Movie Musicals following Dreamgirls success?- Page 2

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 10:29am

tazber---Wait... are you under the impression that Rachel Weisz is playing Mrs. Lovett in the film?

It's Helena Bonham Carter.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 10:30am

Sweeney Todd is going to have to do some serious movie magic to make Laura Michelle Kelly viable as Lucy. Sure she'll be great in any flashbacks - but they'll have to age her up (she's 25) if they keep the story that Sweeney was away for as long as he was - and given that Johanna will be at least 16-19 (I'm guesing) in the film

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 10:58am

I just hope they don't go TOO far, Craig. She should be around Depp's age... not end up looking like Bette Midler in "For the Boys."

I'm hoping they actually use a different actress for the "older scenes." She's a homeless crazy lady... and the whole impact is that she's not very recognizable as her former self. It don't think it's an age issue. It's only been 15 years (not 50). But the streets have not been kind to her... and she should look "beat up" and perhaps even transformed (into anther person!).

[tazber]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 11:19am

B12B,
Sorry, you are absolutely correct. For some reason I get those 2 confused. I was thinking of Bonham Carter when i was posting though, so my concerns remain the same.
I would love nothing more than for it to be a hit. It would open the doors for so many more musicals to be considered for screen adaptation.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 11:41am

tazber --- I have my doubts about this film too.

It's one of the toughest and most demanding of its cast... and they've chosen non-singers (or "passables") in the leading roles. Then they've excised half of its brilliant score.

Who are they planning on pleasing with a movie like this?

I honestly don't think it's going to work.

I think what we'll end up with is a "noble attempt."

Damned with faint praise at best, and raked over the coals at worst.

And either way... four people will go to see it.

I really hope I'm wrong!

[tazber]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 11:48am

I didn't realize they already cut so much of the score out.
I do think Burton can capture the atmosphere visually. I also have a feeling he's going to up the gore quotient, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 11:56am

"Then they've excised half of its brilliant score."

Where did you hear this??
What songs have already been cut???

[worrell4077]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 12:05pm

"What songs have already been cut???"

I read somewhere that the rumored songs cut are Green Finch and Linnet Bird, Ah Miss, Kiss Me, Epiphany, God That's Good, and By The Sea.

I think that Hairspray will do very well cause it's going to be one of those fun, summertime movies and the big names in the cast will help drawn in audiences.

I have the feeling that Sweeney Todd will be a success, seeing that it's Burton/Depp and a good amount of their past films like Edward Scissorhands and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory have done very well.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 12:07pm

I am not sad to see "Linnet Bird" and "Kiss Me" go. Those songs grate on my nerves.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 12:17pm

There is nothing in the official interviews to even suggest that the score has been cut, so I'm chalking that up to rumour, just like (1) Cohen will *not* be rapping his lyrics as Perelli and (2) Johnny Depp did *not* have to take a vocal test to assuage Sondheim's fears that he couldnt sing the role.

Besides, please, people -- "Epiphany"? "By the Sea"? "God thats Good"? These are all plot point songs, and I doubt Sondheim would allow this kind of wholesale slashing without it being well known across the internet.

If we're going to be posting rumours and possibilities, let's at least have *something* to back it up, okay? Right now, there are so many rumours about this movie swirling around that I'm amazed Burton hasnt thrown up his hands and said to everyone at BWW.com, "Fine! *You* direct it!"

[tazber]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 12:19pm

I can't imagine Sondheim would let those cuts be made.

[bk]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 1:18pm

No, Dreamgirls is not a financial success. The film COST 75 mil. You can add another 40-50 mil on top of that for the prints and advertising (Dreamworks/Paramount spent more money trying to shove this film down the public's and the Academy voters' throats than almost any film in history). A film has to make two-and-a-half times its production costs to be in profit - that has been the standard Hollywood rule of thumb forever.

