binau said: "Wouldn’t exist because of nepotism or because of talent/star power?"
Either way, those are the comments of a spoiled rich kid. Platt is insufferable. The movie wouldn't exist because no one wants or needs it. Platt wanted it so daddy made it happen, is what he's really saying.
KnewItWhenIWasInFron said: "Bettyboy72 said: "dramamama611 said: "A Chorus Line 1985 Dr Zhivago 1965 Reds 1981
You saw ACL as a kid, but Reds and Zhivago as a preteen? And ACL had an intermission in the movies? It didn't even have an intermission on bway if my memory serves me correctly.
And to A Director: are you really trying to imply that 50 is the end of the world?"
Yes, dramamama. ACL had a break when I saw it the theatre. And we had an old movie palace that showed repertory films, many classics that were longer and they had intermissions. Sometimes they had an organist too. I'm not 50 yet, I guess it was just an attempt to insult me as being decrepit and unable to pay attention.
I think much of the modern editing, especially in musicals,is for those who can't pay attention, the ADD generation. The quick cuts that don't let you see the choreography I feel is a real cheat to the viewer and the performer.
I will see DEH. I'm curious how they will tackle it.
"
Still confused. If you're saying you saw the "A Chorus Line" movie in a theater and there was an intermission, I think you are misremembering. It was released well after the road shows that did sometimes have intermissions, in a time when virtually no movie ever had an intermssion ("Reds" is an exception). And it's not even two hours long!
I love "Chorus Line" so I saw the movie in theaters and, even though it's awful, I saw it more than once in theaters. I am absolutely certain there was no intermission and I can't even imagine where they'd put one if they were inclined to -- which, again, in that time frame, they were not."
Some movie theaters have intermissions in movies, whether the director intends for them to be there or not. In 1998, I saw Elizabeth in the theater, and it had an intermission. Every movie that played there had an intermission, until the day the theater finally closed. It is possible that your experiences are not the same for everyone.
I will also confirm that there were cinemas that inserted intermissions into movies that didn't have them, which is occasionally an issue in rep screenings of old 35mm prints that the presenters don't thoroughly inspect.
ucjrdude902 said: "Is this garnering any sort of award buzz? For a movie thats being heavily promoted Im hearing nada."
I have nothing about this film outside of the Broadway people I follow on IG and this message board. I think its going to be a flop, especially with delta ramping up. Are they releasing it on hbo max?
Sadly no. This is strictly a theatrical release. Which is why I think it will flop. In The Heights was considered a flop and that was fun as hell and a lot of people watched it at home. This deals with serious sh*t and I don't know if people will flock to it considering Covid is ramping up again and no one will feel comfortable in a movie theater. Sigh.
Should have released it to a streaming service same day.
This has got 'cats' all over it with the bad CGI. He genuinly looks creepy and they didn't even manage to make him look any younger. This is like casting Idina and Kristen just because they were the OG cast. Sometimes you have to change things when a play becomes a film that includes having people that fit the age range of the characters. Plus, Ben is just a tool who loves himself too much.
smallvillefan16 said: "This has got 'cats' all over it with the bad CGI. He genuinly looks creepy and they didn't even manage to make him look any younger. This is like casting Idina and Kristen just because they were the OG cast. Sometimes you have to change things when a play becomes a film that includes having people that fit the age range of the characters. Plus, Ben is just a tool who loves himself too much."
It's quite possible I will see the movie and think it exposes all of the flaws of the stage musical, but at the moment I feel somewhat contrarian about this.
I was not one of the people who thought Ben Platt gave a once-in-a-lifetime performance in the stage musical. He was good but on the night I saw him, I thought there were times where I could just see him trying a little too hard. (This problem could be magnified in the movie, when he's not playing to 1,000 people, but we'll see.)
For that matter, I don't accept Platt's half-serious premise that the movie wouldn't have happened without him. Dear Evan Hansen still is the biggest post-Hamilton new musical hit with themes that a lot of parents and kids can relate to (even if they disapproved of Evan's actions). The stage musical and the tour were huge successes (except for Toronto) after Platt left. There's no reason to think some studio wouldn't have wanted a movie version of the story, with music by the two hottest movie musical composers working. It was dumb for him to say it, even in frustration over the jibes about his age.
That said, Platt was still good in the role. We know he can sing the part. We know he created this particular role and played it to wild critical and popular acclaim. I saw him do it, all of four years ago. I admit to feeling a little ambivalent about the film because I didn't love the stage show and doubt some of the things that made it work - such as some of other performances - will be done better.
But I could be wrong, and I plan to see it with an open mind.
Of course there would be no film right now without him. Eventually, maybe. But it was greenlit because he became a bit of a known TV actor. I don't think that hyperbolic. And yes, his dad is half that equation.
But it's amusing watching everyone discover nepotism. And as usual in our society today, we're using Platt as the pharmakos. We aren't rooting out nepotistic success stories throughout our culture, which would take some effort since they're a huge swath of every industry; we'll just sacrifice Ben Platt and call it a day.
RippedMan said: "He might not look too old but he looks like he should not be within ten feet of a playground.
I never understood the show on Broadway. Why are we suppose to feel empathetic towards this dude? And I think that message is going to be even more confusing given his appearance. But hey, never know."
I find the message to be beautiful but slightly misguided.
I think what Ben said is one of the grossest things I've ever heard from someone who benefits from nepotism. What an entitled narcissistic trust fund kid at heart. Pasek and Paul got the green light for this movie I'm sure with the incredible success of La La Land and The Greatest Showman (critically panned but box office was a hit and the soundtrack was a hit) as well as the star power of Amy Adams and Julianne Moore.
I would respect him a tiny bit more if he had the balls to say "Yes, I'm starring in this partially cause my dad's producing it." cause it's the truth.
That movie is going to come out and it's going to be so immediately apparent he was miscast and hinder what could've otherwise been something of a decent adaptation.
As a fan of the show and as someone who got to see Ben play the role from Arena Stage to Second Stage to Broadway, I'm very excited to see the movie and for people who didn't get to see Ben on stage to see him in the movie. Could this film have been made somewhere down the line without him? Sure. Are there plenty of guys who have played Evan since Ben who have done the role justice? Yes. Is Marc Platt producing the film and Ben being in the film nepotism? Yes and no, because Ben did create the role with no help from his father, but I'm sure Marc only got involved once his son was signed on to the project.
I think Ben (and least we forget Colton Ryan) being involved in the film would be a bit of good news considering how the original cast of The Prom was not included in the filmed version. Yes, I'm aware both of them have TV success behind them, but I still think having 2 original cast members in the film is worth celebrating.
I can take or leave Ben's comments, but I get where he's coming from in a way even if he likely could have phrased it better. That being said - I do think Ben being the one to bring Evan to the screen makes sense and from what I've seen in the clips/trailer he's continuing to live deeply in the character.
"Anybody that goes to the theater, I think we’re all misfits, so we ended up on stage or in the audience.” --- Patti LuPone.
This type of nepotism will always feel more intense and infuriating when you have so many friends and colleagues killing themselves for the hustle to be where he is and are on his level if not better than him.
That's just the truth. So the least he can do is be self aware with why he's there