Do You Want a FAITHFUL Movie Adaptation or Not?- Page 2

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 1:53am

And other musicals aren't ABOUT something?

And keeping all the music is not always a good thing. One should expect SOME music to be cut to streamline the film.

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 1:59am

I don't think Chicago wimped out, but I don't like that it sort of put that meme out there that audiences won't accept singing without a "device." "It's as though Congress declared an edict" one magazine article said.

I don't need slavish devotion. Neither Chicago or the just mentioned Sound of Music were and they transcended their stage versions. So many of the changes in ReNT and Dreamgirls were just arbitrary and added little to the story. Did we need the stupid engagement BS in ReNT? No! Did Deena need a mother? No! Did Effie and CC need a father? A bigger NO!

ETA: In no way, shape or form could the film version of ReNT claim to have kept most of the score intact. No way, no how.

Updated On: 8/11/07 at 01:59 AM

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:04am

"I'll get flamed but I'd say a chief reason Phantom was not well received is because its source material was never much more than a fluffy excuse for a collapsing chandelier".

I beg your PARDON???? I happen to LOVE every single note from The Phantom of the Opera. No offense, but you are WAY out of line with that statement. Andrew Lloyd Webber is a master. I'm not even going to "go there".

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:07am

sleeth - thanks for quoting me and saying my opinion made you sad. But...did you even read what I wrote? Now, I tried to read what you wrote but got confused.

Like I said - HAIRSPRAY let the characters sing.

What works on stage does not necessarily work on film. And, surprise, PHANTOM and RENT were written for the stage. Hard to tell, sometimes, I know.

Like you said - the STAGE version of RENT is musical sequences. You even emphasized stage. They took that and, hell, they made the lyrics into dialogue - so the dialogue rhymed. It was like Dr. Seuss on crack.

A musical, by nature, is larger than life. And film is not so, for the most part.

Look at HAIRSPRAY. A lot was cut. But people were forgiving because it made for a much better piece of FILM art.

But I am so glad you love PHANTOM and RENT. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a shame these movies had so much potential and failed. I actually don't dislike the PHANTOM movie. I dislike the casting of its two leads.

The RENT movie, to me, felt very forced and lacked the rough, well, rock, edge.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:09am

"hell, they made the lyrics into dialogue - so the dialogue rhymed. It was like Dr. Seuss on crack."

Lol!

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:17am

"And keeping all the music is not always a good thing. One should expect SOME music to be cut to streamline the film".

How come? Who, exactly decides what songs should be cut? My favorite song from CHICAGO was "Class" - CUT! ONE of my favorite songs from the OBC of ANNIE was "Something Was Missing" - CUT!
Then, of course there are movie versions that ADD a lot of songs! Do you think people who see GREASE on Broadway now will be dissapointed to find out that some of their favorite songs from the movie are not in the actual play? OR have they added them in?

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:19am

Sleeth, Class was cut from Chicago because the song would not have worked with the concept of all the other musical numbers. The song would have stood out like a sore thumb (and slowed down the film).

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:32am

"Class was cut from Chicago because the song would not have worked with the concept of all the other musical numbers. The song would have stood out like a sore thumb (and slowed down the film").

EXACTLY! "Class" was a song that was sung (back & fourth) between two principal characters. They couldn't figure out a way to make THAT song into a "dream", "fantasy".... OR put it on a stage - so they just CUT it!
JERSEY BOYS might make a great movie (since I assume it's a LOT of stage performances by the group), but I TRULY fear for the movie version of Sunset Boulevard (especially if they decide to let Glenn Close take the lead). They'll change it so much that it will resemble nothing at all what the Broadway/London stage versions were (one of Webber's BEST scores ever).
Why worry that far in advance, though? Apparently we have Mamma Mia! sitting under our Christmas tree!! PLEASE let it be faithful... AND as wonderful, funny and touching as the play that's been at the Winter Garden for over 5 years.
At LEAST no one has yet tried to make a movie out of CATS (which I secretly hate). Now THERE is a movie version that could ONLY be better than the play! LOL

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:35am

But Sleeth, at that point in Chicago, the movie was racing towards a finish. Class would have stopped it dead in its tracks. Class doesn't need to be in Chicago like other songs, say Razzle-Dazzle or Mr. Cellophane.

