>>
This board is just to chat about movies that would be cool on stage, not what WOULDN'T be good on stage. And by the way Tarzan was an incredible film. You have GOT to be kidding me, right? On all counts.
Here's a clue:
this is an open board. If you dont like a certain poster's remarks (like, oh, I dont know... mine, maybe), then here's what you do:
dont read them. Skip over them and head to the next post that will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, rather than having to deal with messages that apparently subvert the whole
raison d'etre for this board's existence.... in your opinion, anyway.
And I stand by my statement: most of the properties mentioned thus far simply would not work onstage, not with the same magic that we saw on screen. BEAUTY fails utterly in trying to be like the animated film, and TARZAN... well, the less said there the better. I'm all for the magic of a live performance, but let's make it something worth the magic, not a rehashed, half-%ssed version of a perfectly good movie. As much as technology has said otherwise, a stage has very physical limits -- and to take something as sprawling as POCOHANTAS or MULAN and even think you're going to rise to the film precedent is a fool's errand at best.
And this is precisely why LION KING works and BEAUTY doesnt. LION KING was a complete overhaul that ignored the film and went its own way, deeper into the core material and its sources. BEAUTY tries to be a reproduction of the film, and it works reasonably okay *until* the "objects" come on. Then it falls apart miserably because it's desperately trying to be something it just cant, and the inherent magic of the objects' personalities is utterly lost. It's just adults in big costumes, a grotesquery designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to make money. And it does that very, very well -- not because it's good theatre, but because it's got that recognition factor tourists love.
http://docandraider.com