Did we act too soon about movie musicals?- Page 2

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:28pm

I don't know if we "acted too soon", but I do think that the majority of people don't like musicals and don't want to see them. Whether this is because of ignorance of them or what I don't know but when I talk to people at work they're not really interested in them.

I think musicals will probably remain a specialized audience sort of thing. Really, the big recent hits "Cabaret" and "Moulin Rouge" were not blockbusters, they were indie hits. I don't think we can expect the majority of movie goers to want to see them. But I also think maybe the whole idea of "blockbusters" is passing. Attendance at movies keeps dropping and maybe that's the way movies will be heading anyway.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:35pm

To say the Phantom movie did "extremely poor" is simply not true. It did modestly ok. I've said this before, but for the record:

Domestic total gross: $51 million

Total worldwide gross: $154 million. (Ahead of movies such as Ray, Spongebob Squarepants, Mean Girls, The Notebook)

Here's a cool link:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 07:35 PM

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:45pm

Thanks for letting us know that Phantom, I didn't know it had done that well. Again with the specialization of movies a lot of the gross is coming from overseas and my guess would be that musicals would do well in Asian and Indian countries.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:52pm

Oh & one more thing.

I hate it when I hear about people walking out of movies. I don't know why, but it bugs me to no end.

Just this weekend I was at King Kong, and half of the theatre seemed shocked and unaware that the movie was 3 hours long. How hard is it to find out the length of the movie before you see it? In most places where you find movie times (Internet, newspaper), it tells you the length of the movie right there.

A while ago when I saw Team America: World Police there were so many people with small children and most of them left 5 minutes into the curses and sex stuff. Again, how hard is it to do 3 minutes of research about a movie?

Some people left Rent the second time I saw it because the gay stuff made them uncomfortable. Again... I just don't get it. How do you not know what you are seeing?

People are so ignorant about movies. I think they just want to go in and get their hour and a half of whatever and then leave. Have you also noticed most people don't talk about movies anymore either? No one wants to be analytical or say anything more than "I liked it" or "I hated it."

I could never walk out of a movie. Maybe if the theatre were on fire. But really! I shelled out the 8 bucks, I am going to stay. And then if it does suck, I can at least say I saw the whole thing and it sucked. It all goes into what I said before, about people being dumb and impatient and not sticking with something.

And logistically, what does one do when you leave the theatre early? I mean, you planned on being at the movie... now what do you do the other 2 hours?

[jo]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:54pm

Attendance may be dropping - but some of the slack are being made up by sales in DVDs. Maybe this is because people do not have time to go out to a moviehouse ( and all the time and effort it requires) and so would prefer to see movies at their own leisure.

Seeing a movie musical on the big screen is such a great experience -- but maybe with the proliferation of excellent home theatres, watching a movie musical at home could be an equally satisfying experience.

What's the DVD sales for PHANTOM OF THE OPERA? I saw the movie twice on the big screen and had pre-ordered the DVD as well.

[Fan2]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 8:09pm

If anyone can figure this out, here's the link for DVD sales (and other stuff).

http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/Video-Sales.php?week_id=359

[jaso_n]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 8:13pm

I think the reason why movie musicals aren't doing that well is because these studios are torn between who to cater to move to: the Broadway fans or the movie fans. Because RENT was a good movie, but the only bankable movie actor in it was Rosario Dawson and she's not even that big.

Same with THE PRODUCERS. Nathan Lane is mired in B-Listness and Matthew Broderick has made a film in a while (well, a film anybody cared to see anyway).

The only reason CHICAGO did so well is because they cast a bunch of bankable movie actors to play the leads -- Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellwegger, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, and John C. Riley. Who did RENT have? Rosario Dawson, Taye Diggs, and Jesse L. Martin? The chick from Josie and the Pussycats, the guy from Kevin Hill, and the guy from Law & Order? Not much money in them. But it was a good movie.

I think if studios are gonna continue to make these types of movies and do the stage production any kind of justice, they are gonna have to start doing promotion EARLIER and/or casting movie stars in the leads. Even though, eh, most of them cannot sing or dance to save their lives.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 8:25pm

bjivie2 -- That was a great "perspective" you shed on this subject, and I agree. I just hope the general public's perception isn't skewed to think most musical films are are lousy now.

Moulin Rouge showed us something new. It was the "ground breaker" here. While it wasn't a "Star Wars"-sized hit, it did very well at the Box Office. It opened up the possibility for a fresh way to approach an old, "worn out" genre.

Chicago wasn't revolutionary, but it was very, very good. Argue that point if you want to, but a WHOLE lot of people who don't like musicals went to see this one and found it exciting and interesting. It was a BIG hit. That's rare for a film outside the usual accepted genres.

I agree with whoever said "let's try something simple" instead of an epic with a complex storyline. That's one of the reasons I think Moulin Rouge worked so well. It had a very basic, simple story, told in a very complex, layered way. You're already asking them to accept the singing. Film makers shouldn't try to make general audiences work so hard that they lose them and their interest in the story.

