Does Miss Saigon's poor showing on Broadway mean no future film?

Since the show's plan all along was to play a limited Broadway run, and then tour - nothing has changed. Taking a show on the road is where a lot of the money is made that goes towards the bottom line.

If memory serves, I believe that there was some chatter of turning it into a movie around the same time the Les Miserables came out. Possibly, with Jackman playing Chris. But, I don't believe anything came of it.

Regardless, the revival on Broadway (as was stated earlier in the thread) was always billed as a limited run followed by a tour. While I like the show and had never seen it until the revival, the powers that be were smart in realizing that, although a show people know, a Les Miserables in terms of popularity it isn't.

Dave28282 said: "It was always supposed to be a limited run. The show has a huge audience and fanbase.

There was certainly talk of a film and I think Miss Saigon lends itself perfectly for it, as long as they go all the way with the fantasy of acting through song instead of trying to speak-sing the whole thing. That is not what makes it real and raw. That is only achieved when the artform is embraced.



I understand that, in terms of popularity, Saigon is no Les Miserables. But, the recent revival of Les Miserables sold extremely well (not sure if it recouped or not) but still. I know that they would have extended Saigon if it was selling very well. Clearly that's not the case by any means. I'm not saying that it's not a good show. I love it and it's one of my favorites. But, for the first revival of a show that played on Broadway for over ten years, and not doing so hot at the box office, begs me to ask where that huge audience and fanbase is?

^It was.

evic said: "And it is so anti American.



"

Anti-American? Does "American-ness" stand for bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, racism, and foreign interference?

Dave28282 said: "It was always supposed to be a limited run. The show has a huge audience and fanbase.

There was certainly talk of a film and I think Miss Saigon lends itself perfectly for it, as long as they go all the way with the fantasy of acting through song instead of trying to speak-sing the whole thing. That is not what makes it real and raw. That is only achieved when the artform is embraced."

we never would have guessed your feelings on this subject. it's not like you've said these exact words at least a hundred other times.

Yep, and it can't be said often enough.

Here are some more examples of people describing it perfectly:

Callum Marsh: "Flaws—and there are a great many that would have never made the cut were this a perfectible studio recording—are conveniently swept under the rug of candid expression ... the worst quality of Les Misérables's live singing is simply that it puts too much pressure on a handful of performers who frankly cannot sing.... Fisheye lenses and poorly framed close-ups abound in Les Misérables. One would be hard-pressed to describe this as anything but an ugly film, shot and cut ineptly. Everything in the film, songs included, is cranked to 11, the melodrama of it all soaring. So it's odd that this kind of showboating maximalism should be ultimately reduced to a few fisheye'd faces, mugging for their close-up, as the people sing off-key and broken."

Emma Gosnell, writing for The Daily Telegraph, stated that she walked out of the showing due to the poor singing, specifically citing Crowe and Jackman as the cause. Playback singer Marni Nixon said "[Crowe] was nothing. It wasn’t that he was choosing to sing like that, he just couldn't do anything else" and that Jackman acted well but "could have done with a nobler voice". She also criticised Bonham Carter as being incomprehensible, but praised the rest of the female cast. American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert tweeted several disparaging messages, including "why not cast actors who could actually sound good?" and "the singing was so distracting at times it pulled me out", to which Crowe replied via Twitter "I don't disagree with Adam,sure it could have been sweetened,Hooper wanted it raw and real,that's how it is". Nixon rebutted this: "We're talking about a musical. Is that real? People don't go around singing 'La la la la' to each other all day!"



Which hits the nail on it's head in my opinion. Hooper may think the actors have freedom but in fact they are trapped. I see actors struggling with the material which prevents them from making the acting believable. It's completely undermining the artform and the influence of singing, music and illusion. Therefore nothing in the film feels real or raw. Elaborate cinematography, sung music as an underscore, pre-recorded tracks give them the ability to soar with the material. It's not as if the epilogue scene in La La Land would feel more raw and real when it would have been shot in 1 take, live between a trash can and a concrete wall and had the chorus just standing there and sing live because supposedly "that makes it real". That's not filmmaking. Filmmaking is using the music as a voice over, creating a better than life feel with sung thoughts. I want to hear better singing than the character could ever be doing live in that moment. Is leaving out the violins in a romantic scene more real too?

From now on, anyone discussing the future film of Miss Saigon should realize this and speak of this. Go all the way, embrace the artform or don't make the film.

Ps. It would be amazing if Boublil and Schonberg would still be around to be involved in making the film.

Updated On: 8/8/17 at 07:07 AM

Plannietink08 said: "
The show always does well on tour and in every country it plays so there's definitely a market for the movie. I don't think the American market is thought of as the sole reason to make a film anymore so whether is does well on Broadway or not won't matter too much, I suspect.

Either way, the movie version of Les Mis didn't exactly burn up the box office the way Cam Mac was expecting so I doubt any other musicals are being considered for film at the moment which is a shame as Miss Saigon would look incredible on the big screen "

I agree. It is very popular worldwide. Broadway won't matter much.

I think the wrong approach of the Les Mis film (creating a bad taste in people's mouths about singing in film) and the hiding of the show (Miss Saigon) for the last 10 years (a whole generation has never heard of the show until the London revival, so bad marketing) play bigger roles in the decision.

Updated On: 8/8/17 at 07:42 AM

Dave28282 said: "Yep, and it can't be said often enough.

Here are some more examples of people describing it perfectly:

Callum Marsh: "Flaws—and there are a great many that would have never made the cut were this a perfectible studio recording—are conveniently swept under the rug of candid expression ... the worst quality of Les Misérables's live singing is simply that it puts too much pressure on a handful of performers who frankly cannot sing.... Fisheye lenses and poorly framed close-ups abound in Les Misérables. One would be hard-pressed to describe this as anything but an ugly film, shot and cut ineptly. Everything in the film, songs included, is cranked to 11, the melodrama of it all soaring. So it's odd that this kind of showboating maximalism should be ultimately reduced to a few fisheye'd faces, mugging for their close-up, as the people sing off-key and broken."

First of all, director Tom Hooper was asked about his decision to use extreme close-ups, and here's his response: "The close-ups were an option. We shot each scene in more than one way. We were never tied to using close-ups over and over. But each time we used them, it felt more emotional. It allowed the character to be in the center of each scene and not flinch from them as they went on a journey of discovery with the audience. We made a cut with fewer close-ups and then switched it up. (The sequence with the song) I Dreamed a Dream had more of a medium shot tracking slowly to a close-up. That song went to a whole new level. People assume you don't think these things through. I spend my life thinking through every eventuality."

Second of all, that whole cast of Les Miserables had musical backgrounds one way or another. Hugh Jackman is a Tony-winning song and dance man for crying out loud. Russell Crowe started out his career in musical theater, nowadays, he performs live with his band. Anne Hathaway is a former rising star at the Paper Mill Playhouse. Amanda Seyfried played Sophie in the film version of Mamma Mia!. Eddie Redmayne appeared in Sam Mendes' West End production of Oliver!.

I just find it very idiotic to judge a person's overall talent based on one performance alone. The point I'm trying to make is that if that exact same cast was performing Les Miserables on stage, they'd be giving completely different performances.

Dave, we get it, since you bring it up on almost every thread: You hated the Les Mis movie. I suggest you don't watch it again, because that's what the rest of us do when a movie comes out that we're disappointed in.

If memory serves, I believe that there was some chatter of turning it into a movie around the same time the Les Miserables came out.

There has been chatter about a Miss Saigon film for over 20 years.

Right. Still chatter.