Movie Musicals following Dreamgirls success?- Page 3

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 3:59pm

>> 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.

Right, all these insiders. This board runs amok with them, folks who know this and this -- and, in the end, zip about the actual film.

This will be the third film made from the Sondheim canon. FORUM was a disaster where, yes, half the score was cut so they could make the chase scene bigger to the point of absurdity -- and it was one ugly film to boot. NIGHT MUSIC was ploddingly slow. You have to know that Sondheim is sitting there controlling this thing like crazy because he wants this one done *right* -- and if anyone were to even suggest cutting half his work in what is clearly an opera, he'd pull the switch on the production in a second. And it doesnt take much to read between the lines of *every* interview, whether with him or Burton or Depp or anyone else, that this is what's going on behind the scenes.

So once again, if someone has something more substantive than "Well, I read somewhere where..." and "I know a person who knows a guy who...", let's lay off the ridiculous rumours and post a few facts in their stead, and be prepared to back them up with a link somewhere on the web or a substantive quote from a *printed* piece.

Phantom: you're not understanding what bk is saying. Re-read his post. For the record, I'm not sure he's right, but it wouldnt take much of a search on this board to find out.

Insofar as DG being the 4th most successful musical film in terms of income, pardon my incredulity. In raw numbers, pehaps, but were those numbers adjusted for inflation and population, SOUND OF MUSIC, which has been around for 40 years' worth of income, would leave it in the dust, as would WEST SIDE STORY and, no doubt, 42ND STREET. DG is already dropping off the radar, which suggests that the distributor isnt wasting any more promotional money on it because it cant get the income back to pay for it. No doubt the film will be out on DVD before summer, if indeed it takes that long.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 4:36pm

"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."

He is saying they changed the numbers. I am saying I monitored them every day, and the numbers were consistent until the close, which was 51 million, as it is now. I never saw a revision at any point. How am I not understanding?

They may have been touting incredible "per screen" figures during the first few days of limited release. Who knows? Also, the film did not go wide 2 months after it opened. It went wide 1 month after it opened. I tend not to believe people on the big things if they make errors on the little things.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 5:22pm

And I'm saying it should be easy enough to do a search to see if indeed they did change the numbers. I'm betting they did, because that's a standard practice to make a film seem like a bigger attraction than it really is. And numbers can be fudged.

If you read the articles on imdb, it certainly seems that Warner played fast and loose with this sinking ship, declaring several times that "this isnt a flop" and its box office was the second highest (after "Meet the Fockers") for two whole weekends in a row! Then it settled down around 9 or 10 and then dropped like a stone.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 5:31pm

Right, all these insiders. This board runs amok with them, folks who know this and this -- and, in the end, zip about the actual film.

Well, the ones I was thinking of I know for a fact work in the movie industry. And all the "insider" stuff I heard about the Dreamgirls screenplay turned out to be true

You have to know that Sondheim is sitting there controlling this thing like crazy because he wants this one done *right*

Who has to know this? Do you know this for a fact? Or is this just something you've read between the lines?

Ultimately, I don't give a sh*t about the Sweeney film or what stays and what goes. I was just reporting what I heard from sources that have proved reputable in the past. Whether or not it's true remains to be seen. It's no skin off my nose.

[I AM BATMAN]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 5:56pm

I think it will come down to marketing and the audiences. Hairspray will probably be marketed as a major movie musical and will pull in those crowds who want to see that. Though I bet Sweeny Todd will be advertised as a dark gothic cinematic event...not because it is or will be, but because people will be wanting that froma Burton/Depp collabo. ANd I doubt they'll even hint that it's a musical in the trailers. Because they'll want to pull in the young crowds who are more willing to spend on Deppage performances and Burtonesque visuals rather than spending for the brilliance and complex story and sondhiem score....ya know?

Anyway, 'tis my thoughts on the subject. Visit www.timburtoncollective.com There's already a teaser poster! :)

[bk]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 6:03pm

Well, apparently we both saw different things on the same site. In the first two weeks of its release, its box-office was reported at app. 29 mil. It wasn't true. Then after it went wide, it was magically not at 29 mil - it was approaching 29 mil.

I'm sorry, but they reported figures of 80 mil initially. I wrote it down. So, we'll both swear in court. :)

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 6:48pm

>>

Ah yes, unnamed sources.

Again, pardon my incredulity.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 7:21pm

You have to know that Sondheim is sitting there controlling this thing like crazy because he wants this one done *right*

Who has to know this? Do you know this for a fact? Or is this just something you've read between the lines?