Also, I'm always amused at anyone quoting box office mojo - it's like quoting from the imdb - frequently they are incorrect and are guestimating. I'll give you an example: When Phantom came out, box office mojo was touting all these incredible figures during its initial release - when the film went wide, those figures had magically changed and the film wasn't much further along than it had been two months prior. They kept touting figures which I knew to be untrue (they get them from the studios - what else is new). I said so then and many people on another board were very angry I was questioning those grosses. Well, at the end of the year, when Variety published their year-end tallies, Phantom had ultimately grossed a whopping twenty-five million LESS than box office mojo had originally reported. Of course, since we all live in Orwell-land, box office mojo just quiety readujusted their previous figures.

The only people who are going to see profit from Dreamgirls are the composer/lyricists and whomever shares in the publishing - the CD has done well and that's where the profit is - not from the film, which, at this point, is a loser of considerable proportions. The DVD will help, but I suspect not to the tune they're anticipating. And calling it the fourth most successful musical of all time is, of course, complete rubbish. When adjusted for inflation and given the cost of film ratio to gross ratio, several others would leave it in the dust, most notably The Sound Of Music and West Side Story.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 1:31pm

bk,
I hear where you are coming from but there are many more avenues which the studio can make $ from with this (TV licensing among others). Film accounting is one of the most complicated processes there is. Each film is treated like a mini company. Until all the debits and credits are accounted for, there is no way to know exactly what the profit margin (or lack thereof)will be. It's way too early to call this one way or the other.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 1:45pm

I believe several people on the board have seen or read the Sweeney screenplay, which is why they may know which cuts have already been made.

Personally, I couldn't imagine that the Dreamgirls moivie would have cut 50% of the music from the score, but there you go.

[Paulyd]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 2:31pm

I saw Dreamgirls at a preview screening a while ago and loved it. When i saw it again with a paying audience, the reaction to the film was very different. People laughing at certain musical scenes, and their general attiude release pissed me off.

The movie musical still needs to go a long way before it can be resurected on a more permenant basis. Its probably the only movie genre that has never been the consistent over the last 40 years. I suppose with sky high budgets, they just scare producers away, and with current movie musicals dying at the box office, there just not sound investments.

I love Sweneey Todd to death, but in order to appeal to a mainstream audience, i reckon a few cuts need to be made. I just cant see an audience sitting through a movie version of the complete score, even with Burton and Depp's involvement.

I've never been a huge fan of the musical Hairspray, but i love John Waters original movie. I see this could go the way of The Producers movie where odly enough the musical numbers really slowed the film down. Great on stage but just poor on film.

I'm really interested to see how Julie Taymor's 'Across the Universe' turns out though.

[MLE]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 2:41pm

Sean-
I know that a lot of films do a limited release first, but this was the strangest one I can remember. The fact that it took months for it to reach the Fox Valley/Green Bay area here in WI is insane. Sure, the population isn't quite that of Milwaukee but the market is very lucrative here. Like I said, I can't remember it taking such a high profile film like Dreamgirls so long to reach us and then disappear so quickly. It wasn't because of poor sales either, it was just plain bizarre.

[NiteOwl]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 2:52pm

shesamarshmallow wrote:

"I wouldn't say Dreamgirls was a success"

wickedfan went on to write:

"As of right now, Dreamgirls is not a financial nor is it a critical success. In a way, all of the hype surrounding it really worked against it. I loved it, as did many, but because Dreamworks was building it up to be the best thing since sliced bread, numerous critics and audience members left underwhelmed."

on what planet are you two living on? DREAMGIRLS happens to rank as the 4th highest grossing movie musical in the history of motion pictures. it was a tremendous crowd pleaser, the soundtrack to the film has gone multi-platinum and it was showered with numerous awards!

[bk]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:00pm

Scroll up and read my post. We live here on a little planet we like to call Earth. Where do you live? The CD has done very well, the film hasn't. I'm sorry you don't want to hear it, but you either do not know how the film industry works, or you just, well, don't want to hear it.

While there are indeed other revenue streams yet to come (TV, DVD) I don't think it will put this film into profit, it's got too far to go. We've already explained why it's listed as the fourth highest grossing film musical - it's because the people who listed it are stupid.

[NiteOwl]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:03pm

bk,

did you read your post being quoted?

my post wasn't directed at you.

and you are not the last word.

get over yourself.

