McG in talks to Direct/Produce Spring Awakening film- Page 2

[JenNYferTheatrical]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 3:53pm

From BroadwaySpace:



Awesome.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 4:39pm

What's up with that name?
I feel like I ordered him for lunch at Mickey D's.
Translating this to screen is going to be very, very ,very, difficult.
Best of Luck to them all.

Has there ever been a movie of the play?
And don't tell me to google myself.

[madscientist]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:00pm

"None of the actors from the show will be in this movie. They barely worked onstage. Movies are less forgiving. None of them look the appropriate age. It will be all unknowns, I'm sure, and it will make a profit on name alone. "

Really? I thought Spring Awakening made an effort to cast people who looked the appropriate age based on articles I've read. I've never seen SA, but I always wanted to, so I really wouldn't know. But that is a shame if they didn't look the appropriate age, and I hope with the movie they make an effort to do that. I don't know what it is, but adults who are obviously too old for roles playing down their age really irks me for some reason...I do understand that at times there's no choice and at times it works, but it's just been something that gets on my nerves for some reason.

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:08pm

I just made a T:24601 last night of Jean Valjean but I didn't save it.

[MrSweetNAwful]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:40pm

In McG's defense, he started off directing over fifty music videos and the ony way I can see Spring Awakeing being adapted to film and not coming off bad is if it was in the style of a music video.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 5:44pm

There's no room for CGI or things like that, so there should be no worries there.

I don't know. We could have another Eyes Wide Shut on our hands. At least the score will have more than three notes, though.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 6:30pm

He also produces SUPERNATURAL which rocks by the way.


Please continue...

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 6:35pm

I don't know if they're going to make it PG-13 or keep it in its more R rated format. They will have to make the sex scene very moderate, and the masturbation scene will have to be cut. There is NO way the film will be PG-13 if they keep "Totally F*CKed". By rules of the MPAA, a film that says the F word more than once is automatically rated R. They let some movies slide if the F word is used twice, but by the rules of MPAA... If they want to keep it PG-13, they will have to cut totally ****ed, or change it to "Totally Stuck" or something like that.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 7:33pm

Considering "Totally F'd" is one of the most pivotal moments in the show, they cannot possibly cut it. Unless they want to lose a very vital moment. And I doubt Sater and Sheik would allow it to be changed to "Totally Stuck" in a version of their musical. Considering the show is about the sexual awakening of teenagers, I think parents will be on guard regardless of the rating, so I'm sure the MPAA will slap an R rating on it and it'll do the same business.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 7:49pm

^ Mostly agree with you. I think Sheik and Sater are going to find themselves in an awkward place, they want teenagers to see it (and they know that a lot won't if it's rated R), but they don't want the film to lose some of its most pivotal parts so it can be PG-13. I personally wouldn't be disappointed if cut out the masturbation scene; it always seemed like a WTF moment to me and I never cared for it. The sex scene could easily be modified into something less racey and it would still be just as terrifying and awkward as it should be. Cutting Totally F*CKed would be a major blow, unless Duncan writes an amazing song to replace it... I would be pissed.

"Considering the show is about the sexual awakening of teenagers, I think parents will be on guard regardless of the rating"
-As a High School Student, I can assure you that most parents don't give a crap what their teenagers watch as long as it is not rated R.

To be honest... as long as they get rid of "Totally F*CKed", tone down the sex scene, and cut the masturbation part... they will be fine. It is amazing what can pass for PG-13 these days. I really hope that they don't cut totally ****ed, I know it will make it rated R... but I think it will greatly take away from the movie.

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 7:55pm

I was actually thinking they could make it even more racy... especially with scenes like Martha's description of her abuse... those sorts of things could be shown, like a flashback or whatever. If theyre gonna be rated R anyway, why not...

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:01pm

^ Yes, but that might be to depressing. I think they could make it a little more 'awkward', even if it is PG-13, but I don't think they should make the film a complete downer.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:21pm

I personally don't understand how they are going to do it as a movie with all of the internal dialogue that has to do with modern references "stereo" etc. and make it work. On stage, you have the disbelief mentality and take it as such. In movies, you don't really have that...in regards to the modern slang and references when it is set in the lat 19th century or whenever.

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:34pm

^I can picture explaining that easily with some scene fading of people in the same situations from different periods in time... maybe not how theyll handle it, but its an idea and seems like a music video kind of concept. The show had the modern characters sitting on the sides to sorta say that these themes are still relevant today, and Im sure theyll work in that message somehow.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:36pm

^ So you want this film to be a 2 hour music video?

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:38pm

It won't be a 2 hour music video, but McG understands how to work with film in conjunction with music. He also understands motion pictures, so the marriage of the two should be fairly fluid.

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:41pm

I think they can make it work, but I'm not a fan of musicals done like music videos. I hope McG won't do the movie like that, but he's a pro. I'm sure he knows what he's doing.

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:42pm

^I can picture explaining that easily with some scene fading of people in the same situations from different periods in time...

You mean Chicago?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 8:59pm

Chicago stayed in the same period throughout the movie

[Craww]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 10:37pm

In McG's defense, he started off directing over fifty music videos and the ony way I can see Spring Awakeing being adapted to film and not coming off bad is if it was in the style of a music video.