[phantom8019]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 7:37pm

You really cannot make the correlation that just because the movie wasn't performing well, Warner Bros. decided to flub some numbers. I think something like that would be considered a big, bad deal--do you remember the mess a few years ago when one of the major studios (I forget which) admitted to having quotes from a fake critic on their ads? It was a big deal. I know stuff does happen, but it's really not fair to accuse Warner Brothers of flubbing numbers just because it would have suited them. And why would they pick a site like boxofficemojo? The average Joe Shmoe really does not even know about that site. And of course they are going to defend their movie and say it's not a flop. Most businesses will never admit their product sucks, unless it accidentally kills someone or something. It is bad business not so stand behind your product and defend it... it's bad for investors, it is bad for the future of your business.
Anyway, in this day and age, for a musical movie to break $100 million is a big deal. To compare these numbers (inflation adjusted) to the golden age of movie musicals is unfair. $100 million shows there is an audience. Whether the profits could have been higher and the ads scaled back is for Paramount and Dreamworks to think about. But I know that if Rent, with its $40 million budget, had grossed $100 million it would have been a huge deal. What will be remembered when the DVDs are sold and all is said and done is that Dreamgirls grossed 100 million, in a year when only 18 other movies of HUNDREDS released also did. You also must remember a lot of movies are underperforming, and the movie industry in general is having problems.

Updated On: 2/27/07 at 07:37 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 7:48pm

Breaking News.....Dreamgirls has just surpassed Titanic as the #1 movie of all time!
-Warner Bros. Public Relations Office

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 8:59pm

>> Who has to know this? Do you know this for a fact?

No, I have "unnamed sources".... :)

Get over yourself, hon. It doesnt take much to see any of this when you actually read the interviews... assuming you *can* read and not always depend on your "unnamed sources in the industry".

It's a matter of public record that Sondheim was furious with the way FORUM came out, and he was less than pleased with NIGHT MUSIC -- only his friendship with Prince prevented him from being any more vocal about it than he was, but it certainly contributed to the unraveling of their professional relationship. TODD is his biggest work, bar none. He will want this one done *right*. That's not rocket science.

Still think I'm wrong? Look at some of his interviews when there were discussions afoot about a film version of INTO THE WOODS, to be produced by Henson Studios. It doesnt take much to see how uncomfortable he is with this. And you think -- seriously -- that he's willing to stand aside and let half his score be ripped out on Tim Burton's say-so?

Dont think so, sorry.

[bk]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 9:16pm

I'm not saying Warners fudged numbers - I'm saying Warners or SOMEONE posted incorrect box office figures for POTO and that they were subsequently adjusted a few months down the line.

Yes, if Rent had done 100 mil it still wouldn't be in profit, but it would have been some sort of deal. The fact that Dreamgirls purportedly did 100 mil is nice - it just doesn't mean it's a success financially - and I think at the end of this year, you will find that the film did not, in fact, do 100 mil domestically. That is my opinion, based on my years of watching box office (long before stupid sites like box office mojo) and long before it was a game for young people to become consumed with - I mean, at the end of the day, Phantom, who cares about box office but the studios. And now, it's trickled down to theater - all the young'uns can't wait until box office figures are posted every week - I mean, I grew up loving theater and musicals and it never ever occurred to me to care about box office numbers - thank you, Internet.

[phantom8019]

Posted: 2/27/07 at 9:37pm

I think that yes, some people check the box office results because they root for movies or actors like they are sports teams.

I check the box office because I care about the movies that are made, and box office results are usually a very good indicator of what will or will not be made in the future. It is a shame that studios will overflow a certain genre that is profitable at the moment and not offer anything else. Fewer and fewer studios are taking risks.

If you want, we can re-examine Dreamgirls at the end of the year, and I think the $100 million will still be accurate. :)

Posted: 2/28/07 at 2:42am

Bk if Dreamgirls isn't even a minor success financially than what was the last msical besides Chicago that was? Certainly not Moulin Rouge (which also didn't get good reviews until the DVD release by and large when people began changing their mind)

Dreamgirls was an expensive movie but it wasn't *incredibly* expensive by modern major movie standardsI just wonder what movies from the past year would be successes then in your books?

Sean--from what I had heard re Sweeney Sondheim was vocal about he script and casting but is not as involved in the project as say he might have been if it had been made when hew as 15 years younger. I am kinda weary of Tim Burton (I like many of his films--even love don't get me wrong) with the material but... (then again I've also heard that SOndheim has said there's a lot he admires in the Nigth Music film--which isn't great by anymeans but personally I find underated)

Still I also had heard from some people that God That's Good had already begun recording so I doubt it's cut.

