the next generation of film buffs talk about and dissect this movie."

No generation will every be dissecting this movie (except looking for the symptoms that lead to death), and no one will envy you your experience. It's like having bragging rights to seeing the film version of Song of Norway on opening weekend."

I was being sarcastic.  

[tombomb31]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 10:36am

Saw it twice yesterday and headed back today for a third!! It was great... I legitimately do not understand the hate.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 10:45am

It's not a good movie at all, but it's pretty close to the stage version, which isn't a good show, so there's that. The choreography is dreadful, and I hate the new song, which really serves no purpose. Victoria pretty much serves as the audience, since everything is being explained to her in lieu of the theater audience, so the changes mostly work. The scale looks ok, except when they use CGI, then it is completely inaccurate. However, I liked it for the most part. I hated that they used the original version of Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer. 

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 12:33pm

some interesting info- questions and some answers

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/12/cats-movie

[Kate Monster3]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 1:06pm

Went to see this last night since Cats was my first ever broadway musical when i was a kid.  Was this an amazing movie?  Not even close, but was I entertained and enjoyed myself for those 2 hours? Absolutely!  If you go into this expecting great film making you will be disappointed.  But if you go in with low expectations knowing it's going to be ridiculous and absurd and maybe slightly intoxicated, it will be a great experience. 

I'm still not a fan of the CGI fur. I had hoped it would some how come together during the movie but it still looks awkward.  Some cats looked like they had fur but something about whatever they did with Idris Elba just made him look naked, although I wasn't mad about that.

Does anyone know the deal with all the cats' hands?  Most looked like they didn't even try to put the CGI fur on it, they just kept their human hands.  But maybe this was intentional?

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 1:52pm

Fosse76 said: "I hated that they used the original version of Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer."

This is the original version, albeit the London production. You probably prefer the Broadway/1998 film arrangements. The Broadway cast album has Timothy Scott (Mistoffelees) singing and in the 1998 film, M+R sing it themselves. Hearing the 2019 version of the song was a shock and surprise to be honest, but I think it's one of my favorite renditions of the song. I read somewhere Tom Hooper obviously grew up with the London album, so it didn't surprise me later that M+R, the Jennyanydots verses, etc. were all influenced by the original London recording/production.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 2:44pm

Does anyone know the deal with all the cats' hands?  Most looked like they didn't even try to put the CGI fur on it, they just kept their human hands.  But maybe this was intentional

The question is dealt w in the link I posted,but yes, it was intentional

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 3:00pm

SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "Gorlois said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?"

Why would they spend more money when this thing is already expected to bomb? I could see Hooper wanting this to happen, but why would Universal ever give him more money?"

It may have come in way under budget so there is still money to spend."

They have gone way past the initial budget of 100 mil, especially with all the last minute work. I wouldnt be surprised if, after the dust settles, this thing came in at closer to 150 mil."

How do you know this?"

Because we all have our hobbies.Some people obsess over casting replacements. I find the funding of Hollywood films to be fascinating in their Byzantine logic. Trust me, this thing has long blown past its initial budget."

The true cost of any film will never be released publicly...trust me.

[ren598]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 3:08pm

Decided to do a double feature last night with Star Wars at 7:00 and Cats at 9:30. Star Wars was pretty good, but Cats was horrible. I couldn’t stay till the end. I couldn’t even make it to the showstopper Memory. The entire time I was thinking who thought it was a good idea to make a film version of this rubbish. I didn’t like stage version when I saw it back in the 80s and this somehow was much worse. For those thinking of going to this, save your time and money and see something else.

[SeanMartin2]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 3:13pm

Impossible2 said: "SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "Gorlois said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?"

Why would they spend more money when this thing is already expected to bomb? I could see Hooper wanting this to happen, but why would Universal ever give him more money?"

It may have come in way under budget so there is still money to spend."

They have gone way past the initial budget of 100 mil, especially with all the last minute work. I wouldnt be surprised if, after the dust settles, this thing came in at closer to 150 mil."

How do you know this?"

Because we all have our hobbies.Some people obsess over casting replacements. I find the funding of Hollywood films to be fascinating in their Byzantine logic. Trust me, this thing has long blown past its initial budget."

The true cost of any film will never be released publicly...trust me."

Of course. But those of us who make a point of looking at the costs of producing a tentpole film and have for long enough to know when a budget is realistic or not will assure you that no way did this come in for less than 125 mil *before* they started the reworks, and those, as extensive as they are, added another 25 mil easily, if not more. We're not talking about some little Sundance drama with a budget of 10 mil here. This is complicated special effects in every single shot, a host of name actors (who did not work at minimum), a ton and a half of pre-work to just to see if the CGI fur would work. It all adds up, and pretty quickly. I wouldnt be surprised to hear that it's well beyond even my numbers, considering something as relatively simple as The Peanut Movie had the same working budget as this.

You dont just run down to WalMart and buy this stuff off the shelf. It costs very serious money, and to think otherwise is... well, fantasy at best.

[Impossible2]

Posted: 12/20/19 at 4:11pm

SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "SeanMartin2 said: "Impossible2 said: "Gorlois said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "Based on Hooper continuing to apologize for the CGI work, expect work to continue on it. There definitely will be an entirely different design for the DVD/Blu-ray/Digital release.

He said in an interview they were still doing tweaks to the CGI hours before the film’s premiere the other night. WTF?"

Why would they spend more money when this thing is already expected to bomb? I could see Hooper wanting this to happen, but why would Universal ever give him more money?"

It may have come in way under budget so there is still money to spend."

They have gone way past the initial budget of 100 mil, especially with all the last minute work. I wouldnt be surprised if, after the dust settles, this thing came in at closer to 150 mil."

How do you know this?"

Because we all have our hobbies.Some people obsess over casting replacements. I find the funding of Hollywood films to be fascinating in their Byzantine logic. Trust me, this thing has long blown past its initial budget."

The true cost of any film will never be released publicly...trust me."

Of course. But those of us who make a point of looking at the costs of producing a tentpole film and have for long enough to know when a budget is realistic or not will assure you that no way did this come in for less than 125 mil *before* they started the reworks, and those, as extensive as they are, added another 25 mil easily, if not more. We're not talking about some little Sundance drama with a budget of 10 mil here. This is complicated special effects in every single shot, a host of name actors (who did not work at minimum), a ton and a half of pre-work to just to see if the CGI fur would work. It all adds up, and pretty quickly. I wouldnt be surprised to hear that it's well beyond even my numbers, considering something as relatively simple as The Peanut Movie had the same working budget as this.

You dont just run down to WalMart and buy this stuff off the shelf. It costs very serious money, and to think otherwise is... well, fantasy at best."

Sorry but that is just not how it works x