Musicals that miss the point of the movie they are based on

I went and saw Amélie the other day and I thought it was...eh, but what really struck me was how dissimilar the show was from the original movie, and not in a good way. It felt to me that the authors never actually saw the film in question, but merely read a plot synopsis on Wikipedia and made a musical out of that, based on how little style the show actually had.

So, I was curious if there were other shows that did this; that is, ignore the charms of the movie entirely in favor of something more bland and inoffensive. Some examples I thought of:

Big Fish

Sunset Blvd.

Bullets Over Broadway

any others?

Oh this oughta be fun!

My first off off the head ones are Hunchback and Ever After. I saw both at Papermill. Here I go again about Hunchback..

Yes I know they wanted to go back to the novel with it, but that's the problem...I love the book of course, but the issue is that the movie ISNT the book. At east not in the purest sense. I ADORE the movie and what Disney did with it, but by going back to the book, they were trying to meld to two different pieces. Hence the identity crisis that most reviewers called it out for having. It seems many stage adaptations of films that were based on book (or on real life aka Anastasia) are like this lately (I discovered Tarzan had this issue as well) bit the problem is that when you try to do this, it's two different things colliding and I don't know what to make of them. Either do the book or stick to the movie. Frankly the French musical already exsist and it's fantastic so I was never of the thought that another book based. adaptation of that story was needed. I wanted to see the movie on stage, and those brilliant themes brought out, which it didn't do. I'm seeing Anastasia in May, and Im hoping this issue isn't too problematic as we all know they went a more historically accurate direction.

Ever After...ok this is interesting because though I wasn't impressed by any preview videos I saw, I went in with low expectations...but didn't dislike it as much I thought it would. Unlike Hunchback where I my expectations were stupidly sky high and therefore was let down. I'm telling y'all, how much you'll like a show depends on your expectations more than I ever thought it could. These shows taught me this.

Anyways, much like someone said about Amelie above, it's like someone just watched the movie and thought it would make a good musical without really thinking what the whole point of it was. The musical was made to be a feminist version of Cinderella, and that's all. there are elements of this in the film, but again it's not the point. The whole point of Ever After was treating the Cinderella as if it were real history. And funny that's actually why it doesn't exactly work as a musical. I recall thinking YEARS ago (I'm talking my high school days here) before this was even announced, that it should be on stage...but a play, not a musical. I always wondered why, then it hit me. Musicals live in their own world, like it's another dimension. Once you treat something like Its real life/history, the "musical" aspect doesn't work. It's why Allegiance didn't work. It's too real life to work as a musical, though I applaud the attempt, and I think Takei should have done it as a play.



Just merely for being a twist on a fairy tale, Ever After mmaaayyybbee can work as a musical, but it's gonna take a lot of creative thought to make it really work, not just sticking songs into a movie and throwing it on stage.

Updated On: 3/20/17 at 10:43 AM

Oh, and it will never make it to Broadway, but Diner was a big one.

I don't remember that well but I felt that Big Fish *tried* to capture the magic of the movie but didn't quite get it right!

I'm curious to know why they think Big Fish doesn't get the point of the film. Big Fish is actually my favorite musical.
On another note, does a musical missing the point of a movie necessarily make it bad, or can it still be at least okay on it's own legs?

Some musicals, while not thematically missing the point of the source material, miss the point of it's source material's success. Legally Blonde, the film, featured a star making performance from Reese Witherspoon and, while the screenplay is solid, the movie was successful due in most part to her. Removing the star from the property diminishes the material and interest significantly. I'd argue to same is true of The Wedding Singer (Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore), Elf (Will Ferrell), 9 to 5 (Fonda, Parton & Tomlin) among others. All of these films feature star performances (or at least stars with box office clout) and the adaptations suffer with the star's absence.

APPLAUSE, to its detriment
XANADU, to its great credit (in fact, the Broadway show appears to be smartly more attuned to the original tonal conception for the movie, which changed as the film bloated into something quite different during production)

more neutrally, it might be argued that NIGHT MUSIC and NINE to at least some degree miss the points (i.e. greatly differ in appeal) of SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT and 8 1/2, but that doesn't change the facts that both are still, at the very least, strong solid musicals based on movie masterpieces.

Updated On: 3/20/17 at 06:28 PM

How odd that so many posters mention SUNSET BOULEVARD when the musical adaptation is very nearly a line by line setting of Billy Wilder's screenplay. Hell, they even use the car chase from the actual movie!

henrikegerman rightly points out that two of the most successful adaptations, NIGHT MUSIC and NINE, drop the tone of the original films altogether. We might add SHENANDOAH and THE KING AND I (the latter officially based on the heroine's memoirs but actually inspired by ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM, a popular film).

Johnny Guitar.

The 1954 film is campy because it takes itself so seriously. It wanted to be a feminist Western about McCarthyism. It’s better remembered for Joan Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge munching the scenery while barely suppressing the lesbian subtext.

The 2004 musical tries to be campy in the style of Forbidden Broadway. It also shifts too much focus to Johnny. In the film the story is about the women. Johnny is beside the point.

Deena Jones said: "Haven't most, with maybe the exception of Hairspay and Sunset Boulevard?

If you add Little Shop of Horrors, I'm on board with you,

"

OMG ignore me about Little Shop...I totally didn't know about the existence of THE original 1960 film...WOOOOWWWWW I just brought shame and dishonor to the theatre community...

Right, Billy Wilder himself said the show was a 85% just like his movie. I think the other 15% is even better than the movie, because the musical and the dramatic symphonies and the color of the music make it a 15% better.

I didn't enjoy Big Fish or Bullets Over Broadway.

I think they did a great job with The Wedding Singer though. Great score and very easy show to get into.

Sunset Boulevard failed because

a. The score is abysmal. Even by Lloyd Webber standards it's about as interesting as uncooked oatmeal and slick as an oil spill on an ice pond.

b They tried to humanize Norma Desmond, who is such a perfect cinematic monster, belonging in the same category as the Universal Frankenstein or Dracula.

c. The movie uses cinema, and specifically black and white 35mm photography to such effect that removing it from that context takes away a lot of its terrifying beauty. Same reason why the story-with-the-story of City of Angels sucks.

d. Billy Wilder's ethos is about as cynical and hardened as you can get. Any attempt at emotionality in Wilder films usually doesn't come off, and the musical trying to was like getting a stone to bleed.

So.....basically, they missed the point.