Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y) — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 9:26am

I think the 75 million price tage would be understandable had the film actually looked 'good' from an aesthetic view point. The fact that it looked so cheap and dingy and still cost more than Dreamgirls is what makes me feel dissapointed. It seemed that too much of the money went to back-end sources (Travolta) and that the film was unwisely budgeted.

I mean personally, they could've eliminated all the silly cgi singing in the pictures crap, gotten rid of Travolta, shot on HD instead of film, and not only would they have had a better film, but a much cheaper one as well.

#27

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 11:20am

I'd heard that they ballooned the budget from $50 to $75m only AFTER Travolta came aboard...

And you really think Sunset would be shot in Hollywood? I really doubt it... More like Pinewood Studios or Toronto.

#28

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 12:35pm

jpbran,

I can tell you from personal experience that if we had anywhere NEAR $15 million for Reefer Madness, it would have been a very different movie...

#29

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 6:09pm

By "African-American" film, I meant films with an (almost) all African-American cast. I believe The Color Purple is second in terms of box office gross.

#30

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 9:07pm

The thing is, you have to have some star (look at RENT) or you don't have a chance. And stars cost money. I discussed this issue on a blog entry last month, and after analysis, I determined that if budgets were under $50 million, statistically you'd have a better chance of making money because there seems to be about a $50 million interest in seeing movie musicals in the theater.
Broadway Blog: Miss Saigon, Sixteen Years Later (and 50 Amazing Broadway Performers)

#31

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 10:01pm

Fortunately, none of the recent movie musicals have been as misconceived, or done as poorly financially, as "Star!", "Hello, Dolly", "Dr. Doolittle", "Camelot", "Paint Your Wagon", or the myriad other bombs mentioned that killed off movie musicals in the 1960s. ("Mamma Mia" and "Sunset Boulevard" might head us back in that direction, though--so might "Sweeney", if they screw it up, as I fear they might.) If that happens, it happens. Movie trends move in cycles, and the movie musical very well might go to sleep another decade or two and be revived again, as the Western was recently.

As for Travolta, I loved his "Hairspray" work and agree he was worth his fee--I only wish they hadn't gone nuts with those facial prosthetics that made him so hard to understand.

I ask in all honesty/What would life be?/Without a song and a dance, what are we?/So I say "Thank you for the music/For giving it to me."

#32

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 10:08pm

me2: Thank you!

When you consider how many people say "I just don't like musicals", that $50m is a pretty safe, accurate figure to me. There are obviously some less "outwardly musical" exceptions that were successes, including Chicago which kinda "snuck" in the musical-ness with the excuse that it was all in Roxie's head, and Dreamgirls, which went about 1/4 of the movie without a genuine traditional "musical" scene.

I have a friend who will see just about ANY kinda movie other than a musical... Folks like him are in larger numbers that you'd think...

I also agree that "some" star power is needed, especially when it's appropriate for the project.

PS: Have ANY sung-through musical adaptations been a breakthrough hit? Hmmm...

#33

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/8/07 at 10:17pm

I think that's exactly why people are so excited about Hiarspray doing well- it's a sung-through musical. The two other big movie-musical hits (CHICAGO and DREAMGIRLS) had an excuse for sing (dreamgirls- they were a singing group- there were only a few break-out into song moments) and in Chicago, all the songs were in their heads (like daydreams).

"I mean, sitting side by side with another man watching Patti LuPone play Rose in GYPSY on Broadway is essentially the equivalent of having hardcore sex." -Wanna Be A Foster. "Say 'Goody.' Say 'Bubbi.'" ... "That's it. Exactly as if it were 'Goody.' Now I know you're gonna sing 'Goody' this time, but nevertheless..."

#34

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/9/07 at 4:10pm

Hairspray isn't sung-through... It's dialogue-song-dialogue-song, etc. Am I mis-using the term? I thought "sung-through" was like Evita or Saigon or Phantom, with very little dialogue (if any) and the songs bleeding from one to another... But yes, it did have the "just burst into song" framing with no "excuses" other than the TV show performances, more like the old musicals and some new ones like Producers.

And the Producers was a pretty major bomb, pretty close to the late 1960s tankings. Cost: $45m, gross $19m. The CD didn't sell well, and the DVD is in the bargain bin at Blockbuster, both new and used.

#35

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/9/07 at 4:14pm

Yeah, Hairspray isn't sung through. Neither is Dreamgirls. On stage it almost is, but not on film.

"How do you like THAT 'misanthropic panache,' Mr. Goldstone?" - PalJoey

#36

re: Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

Posted: 8/9/07 at 4:33pm

Hairspray looked Dingy? I thought it was gorgeous- especially the costumes!

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95