CATS Film Adaptation Thread- Page 25

[chernjam]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 10:16pm

Wow - reading the article about the "update" is really not going to add anything but more bad press/wild speculation about the whole film.  A few weeks ago, I forget what entertainment site it was, but they had mentioned the delays and suggested they postpone the December release for a January seeing that it wasn't going to be released in time to be eligible for award screenings/deadlines and instead basically saying "take the time to get it right."

I haven't seen it yet - as much as I'm trying to be supportive and will go - these days before Christmas are insanely busy for me to spend 2-3 hours with a movie.  But I really wonder how much difference/improvement any of this will be.  For the most part, Cats was going to be a hard sell to non-fans anyway whether they did CGI, animation or used the costumes from the original stage production.  If it is a substantial change - then this was incredibly foolish to rush the film out.  If its not, this added "story" just brought more negative press.  

Really sad to see this turning into a debacle.  It's just a part of the theatre arts form that sometimes creatives get too close to their work and let deadlines and other factors to distract them from what their main focus should be.  ALW can relate as he thinks back to the Sunset Blvd World Premiere compared to the LA premiere (but in this case, the costs are about 10 times what a theatre production would cost).

Interestingly though, a UK theatre site I visit has a lot of posts from people who are much more enthusiastic about CATS and completely disagree with the critics.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 10:29pm

If the "improved" version is already available to theaters this Sunday (and for some as late as Tuesday), why wouldn't they just opened on Christmas Day?   They would have still been in consideration for awards season. (right?)  If I had paid already to see this and learned there was an "improved" version available a couple of days later, I wouldn't be  happy.

Updated On: 12/21/19 at 10:29 PM

[morosco]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 10:30pm

After seeing the misguided designs for the film I've come to the conclusion that John Napier's original designs were rather brilliant. His designs made it much easier for the audiences to suspend disbelief.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 10:48pm

morosco said: "After seeing the misguided designs for the film I've come to the conclusion that John Napier's original designs were rather brilliant. Hisdesignsmade it much easier for the audiences to suspend disbelief."

Indeed.  I watched the filmed stage version earlier and WOW!  After this CGI mess in the cinematic film adaptation, seeing the actors in painted leotards and fur was now on another level.  You truly appreciate the make-up design.  What we once trashed now truly is appreciated.  

[Globefan]

Posted: 12/21/19 at 11:50pm

BrodyFosse123 said: "morosco said: "After seeing the misguided designs for the film I've come to the conclusion that John Napier's original designs were rather brilliant. Hisdesignsmade it much easier for the audiences to suspend disbelief."

Indeed. I watched the filmed stage version earlier and WOW! After this CGI mess in the cinematic film adaptation, seeing the actors in painted leotards and fur was now on another level. You truly appreciate the make-up design. What we once trashed now truly is appreciated."

I wish they hadn't cast Sir John Mills as Gus in the 1998 version so they would've been able to film Growltiger's Last Stand, and hadn't cut songs down in the editing room. 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 12:16am

#ReleaseTheMalletCut

[A Director]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 3:03am

NOTHING WILL SAVE THIS MOVIE!

[Gorlois]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 3:52am

BrodyFosse123 said: "morosco said: "After seeing the misguided designs for the film I've come to the conclusion that John Napier's original designs were rather brilliant. Hisdesignsmade it much easier for the audiences to suspend disbelief."

Indeed. I watched the filmed stage version earlier and WOW! After this CGI mess in the cinematic film adaptation, seeing the actors in painted leotards and fur was now on another level. You truly appreciate the make-up design. What we once trashed now truly is appreciated. "

I’ve been thinking about this, too. How the make-up onstage so much better communicated who these characters are. How the actors could so easily and effectively emote through the make-up whereas the CGI feels like a roadblock.

I’ve also been thinking about quotes from the creatives where they attempted giving the performers more cat-like features like cat noses but pulled back because audiences want to see the performers’ faces. I guess maybe that’s true for a song like Memory, but why should the starry cast of Cats be any different than the A-list cast of a Pixar or Dreamworks movie where the actors very rarely resemble the characters they’re playing? Even in the world of mo-cap movies, Robert Zemeckis’ characters usually share some or most of the features of the actors who are playing them but they aren’t always complete clones, either.

I can’t help but think the film would have been much better off to have used a combination of practical make-up and fur costumes with CGI effects. Imagine Napier’s cats with cat noses that could crinkle or mouths that opened like actual cats. Would have conquered the uncanny valley? Maybe not but if they had looked more cat-like and a little less human the effect might have been just a little less unsettling.

And the human feet were strange too. I thought for sure they’d give them cat paws for their feet... It’s like Donald Duck— I accept that his hands are not like wings because he needs to be able to articulate with them, but his feet are not so important! Imagine Donald Duck with human feet and it’s fairly unsettling too. Or at the very least, they could have given all the characters shoes to wear, which is an easier pill to swallow than human feet on furry felines!

Gosh it was all so weird! I can’t get it out of my head.

