History Boys movie

[jewelchk]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 9:59pm

Has anyone seen any advertising for the History Boys movie outside of this board? I missed it on Broadway and was looking forward to seeing the movie, but I never remembered when it was coming out past "fall 2006". I was totally shocked to go by a theater in Manhattan last night and see it up on the movie marquee because I thought it hadn't opened yet (limited opening started two weeks ago apparently).

Why does there seem to be so much trouble marketing movies that are stage adaptations? (Beyond the obvious, like "well, if people aren't musical theater fans they probably won't like the actors bursting into song, so that cuts into our audience base"). Especially for the less blockbuster stage shows, why don't the studios try rebranding them through advertising like many more conventional movies brand themselves in commercials?

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 10:18pm

I don't know why THE HISTORY BOYS isn't being advertised, but it should be. The show was brilliant.

And, it's not a musical...

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 10:47pm

It's limited right now, and will expand this month.

[GEA113]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 10:54pm

I can't wait until it comes out in my town Dec 22!

its trailer was before "For Your Consideration," and I thought it was better than the actual movie I paid for... then again, I am completely obsessed with The History Boys so I'm a bit biased

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 11:01pm

They're making a History Boys movie?

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 11:08pm

yes, darling, I was fully aware of that. Twas sarcasm. After all, I was/am a little obsessed...

[Heybeenfood]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 11:25pm

I am seeing it this weekend at the Lincoln Center movie theater. I think promotion will start to pick up, but the NY Times review was pretty good.

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 12:01am

Comes to Berkeley this Friday, I'm so excited!
Ebert & Roeper (or whoever & Roeper it is now) gave it thumbs down and said the school should be shut down. It's just barely fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.
Now I don't know how different it is from the play, but the difference in film vs theater critical reaction is fascinating.

[bythesword84]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 1:47am

Considering his avatar is Russell Tovey it would be hard to say he **didn't** know there was a movie of HB.

Anyway, there are several differences from the play to the film but of course the story is about 90% the same with some tweakings to it here and there, but many of the film scenes are word for word the same as the play. However, it does play differently on the screen than it does on the stage, but I adore them both. I'm still a devotee of the stage production over the movie, but I prefer to say that I love the movie for what it is, including its differences. Really, though, preserving the performances of that group of actors is what it was all about for me.

[jewelchk]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 9:56am

Oh, munk, I know it's not a musical :) I was grouping them together because most recent Broadway stage-to-movie adaptations have had the same problem, and it was easier to provide a sample reason that a musical may have a problem finding an audience. Since I couldn't think of a good general reason it's hard to market a good play turned movie to an audience, that's why I posed the question.

[mabel]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 10:54am

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with it release-wise with the NBR Top 10 and if it manages to pull off a Musical/Comedy nomination when the Golden Globe nominations are announced next week. As it is, I think it's only playing in 3 theaters in New York. The advertising has been non-existant. Even as far as trailers go. I've seen about 10 movies in the past month or two that I would have expected the trailer to show at, and I've only seen it once (at The Last King of Scotland, I believe).

That being said, the reviews haven't been particularly stellar, and I wasn't terribly impressed by the screenplay (as much as I LOVED the play). I thought it reads (at least) very choppy. Scenes that aren't cut out entirely are often hacked down. Yeah, most of it is still there in some capacity, but I don't think it's as fleshed out as the play. Whatever, it's wonderful that it was preserved with the entire original cast. I forget who I wrote this, but I tend to agree (even though I won't see it until it opens at my local indie theater on 12/22) that it feels like more of a souvenier of the stage show.

(Side note: Gea, you don't happen to be based in New England, do you? I just ask because my local indie theater's starting it 12/22 as well and is currently playing For Your Consideration, and that doesn't seem to have a very wide release either).

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 1:44pm

I for one am glad they excised the framing device with Posner and Irwin. I thought that was the play's only flaw. I'm sure the French scene is in tact, but does anyone remember it being longer in the play? I swore it had to have gone on a lot longer than it does in the film. I'm still not sure how I feel about Posner's new epilogue. I was saddened by it at the theater and wanted him to have a better one, but it feels like a sell-out.

[mabel]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 2:08pm

I seem to recall the French scene being trimmed down, when reading the screenplay (as were many of my favorites). I think one of the worst being Rudge's "free range education" scene with Mrs. Lintott. I really don't know what they were thinking!

I'm also not crazy about Posner's new fate. Sam Barnett has said in interviews it's because of the Lockwood change (and getting rid of the Irwin flashforwards) but I think it's a little too schmaltzy for my taste (though I can see where it would be coming out of nowhere without the Rievaulx Abbey scene). I found it curious that Barnett also mentioned they kept the film ending (with the Rievaulx scene intact) for their Sydney run. That'd be a mess!

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 2:42pm

"Ebert & Roeper (or whoever & Roeper it is now) gave it thumbs down and said the school should be shut down."

Actually, Roeper gave it thumbs down, but the other guy didn't.

The audio of their reviews is online here.

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/061127.html

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 2:44pm

Is there any nudity in the movie?

[JamesMacon]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 9:16pm

I saw the movie today, and it really was a pleasure to watch. Everyone was spot on. I can only imagine how incredible the Broadway show must have been...

No, there is no nudity.

[dramaqueen2]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 10:43pm

i just saw the movie tonite actually, it was absolutely fantastic! though i have nothing to compare it to, i was never lucky enough to see the show staged..
however, i will say that the actors made a wonderful stage to screen transition. i'm saying this because often times actors who usually do their thing on stage sometimes have an awkward transition to the movies. for example, [i'm sure i'll bashed for this later..] but the OBC of rent that were in the movie, were sometimes awkward and not very subtle, but this cast was truly a joy to watch. the characters were played up very well and utilized all the little "-isms" the way the should. it was just a treat from start to finish. i highly recommend seeing it to anyone and everyone. what a cast! what a story! no wonder it won the tony!
i want to see it again so i can take it in more.. lovely!