Movie Musicals following Dreamgirls success? — Page 3

>> 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.

---

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.

---

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! :)

>>

Ah yes, unnamed sources.

Again, pardon my incredulity.

---

http://docandraider.com

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

>> 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.

---

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. :)

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

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

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---