darquegk said: "If Natasha Lyonne’s adaptation of Next to Normal is as good as her adaptation of Company, I’m all in. Even though she cut too much music from it."
Where and when did she do Company? I loved her in Russian doll and orange is the new black; but can she sing?
Jordan Catalano said: "SeanD2 said: "Jordan Catalano said: "I think the people saying Diana has to be around 38 or so are basing it off of a couple lines. One where she sings "I was a child, raising a child" and then when she says "and we were both so young" (I believe the line is) which implies she's probably 20ish at the time she had Gabe. But is there a line as to how long after the baby died, she had Natalie? And even so, they can easily switch a few words for the film - it sure as hell wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
"
"We were both undergrads. The baby wasn't planned. Neither was the marriage." - Diana. Also Natalie is stated to be 16 in the show (and at the time of what would have been Gabe's 18th birthday)."
Thaaaaank you for that. I knew there was more that I was forgetting. And that "undergrads" line can easily be changed or omitted, should they want to."
I think being thrust into motherhood at an inopportune time, dropping out of college, and getting into a marriage when not ready for it might all contribute to how Diana feels and her mental state. I think it may be too important to omit or change.
I’ll believe it when it comes to fruition. As underrated as N2N is and having the pleasure of seeing Alice Ripley in LA in 2010, I’m not sure if I’ll want a movie after how Dear Evan Hansen turned out.
"I wish they'd just cast Broadway known people and trust the material."
Exactly!! They always seem to need to cast people they think will sell tickets and for the most part they are horrible. Nobody was worse IMO than Russell Crowe in Les Misérables movie.
Zeppie2022 said: ""I wish they'd just cast Broadway known people and trust the material."
Exactly!! They always seem to need to cast people they think will sell tickets and for the most part they are horrible. Nobody was worse IMO than Russell Crowe in Les Misérables movie."
Well, they do need to cast people who will sell tickets. That's how movies are green lit.
Zeppie2022 said: ""I wish they'd just cast Broadway known people and trust the material."
Exactly!! They always seem to need to cast people they think will sell tickets and for the most part they are horrible. Nobody was worse IMO than Russell Crowe in Les Misérables movie."
Apparently, you have not seen/heard Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! nor Gerard Butler in The Phantom of the Opera. Although in Russell's case, he actually is an experienced rock singer. I've seen people make the argument that it was more of a factor of him not having the range to sing something like Les Miz. Nicole Ackman, who's my colleague at BroadwayWorld in our area of residence, once said on Twitter: "I don’t *love* Crowe’s Javert, but I don’t mind it. (I blame Hooper for my issues with the way the character is portrayed)".
If you actually look it up, Les Misérables was actually Russell's first time in a film that was a genuine box office hit since A Beautiful Mind 11 years earlier. I don't know if audiences for a while were kind of turned off by the troublemaking incidents he committed from him verbally abusing a producer after BAFTA in 2001 (which famously cost him a second consecutive Oscar) to throwing a telephone at a man in the Mercer Hotel in 2005. Although with Les Miz, that was an ensemble piece, so the marketing pressure wasn't all on him in particular.
DaveyG said: "Zeppie2022 said: "Well, they do need to cast people who will sell tickets. That's how movies are green lit."
Although if a film is mainly being released on a streaming service, audiences wouldn't have to buy tickets at all. Having a known commodity (such as an actor, filmmaker, or both) attached to any movie is always going to help in terms of getting it made to begin with. The same thing could even be said about a TV show and/or a Broadway production. Whether or not it turns out to be a commercial success is a different story. For a while within this past decade, people have questioned if the era of the "movie star" is over. That would be due to a majority of famous actors working today who just aren't consistent in delivering good box office numbers. In fact, those who have proven to be consistent are very few and far between.
The question of “why” becomes “why this way.” If you’re going to make a movie, but you decide to use stage folks instead of screen veterans, will they give as good a performance as the screen folks? And if so, would they give a better performance for film or as a filmed stage capture? And if you aren’t expecting to make a ton of money anyway, wouldn’t it be easier then to just produce a really good stage production and not distribute it?
The more steps you take away from Hollywood the more convoluted the logic of the process becomes.
"Apparently, you have not seen/heard Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! nor Gerard Butler in The Phantom of the Opera. Although in Russell's case, he actually is an experienced rock singer. I've seen people make the argument that it was more of a factor of him not having the range to sing something like Les Miz."
Actually, I did see Pierce Brosnan in "Mamma Mia", and he was awful, but Crowe was much worse IMO. "Les Miz" requires a lot more talented singer than a musical with songs from the pop group ABBA. In other words, Crowe's inability to handle the singing required comes off worse than Brosnan. No right or wrong, just difference of opinion.