Jekyll & Hyde Film version

Does anyone know more about the current plans for this?

Yesterday I watched the film "Stonehearst Asylum". It's a story about a mental hospital which takes place around 1900.

I was really impressed with the actor Jim Sturgess, and think he is the perfect type for the title role in this. When I googled him, I found that he is actually a singer in the first place.

I hear Frank Wildhorn say in an interview that he likes to have first rate actors that are first rate singers too. I think this project could be wonderful, if done right. I think they should take more freedom than the standard musical films. With filmic editing, but also with the music. Maybe not all the songs have to be sung or lip-synched by the characters, but I think certain songs can be used as a kind of "voice over", with the right editing and spoken parts in between. I can imagine "his work and nothing more" being played, while you see a compilation of scenes and things happening (or certain parts sung and others as voice over). Because a lot of lyrics in this show actually play in someone's mind and are not sung out loud.

My picks for the 3 lead roles would be:

Henry Jekyll/Edward Hyde: Jim Sturgess
Lucy: Katharine McPhee
Emma: Laura Osnes

Then his singing should be dubbed by John Owen Jones :) That could be epic.

He is a great actor and the right type in my opinion. I agree that this role needs an astounding singer, not just any actor that used to sing.

Updated On: 12/9/14 at 09:31 AM

Is that jealousy shining through?

I think she's fantastic.

McPhee?

Let me reiterate what I said when I heard that Deborah Cox thought she could reliably sing Lucy in J&H 8x a week...

'Somewhere, Linda Eder is laughing'

A revival of J/H with Jackman in the lead would give Wildhorn something that has escaped him and that is a hit show. A movie would expose Wildhorn and broaden his audience.

---

In all honesty, Robert Cuccioli's voice reminded me a bit of Hugh Jackman's on the OBCR, so I do think that Jackman could pull off the role vocally. (And he could do VERY WELL on the Hyde sections, too; if you've ever listened to him on the Australian Cast Recording of Beauty and the Beast, Hugh's voice was nice and deep as Gaston.)

As for the age, it's true that Dr. Jekyll is a young man in the musical. However, in the original novella, Jekyll is described as being a middle-aged bachelor; they could just as easily reincorporate this idea if they decided to cast Jackman in the title roles.

---

I agree, McPhee is out of the question.

plz ^

---

I do agree with you, actually. He wasn't the best in the role, no, but Hasselhoff wasn't even the worst, either. His performance on the DVD was actually the first thing I ever saw of the show, and it didn't cause me to cringe away from discovering the rest of Jekyll & Hyde, as much as we all like to joke about how awful he was. It's also interesting to watch how he performed the roles, as you can tell how much fun he was having in the show and, even if his singing wasn't the BEST thing, it's easy to see how he really was giving it his all and trying his hardest.

Now, would he translate well into a film adaptation? I don't know. His exaggerated acting worked well onstage, but there's no way of telling whether he would try to "ham it up" again in front of a camera in a film environment. (I guess it also depends on which tone they would decide to take with the film: goofy and cheesy or dark and brooding?)

---

---