Dear God - the JEKYLL AND HYDE movie musical....- Page 3

[broadway86]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:07pm

The only thing I don't think I could take is her riffing all over the place

I was thinking the same thing, but I'm sure she has it in her to control herself.

[jacco]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:07pm

Linda Eden? She was WONDERFUL on the original concept album but was AWFUL on stage. Never seen such an uncomfortable performance (still, she sang like an angel...)

This show was crap. But who knows.....

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:10pm

Before y'all start selling tickets for opening night...you might consider that the ink is barely dry on this. A contract is in its first stages. This baby could take a long time to grow to the point of readiness.

In my opinion, for this to stand a chance of being successful they will have to cast some mega talents and names well beyond Broadway.

This is truly in its baby steps. No one has anything solid to offer at this point.

[AspectsofLoveLover]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:32pm

Hope they cast Linda as Lucy and Christiane Noll as Emma. I would like to see Robert Cuccioli back as Jekyll/Hyde.

[cathywellerstein]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:32pm

I think this is exciting. I'm glad they're making a movie of this.

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:43pm

I also think this COULD make a great movie musical, and I almost think it should be handled by a top notch horror director and not a director of musical theatre. Not sure, though.

[Enjolras77]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 4:45pm

There are many more places to insert action into J&H than in Phantom. The murder spree itself if done well could be very exciting (as long as they lose the umbrellas)! There is also much more room to expand (and rewrite) the story than there was in Phantom and make it more serviceable as a movie. When you have a sucessful show (or a musical theatre icon) like Phantom there is much more pressure to stay as faithful as possible to the original show (for example look at the thread on this topic discussed today). Jekyll and Hyde, while it is the best known of any of Wildhorn's shows, is still a troubled show that never fulfilled its potential on Broadway. As long as they keep most of the songs intact (and maybe even resurrect some of the ones from the pre-broadway version), they could get away with totally revising the script without much complaint.

Updated On: 12/14/05 at 04:45 PM

[jackson992]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 6:52pm

This show has great songs and a great score. It boggles my mind to think that anyone could say the songs sucked. The closer they could get to the concept album the better the film would be as that was the best recording.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 8:26pm

It boggles my mind to think that anyone could say the songs sucked.

What about the 5,690 reprises of Façade?

(One of my friends actually turned down a regional production of the show after he got so sick of singing it in callbacks. )

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 8:50pm

This movie COULD work IF:
1) They cast stars in the three lead roles. This movie has no hope at all without name players in the lead roles. So many of us bitched about Chicago lacking Broadway talent, and the movie was great. Film, like it or not, is a MOVIE ACTOR'S medium. As long as the chosen actor CAN sing and act the part, I actually think a producer would be making a huge mistage NOT casting well known actors as the leads. Though we'll never know, I'll bet Phantom would have done FAR better with KNOWN people. Though I loved Rent -- same thing.

2. They need to trim the score and tighten up the book. Bring in a strong writer to fix the book (not necessarily him, but someone like Terrence McNally).

3. Get a good director. I know we've all been dreaming of Tim Burton for Sweeney - but if this is more likely to happen....

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/14/05 at 11:56pm

QUOTE:

Carl Magnum - so much hate. Tone it down.


Don't worry, Mike. I've learned to deal with snobs over the years and it's like fickle. I dare our Mr. Magnum or "whoever" LOL to walk into a Hollywood studio with a script, to his four-year running musical from Broadway, which happens to have thousands of amateur / professional productions running each day. I dare him to walk into a studio, and make a name of himself, and have this written in Variety just like Mr. Wildhorn.

But no: Mr. Magnum or "whoever" would rather sit there and insult a person who's done nothing but hard-work, across twenty years, to launch his legacy on this world. Good or bad, grand or crap, it's still a legacy: and life is full of opinions. But when someone achieves, for so long, and all people can say is "crap crap crap" (obviously someone thinks its an achievement) it shows how narrow-minded, with a lack of perception, they are.

But the moment they are asked, by these people themselves, to get out there and make a similar achievement (good or bad) they'd crap under the pressure. And that's what so amusing: they're all talk and no action.

The only way you'll ever have it over Wildhorn is if you go to a nice college, write four musicals, one that was seen by professional producers: lead to a recording career with (literally) hundreds or thousands of artists (and most of them "huge" in their own right), then open and develop a musical across twenty years: not to mention the first "triple-winner" since Andrew Lloyd Webber, and the first (by an American composer) since Richard Rodgers! And "some people have taste, they say." Well someone obviously has "taste" otherwise Mr. Wildhorn would be down in the dumps with all the hacks!