Sweeney Todd (as a film) will work only if it is focused into an agressive cinematic thriller. Audiences will need to be scared, on the edge of their seats, and excited enough to forget that they're watching a musical.

[jo]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 8:35pm

Thanks, Fan2 :)

Phantom of the Opera did $ 64.8 million in DVD/video sales ( I assume this stats is only for the domestic USA market) - even better than cinema box office figures of $ 51 million.

So, there is a market out there - not reckoned in the box office figures.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 8:42pm

Sunset is dead. Dead dead dead dead dead. Someone put the rumor out there that McGregor was going to do it. Not true. Probably a studio/Webber connection to gain buzz for the film. Then they said Hugh Jackman. Again, not true. Only thing that seems to be true is Glenn Close.

Webber tried to get Phantom done for years. I think it will be the same with Sunset Blvd. If it ever happens, I doubt it will be in this decade.

[BrendanStryker]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 9:05pm

I did a research paper on the film musical whilst at uni. It doesn't make me an expert, but I did learn a lot about them and their history, particularly at the box office in the United States, and around the world. The movie musical has always been a niche market. Very few musical films, in the history of the cinema were gigantic hits. In fact, by the late 50's, the film musical was considered a dead genre, and a complete waste of money. Almost no musical did well outside of the United States, then WEST SIDE STORY opened, and was an international hit. In countries where an American musical never even played, WSS was a hit. Most of the early 60's musicals were green-lighted because of the success of WSS. Of course, THE SOUND OF MUSIC not only matched the success of WSS, but surpassed it, and became not only the most successful musical in Hollywood history, but for a few years was the most successful motion picutre in Hollywood history. It still ranks as the Number 3 motion picture of all-time, when adjusted for inflation. The biggest problem today, is that the Broadway musical, no matter how successful, is not part of the popular culture like those of the golden age of musicals. As big as THE PRODUCERS was and is on Broadway, it still isn't as big as MY FAIR LADY or THE SOUND OF MUSIC were on Broadway. Not only were they record-breaking shows, but their casts were featured on television variety shows of the day, they're songs became part of the popular hit-parade on radio, and their cast albums went to number 1 on the record charts. That just doesn't happen today. Whatever the successes of today's film musicals (CHICAGO, for example), they don't begin to compare to the phenomenal successes like WEST SIDE STORY, MARY POPPINS or THE SOUND OF MUSIC. I personally know more people who didn't see CHICAGO than did see it. The same cannot be said for WSS or TSOM. The film musical will stay, as long as it make a return on its investment at the theaters. Thus allowing for video releases to be pure profit. When the trend becomes that they are not successful, then Hollywood will stop making them.

[TennesseeTwang]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 9:42pm

I thought Moulin Rouge did middling business at the box office, even when taking into account the worldwide box office.

Yes, its fans love it passionately and the film is given credit - too much in my opinion - for revitalizing the movie musical. But it's commercial success seems to be seen nowadays, through revisionist lens that makes it a much bigger hit than it actually was.

As to the claims that it revolutionized the movie musical, I heartily disagree. Bob Fosse did that with Cabaret 30 years before Moulin Rouge and Cabaret's influence can be seen in movies like Chicago.

Moulin Rouge was far too smug for my taste. I hated the hyperactive editing that some people found so exhilarating. Why? Because it destroyed the choreography. Also, the movie as a whole, wasn't one tenth as charming as the corny old movies it was sending up. Finally, Nicole and Ewan simply didn't cut it as musicals performers, IMO. Their duets that were supposed to be so beautiful and heartfelt, sounded like tuneless screeching to me.

The costumes were good tho.

I understand what Lurhman was trying to do, I just don't feel he succeeded.

Anyway, Back on topic. I think Chicago was successful commercially because it appealed to a broader demographic than MR. Chicago appealed to people under 25 AND folks who were old enough to remember the old style MGM musicals. Updated On: 12/22/05 at 09:42 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 10:44pm

The thiong I hate is that the measure of a film's success is only based on its U.S. performance, which I think is rather arogant and neglectful. The U.S. is only a small fraction of the world's population, and I hte that *we* think we're the only ones that matter. That said, Chicago was succesful for a few reasons. People knew the plot (sort of) from the trailer. They knew five of the actors as famous and successful Hollywood types. They wanted to see how these people, most of whom weren't known for any musical abilities, would fare in a musical. The reviews were extremely positive.

Let's look at the recent films:

The Phantom of the Opera - an unknown cast, hardly any revealed plot in the trailers, which only was shown on poorly received *chick flicks*, hardly ANY advertisement and bad reviews. Nothing that would appeal to the average moviegoer. I think the title alone helped pull in a greater audience than it would have otherwise received, and a large amount of freakish "phans" (you know the ones).

RENT - Practically the same reason as above. The difference is they had good advertising.

The Producers - Poor advertising, only two cast members with mainstream appeal (Uma Thurman and Will Ferrell), a not-so-strong musical to begin with, a not-so-avid fan base, unlike Phantom and RENT, and poor reviews. I think it's lower than RENT's reviews, isn't it?

