It All Depends on 'Dreamgirls' - The Fate of the Movie Musical

Well there was this little movie called Chicago. I heard it did okay. I think as long as there is a director who KNOWS what he or she is doing things are great. It's when people delve in to the unknown (either with the mediums film or musical theatre) that we have problems.

I don't necessarily agree with this ...
Here's the thing...Chicago was not an awsome movie because it was a movie musical that came out during a time when people would be more acceping of movie musicals ...its an awsome movie because its a well done MOVIE - period. If producers and filmmakers would get over the fact that they think people will not accept these movies cause they're musicals then they're focus is not in the right place. With Phantom, ALW was so worried about getting a contemporary audience that he cast a phantom that was neither right singing-wise, but more importantly looks-wise (he was hotter than Raoul and younger than what the phantom should be) and it hurt the movie. Christopher Columbus was so worried about keeping Jonathan Larson's vision that he lost his own vision and ideas. The Producers was just made to capture the memory of the original cast, not to be anything more.

So, for the sake of movie musicals to continue, i think we should stop worrying about how to make audiences accept it and work on making it a GOOD movie ... the audience will fall into place if the work is there! Besides, look at the otherm ovie musicals that are so good other than chicago - Hedwig is a beautiful movie and, yes it was never a huge hit with the box-office, but its a great movie that has its own following.

Make good movies, filmmakers! That will save movie musicals!

I completely agree with BroadwayBoundBoi. It's about the QUALITY of the movie, not its genre. The recent movie musicals that weren't successful simply weren't as good as they could have been. Period. There will always be a place for movie musicals, as long as they do them justice.

I liked the producers movie and i thought it was well done...it made me reminsce of old mel Brooks movies with a broadway flare!

I guess it's human nature to pin genres and trends on everything from television to fashion. If three new sitcoms tank in a given season, the media says "the sitcom is dead." Or if three new reality shows fail, same thing. (Although, personally I WISH the reality show as a genre was dead.)

Movies are the same way. After Dances With Wolves won Best Picture, there was a wave of (mostly "okay" westerns), and then three years later "Unforgiven," (another western) won again. The western was back! Until four or five flops later, and the media proclaimed it dead again.

I completely agree with BroadwayBoundBoi---Make GOOD movies and (as they said so eloquently in "Field of Dreams"), the people will come.

---

How can you say there weren't any movie musicals in the past? West Side Story, Carousel, Cabaret, etc.....

You're all losing the point.

Yes, the movie musical will always be here and won't go anywhere. Yes, the point of making a movie of ANY genre is to make a GOOD one. The director should have a clear vision, the script should be solid, the characters should be cast based on who fits the role best, etc.

The POINT is that production companies today are scared. Movie musicals are generally expensive. And then nobody shows up to see it?

The fate DOES rest with 'Dreamgirls' and 'Hairspray' because if both of them tank, I don't think a studio will greenlight a musical for years. The genre will be at a stand-still for a while whereas it could potentially be picked up and go full steam ahead.

Look at all the projects in the works. All DEAD if 'Dreamgirls' & 'Hairspray' don't make money.

---

Yes, true, but due to special effects.

According to Box Office Mojo, 'Phantom' cost $70million, 'Rent' cost $40million, 'Producers' was $45million, 'Chicago' was $45million, and 'Moulin Rouge' was $50million.

Now non-musical movies: 'Brokeback Mountain' cost $14million, 'Capote' was $7million, 'Crash' was $6.5million, and movies with music 'Walk The Line' was $28million and 'Ray' was $40million. Special effects films 'King Kong' was $207million and 'War of the Worlds' was $132million.

So compared to non-musical, non-special effects flicks (and I gave you Oscar contenders), they are significantly less to produce than a musical.

---

This is true. Although most movie musicals in the works are independent going mainstream. Bat Boy, Sweeney Todd, etc.

Regardless, we're getting off-subject. Yes, it costs to make movies. But if you were a production company who was going to give $50 to a new project, and it was down to a movie musical and a straight dramatic film, both with decent scripts, what would you go with? The movie musical whose genre hasn't made money after Producers and Rent (and if after Dreamgirls and Hairspray and let's say they both tank)? Or the straight drama where chances are always up in the air.

Yes, it does depend on Dreamgirls.

---

Maybe it could also be a matter of changing cultural tastes or preferences.

In the past, when movie musicals were derived from stage shows or were originally scripted/composed, songs from musicals sometimes made it to Billboard charts. They were somewhat considered part of mainstream music.

I think that is no longer true - it would be quite a shock if one sees a showtune being part of top singles lists.

Which is why, no matter what one thinks of "American Idols", I appreciate that there is some effort there to re-establish the appeal of showtunes.