Well, thanks for that. I *enjoyed* having my little say

Good day to you. See you at Opening Night

Updated On: 12/15/05 at 11:56 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 12:08am

i can't even believe you mentioned richard rogers in the same sentence as frank wildhorn...
thats all i have to say! =)

[jackson992]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 2:14am

Frank Wildhorn is wonderful. I love both Jekyll and Civil War

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 2:17am

i have a GREAT appreciation for Wildhorn, BELIEVE me...but to compare him to RIchard Rogers in any way is like comparing apples and oranges...they are both fruit but thats all they have in common! i DO understand what the writer was saying when he was saying that frank is one of the most successful american composers SINCE rodgers..i get it...it was just amusing to see those two names in the same sentence!

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 4:42am

See, that's just the thing. I don't compair anyone to anyone. If I like Richard Wagner, I like Richard Wagner. If I like Sondheim, then I like Sondheim. But I also like Meat Loaf, Jim Steinman, Frank Wildhorn, Richard O'Brien, Andrew Lloyd Webber, you name it. But never do I compair them. Not that there should be any problem with that. I mean: is it a crime if I say "I like Frank Wildhorn but I also like Stephen Sondheim"

Some people are just up themselves. I don't know why we can't all get along. Just accept that the guy has gotten somewhere, through a lot of **** that's been thrown at him, and he's trying his hardest all the time. Waiting for the Moon, I thought, was his best work yet (from what I've heard) and I'll always have a soft spot for his work. But I also felt that Sweeney and Sunday were some of the greatest works of theatre too: and I have a soft spot for them. Is that a federal offence? If so, go ahead and arrest me. I'll appeal!

I am simply saying: Frank Wildhorn, like Richard Rodgers, achieved the "triple-treat" with Jekyll and Hyde, The Scarlet Pimpernel and The Civil War: the first time, for an American composer, since - YES - Rodgers. And these are the facts: not ym whining adolescent musings on how much better than Wildhorn is than Rodgers. Which, I assure you, I don't think at all. Then again, I think most everything's is as good as everything else: and don't see the need to label it in a certain way. It takes all kinds. And if there are things I don't like, I go out of my way as to justify "why". I dont sit there and make immature remarks like "god save us all, it's the horsemen of the apocalypse" or "Hilary Duff as Lucy" or, LOL, "you have no taste because you like Frank Wildhorn"

In this day and age, you think people would be a little more respectful: not to mention civilized.

Have a go at me for that, but I don't care.

[WildhornFanatic]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 9:10am

I didn't see anything wrong with your comment. Say how you feel and screw the rest of 'em.

[rockfenris2005]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 10:14am

Exactly

[jackson992]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 12:27pm

Well said. Everyone has their own opinion and there really is no right or wrong.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 2:15pm

Well, if they're going to do this, I hope they at least put Bring on the Men back in.

[jackson992]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 4:31pm

I love both songs actually LOL. I'd like it if they could figure a way to fit both songs in:)

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 4:33pm

"Well, if they're going to do this, I hope they at least put Bring on the Men back in."

And Girls of the Night.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 4:57pm

As I was told...some songs supported other parts of the original concept/story. IE: "Bitch, Bitch, Bitch" was a part of the Engagement scene and "Girls of the Night" was to emphasize the plight of Lucy and the Red Rat girls.

There was also much more character development between Stride & Emma and Utterson & Jekyll. All of this was changed when it hit Broadway for a few reasons. Frank always said "the main focus of the show is about Jekyll/Hyde. By reducing this development of the other characters it not only excluded certain scenes but songs as well.

Not to mention the fact that a 30ish song show would run into 3 hours. Jack Murphy put it best "Frank should do a CD of all the songs that were cut from Jekyll". He's quite a card!

"I Need To Know" and "Bring On The Men" is in most of the present productions I think. And "The World Has Gone Insane" as well as Jekyll singing " Once Upon A Dream" is part of the Jekyll and Hyde Concert with Rob Evan.

I think it will be interesting to say the least to see what the final product will be.

But I'd rather see a few of his other projects develop a life of their own.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 8:12pm

i didn't mean to be judgmental or mean...it was just a funny observation that struck me. it didn't seem you were comparing anything...actually i clarified that in my post..i DO understand what you were saying! i think you seem very intellegent and open about opinions and i think thats AWESOME! rock ON!

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 8:44pm

i personally cant wait for this movie, but i really think they shouldnt be turning so many stage classics into movies...but this should be interesting

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/15/05 at 8:55pm

It will be funny as hell if this gets better reviews than The Producers & does better business