Possibly, but even his roster of music videos doesn't inspire confidence. They all looked like the Charlies Angels movies. (We're talking cheesy-vivid-bright late '90s alternapop videos for Sugar Ray, The Offspring, BNL, Smash Mouth, etc.) I'm not saying that style doesn't have its place, but I'm imagining an aesthetic almost diametrically opposed for the Spring Awakening movie.

McG is not the worst possible choice, but...let's just say that there are two Spring Awakening movies I could hope for. The affecting and beautifully done one that captures and elevates everything good about the stage show, and excises all the missteps. OR, the one that's so terribly offensively awful that it's kind of great. High School Musical alum! An extended version of My Junk! Make the abuse elements even more hamfisted and emotionally manipulative, possibly even having the Coldplay-inspired 'The Dark I Know Well' reorchestrated by Chris Martin himself! Melchior and Mortiz joyride in the General Lee while devil girls slap their asses! The thing is, I'm afraid McG can't make the first movie, so I'll have to hope for the second. I think he can make the third kind (the one I don't want, the one that's just okay), but McG can kind of only succeed by failing epically.

[bossbear062]

Posted: 4/14/09 at 11:40pm

A film only needs to say **** 3 times or more to get an automatic R rating...so that can answer the question on what the rating will be.

[MrSweetNAwful]

Posted: 4/15/09 at 12:40am

Speculation is nice an all, but it's so early in the game to ponder anything.

Though I'll go on the record and say they'll probably just bleep every f-bomb in Totally F*CKed and say it's a artistic representation of the censorship the adults inflict on the children.

[fromthecity]

Posted: 4/15/09 at 3:14am

the f*ck rule is applied to using the word as a reference to sex. You will automatically get an R rating if you use it like "i want you to **** me" or "i want to **** you." Using the f-word as an expletive does not automatically make you qualify for an R rating, especially in an artistic context. Just to let you know.

But there are a bit too many ****s in Totally F*CKed. That alone will definitely get them an R rating. But they can definitely argue with the MPAA on that one since it's in a sung context.

And I really don't think that an R rating will alter their business too much. They're not going to try to go for a "let's appeal to teenagers" with this one, just like they weren't really trying to do that in the musical. They were trying to be artistic. The teenagers were just an unfortunate side effect. I bet this movie will try to be pressed more as awards bait than teen flick (just like they tried to push RENT as... despite it sucking so hard).

Now let's take a moment to address the morons in this thread who are bringing up the same dead horse again....

If you honestly believe Sater and Shiek might change the lyrics to Totally F*CKed, you might be a moron.

If you honestly believe the High School Musical kids are first in line for roles in this, you might be a moron. (Jesus, they're not even in any other ****ing movies... except for Zefron and he's over musicals anyway).

If you believe the OBC will be in this, you might be a moron.

If you believe that Broadway or tour cast members ought to be seriously considered for roles, despite the fact that they have no box office appeal, you might be a moron.

And if you honestly believe that McG is not talented enough to pull this movie off, you might be a moron. He did the Charlie's Angeles. So what? You think that every ****ing director starts off with Schindler's List? Ron Howard's early career consisted of Splash.. you think people were toting the Oscar horns for him back then?

Let's just assume that people know how to do their jobs, mmkay?
Updated On: 4/15/09 at 03:14 AM

[Craww]

Posted: 4/15/09 at 3:32am

But they can definitely argue with the MPAA on that one since it's in a sung context.

While you were calling every other conceivable opinion on this thread moronic, maybe you could have pointed out that only a moron would think they could argue down to a PG-13 without changing the language.

Here's another one for you. If you think paraphrasing an ancient Jeff Foxworthy skit to tell us all "we might be a moron if..." is somehow fresh or funny, you might be a moron.

Not to mention pretty much all of your points are patently false. If the movie is made soon, and with communication with the show's creators, there's no reason to think that the young attractive kids who've played these roles on stage would never be considered for the movie. Some of these kids are breaking out into television and movies as it is. Maybe they won't be considered first, or for the main roles, but it wouldn't be shocking to have Spring Awakening cast members in the movie. Nor would it really be shocking to have High School Musical actors in the movie. I think if Lucas Grabeel can get cast in Milk, he can get cast to play Hanschen or Ernst in Spring Awakening.

People hoping for an OBC reunion are silly, and people fearing a Zefron/BabyV Melchior and Wendla have nothing to fear. But your statements are far too black and white, and there's just no reason to call everyone a moron. (Especially when you think McG made a movie called Charlie's Angeles.) Updated On: 4/15/09 at 03:32 AM

[fromthecity]

Posted: 4/15/09 at 4:23am

Oh gee, my jokes aren't fresh for Craww. I'll have to buy a douche.

I didn't say the B-way kids wouldn't be considered. I said they shouldn't be seriously considered (like, oh, a Matt Doyle Melchior). Though, you're right, if they're going to go for unknowns for the smaller parts .. Emily Kinney or Andrew Durand popping up here and there wouldn't be the worst thing. My point was mainly for the leads.

Regarding the MPAA: "The Ratings Boards may rate a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous."

So, yes, being an angsty rock number, it can be argued and voted upon due to the context / manner in which the words are used (or sung)... the "or the words are inconspicuous" does not apply.
Updated On: 4/15/09 at 04:23 AM