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:46am

It didn't stop it "dead in the tracks" on STAGE! Of course, on STAGE - they weren't trying to put everything into a dream sequence. I had seen CHICAGO twice on stage before I saw the movie. As you can guess, I didn't care for the film version. I was elated when it won the "Best Picture" oscar, though. I thought it meant SUCCESS (!!!) for Broadway shows transfered to film (it had been a long, hard road). Then PHANTOM and RENT got sucked DRY (as did The Producers... God - am I ever glad I didn't pay to see THAT on stage).
I appreciate all your feedback. You're a nice guy. And that "avitar" of yours - ROFLMAO!

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 2:53am

But the stagee show is a different animal than the movie.

Imagine if the movie had gone like this:

Okay, so Roxie's trial is about to be decided. However, FIRST we're going to sing a song about how people have no class and are assholes!

It had no place in the movie.

[Boq101]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 3:08am

Webber has a "greatest" score?

Sleeth, if you want to see a GOOD movie musical, things need to be cut and changed. It is a different medium and every project responds differently to said medium. There cannot be a set way to do all movie musicals. for example with Chicago: In the show there are character songs and there are songs woven through in which (in the original production anyways)the characters talked to the audience as a sort of staged vaudeville act. You can put both types of songs on a stage and it works fine because it's a stage musical. In film it wouldn't work, it's just a different medium.

[Funny Face]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 3:32am

Sound of Music the movie kicks Sound of Music the musicals' ass.

[Sleeth1]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 3:46am

"Sound of Music the movie kicks Sound of Music the musicals' ass".

Oh! It's been a hundred years since that show played in NY... bet they could sure do justice to it now! Maybe with that WICKED lady that everyone loves as Maria!
So how "faithful" does everyone want Mamma Mia! to be??? Surely it will have more SETS! LOL (No offense intended... I love it!)

[Funny Face]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 3:48am

^^ 0_o

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 3:55am

.

Updated On: 8/11/07 at 03:55 AM

[Boq101]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 4:37am

Umm...with the Sound of Music the plot was really actually a lot better. I never understood why the nuns sing about their favorite things in the OBCR...

Posted: 8/11/07 at 11:15am

Dreamgirls did not wimp out and try to make devices to detract from the fact that it's a movie-musical....pretty much all of the songs that took place on stage are also in line within the context that they're performed in the show.

The show is a backstage musical about a group that often performs on stage. How could the movie have done that any other way????

***

And there's no way Chicago would have worked on film if it was presented the way they do it on stage. They needed a reason for the songs to be presented. To have it all be in Roxie's head (minus the finale) was genius in how it solved that problem, in my opinion.
Updated On: 8/11/07 at 11:15 AM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 11:28am

Because with a movie musical you have to set up the convention that in the world of the film, actors will break out in song. They aren't crazy. It's just the way their world works.

DREAMGIRLS never did that. And yes, you are very right about it being a backstage musical. So they should have cut the material that got in the way and didn't work on screen.

Sleeth - one more thing: STAGE, FILM; POTATO, PANCAKE. They are not the same thing. And to make one into the other, you must do some cutting and some thinning.

Posted: 8/11/07 at 11:35am

What material do you think should have been cut in Dreamgirls? I think that "Family" stuck out like a sore thumb, but it did serve a purpose. If "It's All Over/And I Am Telling You" had been the first time in the film that the characters broke into song, I don't think that would have worked as well. "Family" eased the audience into the idea.

"When I First Saw You" and "Lorrell Loves Jimmy" could have been, I suppose, but I love both songs and I'm glad they at least let Anika sing a little solo since they cut out "Ain't No Party."

***

Anyways, my main point is that I don't see how Dreamgirls shied away from being a movie-musical at all. Most of the musical numbers were done with the group performing them on stage as if it were a real-live performance, which is exactly in line with what happened in the stage show. So where's the gimmick or device in that? There isn't one....