Advertising played a huge role in these films. I saw trailers for Chicago on a broad range of films. Most of the trailers for Phantom, RENT and The Producers appeared on independent films or "chick flick" films, and then only one. They should put these trailers on a broader range of films, because how can you get a wider audience when you're preaching to the coir (the print ads for Phantom and RENT in Playbill, and so on).

[Joe Mike2]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 12:02am

I hope if they do make a movie of SUNSET it will be with someone besides Glenn Close. I thought her performance was highly overrated. Why not try Meryl Streep?

[jackson992]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:35am

It should also be said that none of these movies did terrible at the box office. All titles mentioned made over 10 million which is already a successful movie. I used to own a video store and any movie that made more than that is termed a success, just depends on what level of success you're talking about. But they sure aren't to be seen as failures.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:42am

If King Kong had only made $10 million, there isn't one person with a brain who would have called it a success.

[BroadwayPhil]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:58am

Musical movies are only good for the DVD's that will follow ..nuff said. Great for us Home theater geeks..
The sound for Chicago is wonderful in 5.1. I'll buy Rent, the Producers for sure.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 10:04am

Moulin Rouge made $57.4 million domestically. It did very well (considering what this was---something new in a genre that was pretty much "dead"), but it was not a big hit.

Chicago made $171 million domestically. It was a BIG hit.

[jasobres]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 11:22am

Well, I don't think we acted too soon because ever since they have been revived, attendance at Chicago, Rent, and Phantom have been boosting.

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 12:24pm

Fosse76, you're comparing apples and oranges, King Kong cost hundreds of millions to make, it was hoped to be a huge blockbuster that would save the whole season. It's still considered a dissapointment and it took in 71 million on its opening week. These musicals never cost as much to make and aren't expected to do that kind of business.

From what I understand "The Producers" is doing well in limited release. I think it may do better than Rent simply because it's a comedy and based on a popular movie.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 12:28pm

You know, I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe when a movie takes in $71 million in its opening weekend... and it's considered a disappointment.

Note to Hollywood: Stop the madness. Now.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 1:04pm

Rent attracted a younger audience. Some theater fans are older people, and I am not sure they would be interested in Rent. They'd probably be interested in The Producers, as will young theatre fans.

King Kong WILL be a hit. Hollywood is stupid. First of all, it is 3 hours long. I would have seen it sooner, but I had to find the time. Many people I know want to see it but are waiting until after Christmas. They are simply too busy now. To open a blockbuster movie the weekend before Christmas and have it be 3 hours long... those are a lot of conditions. And there is a lot of competition right now. Hollywood seems unable to accept variables. Same goes for The Producers. People will see it but maybe not immediately. It can't be deemed a failure because of this. There are so many movies out right now. I think it is really ridiculous they always wait until the end of the year to put out the good ones. There were months over the summer when nothing good was out. I understand the movies that want to get award nominations and have that help the box office, but the blockbusters and comedies could have come out any time before this and probably done a lot better if they had.

Back to musicals, look at ALW's Evita and Phantom (Evita he had less to do with.) Both made about 50 million US, 150 million worldwide. If ALW makes more musicals and keeps his buget at $50 million (reasonable), he will definitely see a profit, and especially from DVDs. This could be a template for any producer.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 1:21pm

I was responding to this statement:

"All titles mentioned made over 10 million which is already a successful movie. I used to own a video store and any movie that made more than that is termed a success"

That clearly isn't true. King Kong needs to make at least $400 million to be a success. Don't forget, the studios only get about half of what the box office takes in.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:02pm

I'm glad people have enjoyed my "perspective." So here's another one...

When comparing shows like THE PRODUCERS to older "classic" ones like SOUND OF MUSIC and MY FAIR LADY, is that they were incredibly popular by the standards of that day. Today, Broadway records aren't going to make it to number one. It's not the kind of music that is in the mainstream. SOUND OF MUSIC ran for 1443 performances. MY FAIR LADY ran for 2717. THE PRODUCERS had run for 1942. It's already beat SOM as far as runs go, and it's well on it's way to beating LADY. You've got to make sure you're distinguishing between talking about the shows and their respective movies. SOM and MY FAIR LADY both had WILDLY successful movies.

As far as us getting a new push in studios producing movie musicals, it's going to take a huge blockbuster to do it. That blockbuster could be DREAMGIRLS. It's got the names, it's got a recognizable plot, it's got pop music, it's got multiple demographics. Once we get a HUGE hit, then the movie musicals will really start pouring out. What's sad is that Rent SHOULD have been that blockbuster. Ah, well.

[Danielm]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:13pm

The Producers opened this weekend in 6 theaters and made $154590. for a per theater average of $25,765. (pretty damn good), King Kong opened in 3,568 theaters and took in $66,1816,45. for a per screen average of $18,549. Once again, it's comparing apples and oranges but The Producers is doing quite well. King Kong is considered a dissapointment because it was supposed to do better--it will still be a hit but in the weird world of Hollywood it is considered a dissapointment. The Producers is doing well, it may do even better once they widen the release. It's too soon to start calling it a flop.