And while it's a silly point to argue either way--I do read sites like Box office mojo way too often and don't remembr any number fudging with Pahntom--it seemed to have disappointing numbers from the start (but admittedly, while I don't knwo the budget, never had the advertising budget of Dreamgirls--I knwo many people who liked the stage Phantom and were barely aware it had been made into a movie

Posted: 2/28/07 at 2:50am

But to move past that I am glad Dreamgirls is a minor success in terms of awards, reviews and arguably money :P I really think if this had flopped after Rent and Producers all doors to new musicals on the big screen woulda shut for a while longer anyway

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 5:51am

IMHO, what it's going to take for movie musicals to work again is a re-thinking of the form on screen. I'm still amazed that a bullet-proof property like PRODUCERS would fail so miserably, and I yet I sit watching aghast that so many professionals who should know better made so many wrong-headed choices that a beginning film student would have avoided. I'm amazed that a touring sensation like PHANTOM would turn into such a morass of pretty props and pretty singing and bone-headed results. And the ones that succeed -- CHICAGO, WEST SIDE STORY, SEVEN BRIDES, arguably MOULIN -- *used* film techniques to push the property to play off the positives (Yes, I know, SEVEN BRIDES is an original on film; nevertheless, the argument holds.). It's almost like directors and producers *stroll* through the material instead of really *thinking* about what they can do with it. And as long as that continues to happen, we'll see "minor" successes like DREAMGIRLS, which had every possibility of being a major one.

Posted: 2/28/07 at 8:50am

On that point I agree with you completely. I know I'm in the minority but this was one of my problems with Chicago--sure COndon's script worked out how to make the concept more cinematic, for the most part, but I found much of Marshall's imagery pretty to look at but pretty empty as well (which was even more of a problem with his Geisha--but I admit I tend to be a bit harsh on Rob Marshall in general so take what I say with a grain of salt). Chicago is a good film but I don't find it a great one (I guess we disagree on that point)

Condon disappointed me with Dreamgirls because there were moments I thought he showed a spark but I expected more I guess cinematically from the director who did Gods and Monsters and Kinsey (which may not be flashy directing jobs but are really masterfully done IMHO)

With Producers and Phantom a bit part of the problem was who they got to direct--Stroman never struck me as a particularly cinematic director--and for whatever reason (either she wasn't brave enough or wasn't allowed to be) she obviously didn't show ANY of the small cinematic qualities she has on screen. Of course when directors make the transition from stage to screen it's a gamble anyway--Hal Prince's two films would never make one think that he as known as a very, quote unquote cinematic stage director, if not *the* most of his era--whereas another director complemented for his cinematic stage qualities, Fosse, audaciously made the transition flawlessly (even if Sweet Charity has a lot of experiments that don't quite work)

Phantom I think was expected ot be a visually extravgant mess that still ended upoa bore as soon as Shumacker got the property (and to think he was meant ot make Dreamgirls for a brief period)--at the least I was hoping he would go all out with his typical camp but is oddly somewhat restrained with Phantom fo all things (and I won't even get started about how Ron Howard got the job of directing Rent--)

Of course lots of the blame is the studio's fault--for every Cabaret, I think the studios, even with the failure of many musicals in the past 20-30 years, don't encourage their filmakers to deviate much from what worked on stage.

I think Tim Burton is wrong for Sweeney Todd--but I have to admit at the least I'm interested to see what he does with it.

E

[phantom8019]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 9:22am

I agree The Producers should have been a much better movie.
However, I think it also demonstrates the great disconnect between what is big in NY and what is big in the rest of the country. Back in 2000, when that musical was huge, most people in the rest of the country probably didn't know about it. That's where marketing comes in. I am sure a lot of the people who saw Chicago and Dreamgirls also had never heard of them before. A lot of people (my mother included) didn't even know Dreamgirls was a Broadway show.
In all fairness, I really don't think Universal made any sort of real attempt to market The Producers or gave it a real chance. But yes, it was not a great movie anyway.
There are just so many steps in moviemaking... screenwriting, casting, directing, marketing... and so many chances to screw up along the way. I really think the more people involved, the more chefs producing it, the more it is likely to get screwed up. Nowadays movies are being rewritten and endings are being altered for test audiences... it's not even about vision anymore.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 9:40am

You can tell a lot about a studio's confidence in a film by the way it's marketed. The original The Producers film would never have seen the light of day AFTER it was shot had it not been for an interesting twist of events. Same goes for a lot of films.

A VERY interesting (and obviously biased and a bit conspiracy theory) documentary about film marketing appears on Disc 2 of one of my favorite movies of all time, "The Stunt Man" with Steve Railsback, Barbara Hershey and Peter O'Toole. The documentary was created by the film's director, Richard Rush. And wether he was paranoid about his film's treatment or not, it's still a great watch.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 9:45am

That's true (re: the original Producers). Apparently, The film was a tremendous flop....and then one night, Peter Sellers and his friends mistakenly saw it at a private screening. Sellers ended up loving it so much that....well, the rest is history.