[amoni]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 11:51am

All this carping that audiences won't accept a good old fashion musical is crap. Some of the most beloved movies are musicals. "Sound Of Music", "Singing In The Rain". Ask any Mom & Pop video store owner, if you can find any, what their most popular title is and chances are it was "Grease". Watching "The Wizard Of Oz', a family tradition, year after year for decades before home video. Disney made billions on Poppins, Pinocchio, Song Of The South, all through Mermaid,& Lion King. All traditional musicals. Studios blamed audiences for bombs like "Star", and "Hello Dolly", when in fact they were just lousy films, unfortunately, very expensive lousy films. The 80's gave us "Xanadu" and "Can't Stop The Music", cult favorites for sure but not seriously admired. Pictures like "Chicago", "Dreamgirls" & "Hairspray" succeeded, not because they re-invented the musical, it's because they were good and audience pleasers. Plain and simple.

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:03pm

Well, yeah, although except for Grease, all those musicals you mentined were made prior to 1965. The line is that modern audiences won't accept spontaneous breaking out into song.

I think that "Family" stuck out like a sore thumb, but it did serve a purpose.

Eh, it didn't serve much purpose, especially since the lyrics were rendered nonsensical with the inclusion of Effie and CC's father.

"When I First Saw You" and "Stepping the Bad Side" took place outside the confines of a stage, thereby by negating the allegedly "all the songs take place on a stage or a near a stage" thing. The "concept" doesn't work because Condon never committed to the concept. It tried to hard to straddle the line, which I think is one of the reason the bloom fell off that rose not long after its release, that and the relentless media blitz that I think eventually just made people tired of hearing about it. Under scrutiny, the film doesn't hold up.

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:15pm

"Faithful" and "literal" are two different things to me.

I don't need an intact libretto and score of a Broadway show on film. Most of those don't work very well, with a few rare exceptions.

I'm happy when they are adapted to work cinematically. The trick is to make them WORK on film, and remain faithful to the creative intent of the subject matter. But a book is a book, a play is a play, and a movie is a movie. I don't need the Harry Potter movies to be exactly like their books, and I don't need the Sweeney Todd movie to be exactly like the Broadway show.

But, they'd better "work" in their own medium, or I'm disappointed.

I don't start out watching a film adaptation by saying, "OH! They cut that, or they changed this!" Who the hell cares? Go see the play, if that's what you're looking for.

But if they "cut that and change this," and it lessens the impact or kills the story, then I'm not happy. But I "allow" it to be different in a different medium, as an audience member.

Updated On: 8/11/07 at 12:15 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:31pm

I agree with best. I don't need a literal translation, either, but when arbitrary changes are made that don't add to the story (and in many cases detract) there's a problem. Like I've said before, the addition of a father for Effie and CC in Dreamgirls is problematic for several reasons. The first of which is that all CC's crooning about how "we're not alone anymore" and now we're a family makes no sense. They've already got a family. Having Effie in close contact with this father while she's exiled from the Dreams makes no sense.

The arbitrary ReNt changes don't serve that, either. Stretching that first act into three days just slowed everything down to a snail's pace in the film. There was no urgency driving the first half, because they were just meandering towards Maureen's performance which was to happen in a few hours on stage and not for three days on film. And then there's that whole asinine gay marriage thing.

BOTH films cut huge chunks of recicative from the score and replaced it with material that wasn't up to par. "Heavy" takes on almost operatic proportions on stage and it's distilled down to a about a five line exchange in the film. With the film's official line about "on a stage or near a stage" there's no reason "Heavy" couldn't have stayed, since that entire sequence takes place on or near a stage.

"Dreamagirls" also suffers from the relentless "THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THE SUPREMES" stuff too, but that's another story.

Posted: 8/11/07 at 12:49pm

I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say....I'm not saying that Dreamgirls worked because most of the songs took place on a stage. I'm not even trying to defend the movie at all because I understand that while I enjoy it, there are some flaws.

I'm saying that most of the numbers are presented on film the same way that they were presented in the show: as if a real-life girl group were performing them on stage in front of an audience a la The Supremes performing on tour...

There was no new concept in Dreamgirls to change the context of the musical numbers like there was in the Chicago film. So I don't see how Dreamgirls was trying to compensate for the fact that it was a movie-musical. The translation of most of the numbers was pretty similar to the way they were presented in the show.

***

And "Steppin' to the Bad Side" did mostly take place on stage...and it wasn't, it was mostly a montage of them rehearsing to get ready for the performance. "When I First Saw You," I agree, could have been cut.