[bk]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:06pm

But I gave similar information, so I just assumed it was directed at anyone who was disagreeing with you.

I've been trying to get over myself but I'm finding it very difficult. I'm not a contortionist and my legs are not going over my head very well - I'm trying, but, you know, at my age it's difficult. If I do get over myself I'll let you and the rest of the world know, and maybe I can go on Jay Leno and demonstrate.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:10pm

Niteowl- being the TECHNICAL 4th highest grossing film in movie musicals is nice, but it isn't a financial success. If you had read thoroughly what bk and I wrote, a film has to gross at least twice its production budget domestically in order to recoup. As far as I'm concerned, Dreamgirls hasn't grossed 150 million domesticaly. Even as of now, Phantom has a higher gross worldwide (a little over 150 million). I don't doubt that Dreamgirls will reach that worldwide, but the bottom line is that it hasn't recouped its production budget. It's not a financial success.

The album has become multi-platinum. Good for it. But that's just a fraction of what Dreamworks takes in.

And if we're considering inflation, Dreamgirls isn't even in the top five of highest grossing movie musicals. These movies (with inflation) have all grossed higher than Dreamgirls domestically: The Sound of Music with over 900 million, and after it (in an order I can't really remember) West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Grease, Funny Girl, Chicago and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

And say what you want, Niteowl, but numerous critics were not fans of the film (The NY Times, Newsweek, and many others included) and many audience members have not liked it-though almost all have loved Hudson. And the awards it was 'showered" with? It has gotten awards, yes, good for it. But once again, it was snubbed in two major categories at the Oscars and the only Best Picture award it has received was at the Golden Globes. Many of the awards it was "showered" with were for Hudson.

Again, I loved the film and wish that it were three times as big as it currently is. But the truth of the matetr is that Dreamgirls is not nearly as popular or as successful as Dreamworks hoped it would be or as many predicted it would be.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:12pm

" I'll give you an example: When Phantom came out, box office mojo was touting all these incredible figures during its initial release - when the film went wide, those figures had magically changed and the film wasn't much further along than it had been two months prior. They kept touting figures which I knew to be untrue (they get them from the studios - what else is new). I said so then and many people on another board were very angry I was questioning those grosses. Well, at the end of the year, when Variety published their year-end tallies, Phantom had ultimately grossed a whopping twenty-five million LESS than box office mojo had originally reported."

That is completely false. I followed the grosses from Phantom every single day and watched it build, to the number it closed at, which was 51 million. It was never revised down from a higher number. I certainly would have noticed that. The only times there are revisions is when estimates are released after a weekend, and then the actuals are posted a day later... you might see a movie drop or increase $500,000. But $25 million? Absurd.
Updated On: 2/27/07 at 03:12 PM

[bk]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:38pm

I'm sorry, but it's true. I watched it happen with mine own eyes. The box office totals were originally being touted at close to 80 mil domestically. Perhaps you followed the grosses in retrospect, but I'm here to tell you that box office mojo printed completely erroneous box office on the film from the day it was released until the day they quietly revised their figures.

I have no idea if Variety was printing correct figures or not - all I know is what I saw and jotted down from box office mojo and what the year end tally was from Variety. And I'm not mis-remembering, because I got into huge arguments about it on All That Chat, where people were basically telling me I was a Nazi for implying that these figures would ultimately be shown to be incorrect.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:43pm

I reccomend boxofficeguru.com over mojo. His figures are very reliable.
Just an FYI

[phantom8019]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:56pm

As I said earlier, I followed it from Day 1 on boxofficemojo. I was very excited to track the grosses and I checked them every day. I used boxofficemojo, and never once did the film ever approach $80 million. I would have remembered that, and I would have been very disappointed to have seen it drop down. I would have written boxofficemojo and complained. But that did not happen. I would swear to this in court, that is how clearly I remember watching that film build, from the time it opened a few days before Christmas, to the very end, when it closed at $51 million. I remember really wanting it to go over 50 million... and being happy that at least it did that, and beat Evita. So I would have definitely remembered it being a lot higher at certain times, and then being revised downward. Sorry, but I can't dispute the truth or what I witnessed myself.