[Craig]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 9:49am

Well someone can chime in if I'm wrong - but I don't even think you can call the original The Producers a flop (I guess you can) because I believe the original release of the film was incredibly small - as if the studio "released" it out of obligation but on as few screens as possible with little to no marketing behind it as well.

It was only after Sellers raved about the film that marketing kicked up its heels and...as you say, the rest is history.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 9:51am

>> Who has to know this? Do you know this for a fact?

No, I have "unnamed sources".... :)

I never used the words "unnamed sources," you smug, condescending prig. I said I read it on this board from people who are in the movie industry. It's you who has been using those words over and over.

What I was said was "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." I went on to mention I'd heard some of the cuts in the Dreamgirls screenplay (and Rent, too, for that matter) that turned out to be accurate as well.

It's you, Sean Martin, who have jumped on some sort of high horse, blathering on about "inside sources" and your unshakeable knowledge of Sondheim's thought process. That's all fine and well, but when absorbing pre-information, I'm going go with those I believe have actually seen a screenplay as opposed to someone who is "reading between the lines" in Premiere.

Get over yourself, hon. It doesnt take much to see any of this when you actually read the interviews... assuming you *can* read and not always depend on your "unnamed sources in the industry".

You're right. I'm just some dumb hick incapable of reading a movie magazine, so if you want to take my comments and twist them into me getting all my information (of which I admittedly have little) from "unnamed sources" by all means do so. But, seriously, if you want to refute my rather innocuous comments, you might want not want to swing back so self-righteously if all you're going on is what you've read between the lines, Kreskin.

If you really think this movie is going to come to the screen with no cuts or song omissions, I'd say it is you who are missing something.

Updated On: 2/28/07 at 09:51 AM

[fabala4077]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 10:03am

Here's my take on things:

I liked Dreamgirls. It was good. It wasn't fantastic, in my opinion, but it was good.

My favorite modern movie musical is still Chicago, and not because I like the musical itself. I like Rent, The Producers, and Phantom of the Opera much better than Chicago, but I found myself enjoying the movie while Phantom and Rent were just all right.

Why? Chicago worked as a movie. Dreamgirls worked as well, though not quite as well as Chicago. I don't know what the directors did to the original show (having never seen it), but whatever they did, it worked for me. Phantom and Rent, not so much. Part of the charm of those musicals is how they work onstage. The chandelier scene isn't quite as thrilling when it's on the screen and not above your head, and Rent lost it's intimacy on screen (in my opinion)

I seriously think it is the job of the filmmakers to adapt a musical to the screen. It doesn't have much to do with the musical itself. It is in the presentation for a screen audience.

I have a difficult time imagining either Hairspray or Sweeny Todd onscreen (having seen both onstage), but I look foreward to seeing how they are presented for the movies. I think, until we see the movies and measure the modern audience's enthusiasm, it is impossible to judge how they will do.

Although, Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors. I'm glad he's making Todd. Can't think of anyone better.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 11:48am

>> I never used the words "unnamed sources," you smug, condescending prig.

Sorry, you twit, but whatever you wrote after that is immediately dismissed.

Get over your self-important self, okay? I'm getting really sick and tired of all the people around here who are supposedly "in the industry" and have all this terribly inside information that, of course, they can only share in the blandest of terms for fear that they may look like the fools they truly are for trying to sham everyone.

And yes, dearie, that goes for you as well. "Oh, I have friends who read the screenplay and they told me that" blah blah blah. Sorry, but I've heard that lame-o line so many times it's beyond passe right now. If you've read the screenplay in question, good for you. Share your first hand knowledge of it instead of flaunting more rumours.

And as I said, for the rest of your post, didnt read it because I really dont care what your "I'm More Inside the Industry Than You!" has to say for herself. Bring something with substantive thought to the table if you cant verify your statements from third, unnamed sources.... and unless you missed the point, unless you cite names, they're unnamed sources. Wow, what a shocker, eh?

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/28/07 at 12:02pm

What exactly am I flaunting? I said someone said he read the screenplay and that he said some songs were cut. You're the one trying to turn it into some big conspiracy against the little people who read Entertainment Weekly.

What's with the chip on your shoulder? You're the one who accused me of not having reading comprehension skills. That wasn't smug or condescending?

And it's fine to pretend you didn't read the rest of my post so that you can ignore the fact that I'm curious to know why you're magical powers of reading between the lines are any more valid than my believing someone on this board who said he actually read the Sweeney script.

Bring something with substantive thought to the table if you cant verify your statements from third, unnamed sources....

Again, all you've brought to the table is what you're "read between the lines" and how that seems to magically put you in touch with what Sondheim thinks and feels. If you really think that holds any more validity than me saying someone sad they read a script and the songs were cut, more power to you.