Interesting. His movies focus on a specific milieu of gangster much like the way Runyon's works did.
Of course they're worlds apart, but Ritchie does have a knack for fully realizing a sub-strata of society.
Jason Statham however is a deal breaker.
Sorry if this was already posted.
link
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/10/08
Oh dear LORD.
Well, at least we can rest assured that Madonna won't be in this.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/20/04
He'd do it well.
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/10/08
Maybe I jumped the gun here. Hell, if he gets Anne Hathaway, Kristin Chenoweth and/or John C. Reilly, I'm sold.
So Jason Statham is actually not a half bad actor. I've really been waiting for him to try something other than a mindless action flick. I'd be intrigued in this for certain.
"Hell, if he gets Anne Hathaway, Kristin Chenoweth and/or John C. Reilly, I'm sold."
Oh God, please no Cheno. I'd much prefer Christina Applegate, Jane Krakowski, Debra Messing, or virtually anyone else on the planet. Oh, if Ellen Greene were younger. Hathaway and Reilly would be terrific.
I can't imagine this will happen.
The idea of taking an iconic NEW YORK musical and moving the setting to England is the first clue that he has No clue at all.
It would mean rewriting a lot of lyrics which should NOT happen!
I feel like this could go either way. I've never seen a Ritchie movie that dealt with Americans, but his take on this classic could be both interesting and highly entertaining. Here's to hoping no 'mockney' accents suddenly appear.
I'm not familiar with Jason Stratham, I IMDB-ed him and I haven't seen him in anything he has done before.
I just don't think you can set this in London and remain true to the material.
I'd love to see a cast that features Natalie Portman or Anne Hathaway as Sarah Brown, Hugh Jackman or Ewan McGregor as Sky Masterson, John C. Reilly or Philip Seymour Hoffman as Nathan Detroit, and Marisa Tomei, Reese Witherspoon or the fabulous Jane Krakowski as Miss Adelaide. Maybe someone like Steve Buscemi as Nicely-Nicely Johnson (does he have to be a big person?)
Maybe they'll cast Jessica Biel as Sarah Brown if she does a good job at the Hollywood Bowl concert.
First Des McAnuff makes it stupid and unfunny, now Guy Ritchie removes everything that makes it unique.
What did Guys and Dolls do to deserve such trashings?
Jason Statham?! London?! WHY?!?!?
If Statham can sing, I could see him as Sky. I checked youtube, and couldn't find any clips of him singing. The thought of setting G&D in London is absurd.
He's going to change the title to Blokes'n'birds.
Brittany Murphy as Adelaide. BRITTANY MURPHY AS ADELAIDE!
This girl was born to play that role and if you've ever heard her sing "Adelaide's Lament" you know why she is absolutely IDEAL and seemingly put-on-this-earth to do that role.
The girl can sing like nobody's business, for those who only know her from her movies (btw, her performance in THE DEAD GIRL is brilliant and probably the best I saw last year, an amazing cast (Toni Collette, Marcia Gay Harden, Piper Laurie, etc.) though its a very brutal film by a fantastic director).
Ritchie has more talent than many give him credit for, though I really wish he would do a film of THE PILLOWMAN or THE CRIPPLE OF INISHMAN because McDonaugh probably would let him (and only him) do so as he doesn't usually want his plays filmed.
A Good Nightmare Comes So Rarely,
P genre
I'm not entirely opposed to setting the show in London, which is an interesting proposition, but the show is so inherently "American" in its settings, language and characters, I just don't see how it could be accomplished well. Even the title! Was the same slang popular during the same era in London? Will he change it to "Blokes and Birds"? It's sort of like trying to rewrite Me and My Girl to be set in Manhattan. If the books and scores weren't already iconic on their own within the realm of musical theatre (and to a certain extent, Guys and Dolls on the screen), then I could understand. The controversial relocation of The Full Monty was certainly debatable, but the film was not very old and there was no previous musicalized version of the material, so the risk was far less severe. But setting Guys and Dolls in London for a film is a somewhat dubious, yet intriguing, notion.
Ack! Scripps beat me to it! Great minds, et al...
Oh, I'd love to see Christina Applegate as Adelaide. They should've gotten her for the recent revival.
They're should call it "Blokes and Birds".
Brittany Murphy is a little young for Adelaide. Also, last time I saw her, she was too waif-ish.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/21/06
My joke gets repeated twice!!
Great minds indeed.
Seriously, I think the analogy is not Me and My Girl or The Full Monty but My Fair Lady. Whilst in the broadest of terms you could move the time, location and culture of either show the specifics of those already chosen enhance and accentuate the plotlines so much that any translation would undermine the whole work with little of value to substitute.
Please. After SHERLOCK HOLMES bombs at a theater near you this idea will disappear faster than that GUYS AND DOLLS with Vin Diesel and Nicole Kidman that they threatened to do several years ago.
One thing for sure. Guy Ritchie knows how to shoot motions. It will be interesting to see how he shoot the choreograph.
Seriously, I think the analogy is not Me and My Girl or The Full Monty but My Fair Lady.
Perhaps, but if you Americanize Me and My Girl, what do you do with The Lambeth Walk? The extensive rewrites to the book and lyrics simply wouldn't justify the shift in locale. If the show had some greater universal theme thatwould render the book malleable enough to be applicable to a variety of settings, then creative license is logical. But both Guys and Dolls nor Me and My Girl are rather fluffy thin plots that rely quite heavily on their settings. My Fair Lady would be far less difficult to rework, I believe. Pygmalion itself already has hints of Svengali and Phantom of the Opera, but using the medium of speech rather than music.
Videos