Updated On: 12/22/19 at 03:52 AM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 4:16am

Globefan said: "I wish they hadn't cast Sir John Mills as Gus in the 1998 version so they would've been able to film Growltiger's Last Stand, and hadn't cut songs down in the editing room."

It also would have been nice if they had captured it with better film. My understanding is they filmed on 16mm stock and that’s not the most ideal format for HD video. Still, if they had performed a high resolution scan of the original 16mm footage and cleaned it up, it probably would have looked a bit better than what we see on the blu-ray release which I suspect is just a 1080 up conversion of the 720 video they did transfer for the DVD release.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 7:04am

Opening weekend = 7mil; they were hoping for 15. Cost over 100mil to produce...not including press.

While I know they cant really be compared, Star Wars is going to pull in 400mil.

Ouch. (Sorry if already covered!)

[Kad]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 10:09am

This was one of the most fun moviegoing experiences in my life.

The first twenty minutes, the audience was in amused bewilderment. But then came a point- perhaps it was seeing JHud on all fours crawling on the ground- that everyone just broke, and it became an interactive screening like Rocky Horror.

The movie is such a giant cluster****, devoid of good ideas and good taste, that it truly must be seen to be believed. Updated visual effects won’t fix it- though the visual effects were often quite bad- because it’s the underlying decision making that is what really went wrong.

Everyone should get themselves into an altered state, a mindset open to singing “Mister Mistoffelees,” and see this film.

[morosco]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 3:50pm

How will one know if they are seeing the re-released version? Will the ads change from "Now and forever" to "New and improved fur"?

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 4:04pm

Updated On: 12/22/19 at 04:04 PM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 4:26pm

morosco said: "How will one know if they are seeing the re-released version? Will the ads change from "Now and forever" to "New and improved fur"?"

After Tuesday, EVERY movie house will be playing the new version.  Today Sunday is its debut and for theatres that couldn’t download it their hardcopy arrives Tuesday.  

 

[ggersten]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 4:28pm

If you see Dame Judi Dench's wedding ring on her human finger, it's the "original" version. 

[Gorlois]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 4:33pm

Has anyone made a list of the differences between the versions? Or I guess a rough idea of what’s been updated exactly?

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 5:54pm

It’s not.

Gonna save.

This stupid movie.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/22/19 at 9:24pm

They’ve said the runtime won’t be affected, which indicates this will just be cosmetic fixes. There are numerous, numerous moments where the CGI looks unfinished.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 12:20am

Not sure how you can call fixing something to the level where it should have been all along improving it...

[littlemouse921]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 2:10am

It wasn't as terrible as it's being made out to be. If you know the show and can get on board with the humanoid cats, then you're in for a good (but weird time). I really enjoyed the Skimbleshanks bit!

Or maybe I had just set my bar so low, but it surpassed it.

[bk]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 2:21am

6.5 million, and even that estimate is probably gilding the lily.  It cost well over 100 million (and maybe considerably over that given all the continuing work and overtime) and you can add another fifty or seventy-five to that for advertising and stuff.  

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 2:22am

You just set your bar very low. There wasn't really a song outside of Skimbleshanks & Memory that I enjoyed hearing at any point. It's like they ran them through a meat grinder. Like... Jesus Jennyanydots doesn't sing Old Gumbie Cat so why are we listening to Rebel Wilson warble her way through it while production makes her take pratfalls and fat jokes the entire time? Especially when the literal next song is actually about a Fat Cat in the text!?

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 2:28am

I saw it.

I actually overall just found it tremendously boring.

There’s just something dull about it.

I think I was intrigued by the first 10 minutes and then I just thoroughly lost interest.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 8:10am

Saw it last night. It is neither as fun or as epically bad as critics have painted it. It’s mostly uninspired and clumsy, reeking of bad decisions from its very conception. An undeniable piece of movie trash that will be forgotten in a year.

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 12/23/19 at 8:34am

guitarperson said: "I thought it was very enjoyable! Absolutely bonkers, but so is the stage show. A lot of the negative reviewers seemingly just didn't know what they were in for.I think if you can get past the CGI (I could--clearly some can't), it's pretty much the same as the show, which also has numerous flaws and requires a huge suspension of disbelief/willingness to subscribe to a non-existent plot. Could it have been better? Sure--for one they could have cut Bustopher Jones and Jennyanydots, easily the weakest numbers in the piece and Corden/Wilson did them no favors. Why they used the original melody (if you can call it that)for Mungojerry and Rumpleteaser is beyond me.Taylor Swift's new song "Beautiful Ghosts" serves absolutely no purpose and is a huge tonal shift from the rest of the numbers. Jason Derulo was truly uninspired.Overall though?I can't wait to see it again (especially Ian McKellen's Gus)."

 

I'm planning on seeing it later this week, because why not, and I wondered how many of the reviewers were familiar with the stage show, because a lot of the craziness can be attributed to the plot. Obvs there are issues with the CGI, that's apparent from the preview, but I'm not going to miss this mess at the theater.